Notices
Results 1 to 66 of 66

Thread: Things from the bible..

  1. #1 Things from the bible.. 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Is the bible really a thing of peace?
    The Gospel According To Luke

    -- 12:51-2 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."
    (This means we should divide ourselves)

    -- 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
    (We should hate everyone including ourselves)
    -- 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
    (We should slay our enemies before them)


    The Gospel According To Matthew

    -- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
    (we should bring war)

    -- 10:35-6 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
    (Clarify?)

    -- 15:4 Jesus reiterates the commandment to kill children for cursing their parents: "For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say,... [snip] ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Jesus, reinforcing God's commandment from Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, and particularly Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which detail the requirement that parents bring stubborn boys to the city gates to be executed by stoning. Here, Jesus criticizes the humanitarian efforts of the Pharisees, who struggled for centuries to find ways to soften the impact of this brutal commandment, and to make it virtually unenforceable.)


    The Gospel According To John

    -- 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (This passage, a quote from Jesus, was used for centuries to justify burning our predecessors at the stake for refusing to believe.)
    (We should kill people with different opinion? by fire no less?)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    That looks like a very short Bible. Is that all it says?


    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Is the bible really a thing of peace?
    You should know by now that this sort of question always leads to one of those, "you should read that passage like this..." discussions where the christian gives some completely innocent interpretation of the apparent conundrum you have found. They have been doing this for two thousand years so it seems inconceiveable that there is a passage in the Bible that you or I might use to take them to task.

    For example, the Luke passage you quote, Luke 12:51-52 is interpreted to mean, "We should be zealous in making known the truth, for though divisions will be stirred up, and a man's own household may be his foes, yet sinners will be converted, and God will be glorified."

    This doesn't mean you should murder your family, it means you should be prepared to separate yourself from them if they do not believe. Kind of answers your question about what to do over Christmas with regard to your mum's insistence you go to mass with her, doesn't it?
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The Bible can be and has been interpreted in different ways, and it changes over time. Nineteenth century slaveholders could easily find passages in the Bible to justify slavery. One need look no further than the 10 commandments, one of which cautions against coveting thy neighbor's slave. Abraham Lincoln had a different view of slavery, so he found an anti-slavery message in the Genesis passage "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."

    Plenty of other examples can be found where the interpretation of the Bible changes over time.

    Do atheists have some better guidance? Maybe you should write a book of your own, then we could pick that apart and find the inconsistencies. I'm betting the atheist bible would look pretty quaint after a century or two, also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm betting the atheist bible would look pretty quaint after a century or two...
    Atheists don't have any need of a bible. One of the differences between theists and atheists is that atheists see no need of assurance from a book that they are doing the right thing, or even an acceptable thing, they just get on with it and dispense with the comforting reassurance of an ancient book.

    Other than that, atheists are probably not similar to each other in any meaningful way so would probably not be able to find a book they all agreed with, anyway. This is what I believe is called free thinking.

    Try it sometime.


    Merry Christmas
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Atheist bible... wouldn't it be blank?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Atheist bible... wouldn't it be blank?
    A blank bible would be useless. It wouldn't exist at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Atheist bible... wouldn't it be blank?
    I'm suggesting you write a book codifying your moral standards. That wouldn't be blank, would it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    Other than that, atheists are probably not similar to each other in any meaningful way so would probably not be able to find a book they all agreed with, anyway. This is what I believe is called free thinking.

    Try it sometime.


    Merry Christmas
    Does free thinking mean that tomorrow one may decide that murder and theft are acceptable? Just asking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    The bible is full of horrible things:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    Trying to justify these horrific passages would only reflect your own moral character. Trying to justify bad things in the bible just shows that you don't mind evil as long as it's done in the name of God/religion.

    Trying to interpret passages -- which are very clear in their meaning -- to something else only reflects how deluded you are. At the same time it shows that you don't need the bible since you obviously don't agree with certain horrific passages and would rather pick and choose your own interpretations.

    Either believe in the whole bible or live as a hypocrite...

    ... Or simply throw away the bible and believe whatever you want. (This would seem to be the better choice in my mind)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm suggesting you write a book codifying your moral standards. That wouldn't be blank, would it?
    I am surprised you think the atheist bible should contain our moral standards. After all, you don't actually get your moral standards from a book, do you?

    You're not really trying to tell me that the only reason you have never murdered anyone is because it says in your book not to do so, are you?

    No, you are able to tell for yourself what is right and what is wrong. Maybe you are just surprised to learn that atheists have the same skill at these things you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Does free thinking mean that tomorrow one may decide that murder and theft are acceptable? Just asking.
    Technically, it does, yes. But that doesn't mean that anyone actually does that. Being free to choose both wrong and right courses of action does not compel anyone to ever choose the wrong course.

    For example, let's suppose that you do not smoke. That is a choice you have made and you are free at anytime to make the other choice. But you don't do so. Atheists have this skill too, just like you.
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    The bible is full of horrible things:
    First, I wonder by what means you have determined these things are horrible. Lacking any sacred text of your own, or any objective basis, you are sort of just winging it aren't you? Those were mainstream beliefs at the time they were written.

    I don't need anyone else to help me find the sort of thing you are referring to. One example might be the Book of Joshua. This is basically a story about a jihad where the Israelites slaughtered the inhabitants of Jericho for not accepting the God of the Israelites. Of course, today, Christians and Jews don't believe in that sort of thing any more, but a lot of Muslims do.

    Now, if Muslims decide that their sacred texts no longer require them to slay infidels, I think that would be a good thing, don't you? I certainly wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy if they did.

    ... Or simply throw away the bible and believe whatever you want. (This would seem to be the better choice in my mind)
    Or, simply believe what you want, and don't worry about what Christians believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    First, I wonder by what means you have determined these things are horrible. Lacking any sacred text of your own, or any objective basis, you are sort of just winging it aren't you? Those were mainstream beliefs at the time they were written.
    I'm sorry. I didn't think you believed in stoning disobedient children, nonbelievers, etc. It seems I was mistaken.

    Obvious jokes aside (or so I hope), I don't need a text to tell me that killing is wrong. I can determine that on my own. Good morals don't come out of fear of God, or out of obedience. It comes out of good will. I would think that you, of all people Harold, would know this.

    If people need something to tell them what to do, let it be anything but the bible!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I don't need anyone else to help me find the sort of thing you are referring to. One example might be the Book of Joshua. This is basically a story about a jihad where the Israelites slaughtered the inhabitants of Jericho for not accepting the God of the Israelites. Of course, today, Christians and Jews don't believe in that sort of thing any more, but a lot of Muslims do.

    Now, if Muslims decide that their sacred texts no longer require them to slay infidels, I think that would be a good thing, don't you? I certainly wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy if they did.
    I won't refrain from calling them hypocrites just to avoid hurting their feelings. Besides, I was talking about passages which tell you exacly what you should do. Like cut of a limb if it offends thee and the like. I'm talking about the bad stuff in the bible, not the good stuff. I don't mind good things like "love thy neighbor", "do onto others as you wish to be done to thee", etc. Why should I? Things like killing homosexuals, etc, are parts which I consider bad.

    The bible was written at a time where oppression and murder was common. Indeed that is quite evident. To think that past morals should be encouraged to this day is, well... Sick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    ... Or simply throw away the bible and believe whatever you want. (This would seem to be the better choice in my mind)
    Or, simply believe what you want, and don't worry about what Christians believe.
    Is there any need to repeat what I said? And why shouldn't I worry about other people's belief? If their beliefs encourage them to murder people of other beliefs, should I just stand by and watch it unfold?

    That is quite frankly sick.

    ---

    Anyhow, in my last post I merely made some points.

    * Picking and choosing what parts of the bible to believe in makes you a hypocrite.

    * Justifying the bad parts of the bible makes you a bad and intolerant person.

    That's it. Try re-reading my last post without your bias for atheists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The Bible can be and has been interpreted in different ways, and it changes over time. Nineteenth century slaveholders could easily find passages in the Bible to justify slavery. One need look no further than the 10 commandments, one of which cautions against coveting thy neighbor's slave. Abraham Lincoln had a different view of slavery, so he found an anti-slavery message in the Genesis passage "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."

    Plenty of other examples can be found where the interpretation of the Bible changes over time.
    Yes Harold, that's called, 'hypocrisy.'

    Do atheists have some better guidance? Maybe you should write a book of your own, then we could pick that apart and find the inconsistencies. I'm betting the atheist bible would look pretty quaint after a century or two, also.
    You fail to recognize the nature of the bible, that of the 'absolutism' of it's doctrines. It is the absolutism atheists understand which cannot be followed for obvious reasons, and which theists don't understand, hence they "interpret" it to suit their agendas.

    Atheists understand you can't have an absolute "bible" of moral codes. Everything is relative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Atheists understand you can't have an absolute "bible" of moral codes. Everything is relative.
    If everything is relative then there is no moral code that is intrinsically superior to any other moral code. That means there isn't really anything wrong with the so-called cruel parts of the bible, is there? Except for the hypocrisy of the Christians who don't really believe in the cruel parts. But if everything is relative, there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy either, is there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Atheists understand you can't have an absolute "bible" of moral codes. Everything is relative.
    If everything is relative then there is no moral code that is intrinsically superior to any other moral code. That means there isn't really anything wrong with the so-called cruel parts of the bible, is there? Except for the hypocrisy of the Christians who don't really believe in the cruel parts. But if everything is relative, there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy either, is there?
    "Do onto others as you wish to be done upon thee"

    Isn't this a relative statement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If everything is relative then there is no moral code that is intrinsically superior to any other moral code.
    As a way of exposing the lie behind this thought, let's just see where that thought takes you.

    Your moral code is intrinsically the same as the moral code of, say, Pakistan where it is a crime punishable by death for a woman to have sex outside of marriage.

    In your country, sex outside of marriage is not a crime at all.

    So, although the two codes are intrinsically the same, they have material differences which is, let's face it, the reason you have different codes in the first place.

    So, it is not possible to say that the moral code of Pakistan is "better" or "worse" than yours, but it sure is different. You would not actually stone a woman to death for having sex outside of marriage, would you?

    So, realising that intrinsic worth is irrelevant here, are you able to appreciate that you cannot pretend to defend all other moral codes simply because they are intrinsically the same as yours?

    In fact, if you were to try and defend the moral code of Pakistan on that basis, you would be attempting to defend the indefensible on the scurrilous and irrelevant basis that their code is intrinsically the same as yours. And that would make you a hypocrite, would it not?

    But somehow, you do find it necessary and appropriate to defend the moral code of pre-Roman Palestine on the scurrilous and irrelevant basis that they found those things acceptable in their time. No one is disputing that they found it acceptable in their time, Harold. The question is do you, with your 21st century thinking head on find it acceptable in your time? Just asking.
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    The question is do you, with your 21st century thinking head on find it acceptable in your time? Just asking.
    That's irrelevant because I am not the one who is constantly opening new threads to bitch about someone else's moral code. If I did do that, I would have to believe my moral code was superior, which I would be unable to do if I really believed that morality was relative.

    If I did claim a moral superiority, inherently by bitching about someone else's moral code, while contending that morality is relative, that would make me a hypocrite. This would be especially true if what I was bitching about was the other person's claim of moral superiority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    That's irrelevant because I am not the one who is constantly opening new threads to bitch about someone else's moral code.
    In so far as you are not the religion forum's most prolific thread starter, this is correct. I haven't actually done any research on this issue Harold, but I would be prepared to testify that you have not in fact started any threads to bitch about someone else's moral code. Agreed.

    However, your purity in this matter is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

    You started by suggesting that atheists should write a book of their own moral code and hazarded a guess that after a century or two it would look "pretty quaint".

    You actually referred to this book you are suggesting the atheists write as the atheist "bible".

    From this, I assume that you use your bible as your moral code. There is no other reason for you to suppose that the atheist bible should be the moral code for atheists. So I asked you to clarify this point. In fact I asked:

    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    You're not really trying to tell me that the only reason you have never murdered anyone is because it says in your book not to do so, are you?
    Unfortunately, you chose to ignore this question and proceed with your discussion with Obviously. In this discussion you concluded, as I pointed out in my previous post, that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If everything is relative then there is no moral code that is intrinsically superior to any other moral code. That means there isn't really anything wrong with the so-called cruel parts of the bible, is there?
    You have arrived at the rather strange conclusion that since all moral codes are intrinsically equal, there is nothing inherently wrong with the moral code published in your book, and the "cruel" things described in the bible are not really "cruel" at all.

    You have therefore expressed the following opinions:

    1) Your moral code does not come from your inherant empathy as a human being but from a book written a very long time ago.
    2) You think all moral codes are inherently equal.
    3) There is therefore nothing wrong with the moral code published in your book.

    You therefore do not see anything inherently wrong with stoning women for having sex outside of marriage.

    Based on this, I asked you to clarify if that is in fact your moral position, and your reply is that my question is irrelevant.

    Irrelevant to whom, Harold? Irrelevant to the women you are going to stone, or irrelevant to the people to whom you seek to lecture on morality? Or to the people who wrote the moral code to which you subscribe, or to the people to whom you would teach your particular version of morality?

    I repeat my question: Do you think it is morally acceptable to stone to death a woman who is guilty of having sex outside of marriage?
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    From this, I assume that you use your bible as your moral code.
    That is incorrect. It isn't about me, I am only making a logical argument.
    You have arrived at the rather strange conclusion that since all moral codes are intrinsically equal, there is nothing inherently wrong with the moral code published in your book, and the "cruel" things described in the bible are not really "cruel" at all.
    It isn't my book. The conclusion may be strange but it logically follows, I think.
    You have therefore expressed the following opinions:
    1) Your moral code does not come from your inherant empathy as a human being but from a book written a very long time ago.
    It was the OP who suggested that a Christian must draw his moral code from the literal words of the Bible or be a hypocrite. I don't think there is an inherent moral code. Inherent empathy, maybe, but the same empathy has resulted in drastically different moral codes at different times in different cultures.
    2) You think all moral codes are inherently equal.
    I believe it was (Q) who said moral codes are relative.
    3) There is therefore nothing wrong with the moral code published in your book.
    A logical conclusion that (Q) should have drawn but didn't.
    You therefore do not see anything inherently wrong with stoning women for having sex outside of marriage.

    Based on this, I asked you to clarify if that is in fact your moral position, and your reply is that my question is irrelevant.

    Irrelevant to whom, Harold?
    Irrelevant to the logical discussion we are having.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It isn't my book.
    Okay, so you are just playing devil's advocate here, positing a position that isn't actually yours in order to highlight a perceived deficiency in the other side's argument. Okay, let's proceed under those terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    You have arrived at the rather strange conclusion that since all moral codes are intrinsically equal, there is nothing inherently wrong with the moral code published in your book, and the "cruel" things described in the bible are not really "cruel" at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The conclusion may be strange but it logically follows, I think.
    Let's start by asking why you have a different moral code to, and let's stick with the example I used earlier, Pakistan.

    In Pakistan it is the law that a woman who is found guilty of having sex outside of marriage shall be stoned to death. The man with whom she has this sex is not guilty of a crime but she must suffer what I hope you will agree is a horrible death penalty.

    In my country, and also in yours, this is not even a crime. So our respective moral codes will differ from that in Pakistan to the degree that we do not accept that the death penalty is appropriate here. There is therefore an objective difference between the moral code in Pakistan and that in the US of A. Agreed?

    Now, as I understand it, your point is that, assuming the correctness of user Obviously's assertion that all morality is relative, since all moral codes are intrinsically equal it is not possible to claim that your moral code is "better" than that in Pakistan and therefore you cannot claim that stoning that woman to death is wrong.

    As I now understand it you made this point to highlight that for user Obviously to claim both that:

    a) The bible advocates cruel behaviours
    b) Morality is relative

    is inconsistent.

    Your point is that either a) or b) can be true but not both. Agreed?

    Well let me ask you a question. Why is your moral code different from that in Pakistan?

    The answer is probably along the lines of: I do not agree with some of the things they think are moral in that country.

    In other words, you identify some differences between your moral code and those in Pakistan. Let us not try to say that yours are either better or worse, but different. These differences prompt you to have a different moral code.

    Now, when user Obviously said that morality is relative, what did he mean? I suggest that what he meant was roughly analogous to: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    In other words, I cannot prove that my morality is "better" than yours, or vice versa, but my opinion is that mine is preferable. Since I want to give myself the right to make this decision, I also give that right to you. You, therefore, are free to choose your own morality and to consider it preferable to mine.

    Under this interpretation it now becomes perfectly consistent to think that both a) and b) (above) are simultaneously correct.

    I can, after all, say both that "you are entitled to your own opinion" and that it is wrong to stone a woman to death under any circumstances. Can't I?
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Actually, (Q) made the assertion that "everything is relative". Before that he said that you can't have any absolute set of moral codes. I believe this to be quite true.

    In that sense, everything is relative. Isn't it obvious?

    I'm not taking any sides, but merely making some observations; trying to reach a/some conclusion(s).

    What I've seen so far is:
    • ... That the bible advocates murder, hate and intolerance.
    • ... Because of this, some people choose and interpret what they want to believe.

    This means they didn't need the bible to begin with, which makes them hypocrites.

    An easy conclusion to make.

    The next was:
    • ... Some people believe in the whole bible, or at least claim that they do.
    • ... These people justifiy the cruel and horrible parts of the bible.

    This makes them morally bankrupt people who believe in cruelty and intolerance as long as it's made in the name of their beliefs.

    And in the end:
    • ... These hypocrites delude themselves to think their morals are guided by God/the bible.
    • ... Their faith in God reassures that their morals are superior to all others.

    This have potentially dangerous consequences. Especially if they believe in the cruel parts of the bible.

    That's it, I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Now, here's Obviously, who cannot explain where his beliefs come from but is quite certain that they are correct, and will brand other beliefs as cruelty, murder, hate and intolerance.

    Can't you see that your blind spot is just as big as any theist's blind spot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If everything is relative then there is no moral code that is intrinsically superior to any other moral code.
    That would probably depend on whether or not the moral code is one that an individual lives by or one that is handed down to a group of individuals as the absolute way of living ones life. Most religions would fall under the latter category. So, it is the way one lives ones life as an individual that should be addressed to your assertion.

    That means there isn't really anything wrong with the so-called cruel parts of the bible, is there?
    That would fall under the latter category.

    Except for the hypocrisy of the Christians who don't really believe in the cruel parts.
    Funny how that is, isn't it?

    But if everything is relative, there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy either, is there?
    Evidently not, as can be demonstrated by most any Christian, or theist, for that matter.

    But, the question would be, has it been demonstrated by the individual who would live their life by their own personal morals, devoid of absolutism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Now, here's Obviously, who cannot explain where his beliefs come from but is quite certain that they are correct, and will brand other beliefs as cruelty, murder, hate and intolerance.

    Can't you see that your blind spot is just as big as any theist's blind spot?
    Maybe you should re-read my post.

    I understand your point perfectly well. Who am I to judge other people's belief system? Alas, if you look at my post again, you'll see that every conclusion follow a logical path. First I identify, then I merely describe it as it is.

    My blindspot lies in not caring it seems.

    Also notice that my last conclusion included the word "potentially". That doesn't mean I think that everyone who believes in God are morally bankrupt people who advocate cruelty and intolerance in the name of their beliefs, and are willing to murder and kill for them. You are wrong if you believe this about me.

    I believe that faith in any ideology can be "potentially" dangerous, atheism too. But since religion teaches faith as a virtue, I believe religion to be more dangerous than other ideologies which does not advocate faith as such.

    If you could point out the flaw in my reasoning, I would be most happy. I don't mind an intelligent discourse.

    The thing I like about you though, is that you always make me stop up and think for a bit, even when I'm sure I'm right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    But since religion teaches faith as a virtue, I believe religion to be more dangerous than other ideologies which does not advocate faith as such.
    My viewpoint is that faith builds societies. Religious people are more trusting of strangers and more likely to help someone with no notion of reciprocity [i.e. selflessness]. Evolutionarily, this may explain why the only communities to date have been built by religious societies. Also, it is my observation that moving away from religion leads to a disruption of the social framework. There is an increased emphasis on individualism and a movement away from the community. More marriages break down, there are a greater number of single parents with less and less community support and more and more children grow up without parental or adult role models. Also the idea of the individual being the focus means that there is an automatic shift towards the "better" individual being the more "prized" one, with the result that there is an automatic tendency towards a social appreciation of the more intelligent and more beautiful rather than the more substantive. An automatic class system gets created with derision and indifference to the vast majority of those who are the "common" people.

    I consider a society that moves away from religion a doomed society. For the simple fact that religion is selected for in human evolution.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I believe religion to be more dangerous than other ideologies which does not advocate faith as such.
    Why do you believe that?
    The thing I like about you though, is that you always make me stop up and think for a bit, even when I'm sure I'm right.
    Thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    That would probably depend on whether or not the moral code is one that an individual lives by or one that is handed down to a group of individuals as the absolute way of living ones life. Most religions would fall under the latter category. So, it is the way one lives ones life as an individual that should be addressed to your assertion.
    I'm afraid I don't see the distinction you are drawing. Do you think your moral code was not handed down to you? I think if you analyze it, it is shaped by your parents, the society you live in, books you read, etc. Are your beliefs less absolute? You seem rather sure of yourself when condemning certain aspects of religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    My viewpoint is that faith builds societies. Religious people are more trusting of strangers and more likely to help someone with no notion of reciprocity [i.e. selflessness].
    What is interesting here is the siting from a newspaper about religious being more trusting. That doesn't tell me anything. If anything it shows that religious people are more gullible. I don't see the relevance there at all. It's interesting too that:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Guardian
    Religion makes people more helpful, honest and generous but only when they think it will enhance their reputation or when they think about the possibility of a god, according to a report by psychologists.
    I couldn't find any references to any journal or anything, so I don't know what to say.

    Also, how many non-religious are there compared to religious? You can check that out here. I'm not sure what to think here. I doubt there's any real difference at all in who's more likely to help others.

    I find it interesting that you believe faith builds societies. Because it destroys them as well. I don't have to mention the Maya or Incas, etc. Conflicting faiths in the before times meant war.

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Evolutionarily, this may explain why the only communities to date have been built by religious societies.
    I don't see the relevance here. People didn't always have all the knowledge we have today. Ignorance is as good as excuse for religious societies as anything. But I'm not going to assume anything on wild speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Also, it is my observation that moving away from religion leads to a disruption of the social framework. There is an increased emphasis on individualism and a movement away from the community. More marriages break down, there are a greater number of single parents with less and less community support and more and more children grow up without parental or adult role models. Also the idea of the individual being the focus means that there is an automatic shift towards the "better" individual being the more "prized" one, with the result that there is an automatic tendency towards a social appreciation of the more intelligent and more beautiful rather than the more substantive. An automatic class system gets created with derision and indifference to the vast majority of those who are the "common" people.
    Wow there! Let's not get hastly in our generalizations and wild speculations!

    As I've said before, I doubt there's any real difference. As can be seen here:

    Quote Originally Posted by ReligiousTolerance
    "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."

    • Religion % have been divorced
    • Jews 30%
    • Born-again Christians 27%
    • Other Christians 24%
    • Atheists, Agnostics 21%


    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
    In order to check out these statistics, I looked at their sources and found out that there's no real difference. You can see here that the numbers vary through the years:

    http://www.barna.org/?searchkey=divo...x=0&Search.y=0

    Now I only researched one example (divorce), but I'm sure further research will show that there's no real difference either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    I consider a society that moves away from religion a doomed society. For the simple fact that religion is selected for in human evolution.
    I don't see how you can reach such a conclusion. Not at all. If we're going to discuss this we'll have to go deep in the details and differences between memes and genes, cost and gain, etc, etc...


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    Why do you believe that?
    Because religion teaches faith as a virtue. Faith gives one a sense of superiority and confidence strong enough to perhaps take it too far (you're backed up by and omnipotent God in religion after all).

    Faith in communism, faith in religion, faith in atheism... All of these has a potential danger, but because of faith being such an important factor in religion, the potential outweights that of other ideologies.

    Now, when I talk about faith, I'm talking about strong faith of course. The kind that wants to spread and oppress any "competition". Where the end justifies the means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    I don't need to look for journal articles although you may be interested in web suicide cults and birth rate in socities where religion declines.

    I just look at the history of civilisation and how decline in religion leads to a destruction of society. The only way atheists even manage to create any society at all, is by adopting an alternate ideology, but without religion, it appears to have little cohesiveness.

    And the history of human evolution. There is no recorded history of any [successful] society created by atheists. And contrary to current [uneducated] opinion, its not a new concept. The Carvakas tried it over 1000 years ago.

    edit: for divorce and intact families, see the CDC study [2002] based on interviews
    http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r020724.htm
    Conflicting faiths in the before times meant war.
    Thats called competition. Survival of the fittest and all.

    You might also want to take a gander at this article here.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    I don't need to look for journal articles although you may be interested in web suicide cults and birth rate in socities where religion declines.
    ???

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    I just look at the history of civilisation and how decline in religion leads to a destruction of society.
    ???

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    The only way atheists even manage to create any society at all, is by adopting an alternate ideology, but without religion, it appears to have little cohesiveness.
    No wonder they have to adopt an ideology when considering what atheism is. The mere disbelief in a God or gods doesn't constitute much, now does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    And the history of human evolution. There is no recorded history of any [successful] society created by atheists. And contrary to current [uneducated] opinion, its not a new concept. The Carvakas tried it over 1000 years ago.
    No successful atheist society? Well maybe it's because of the power-thirsty and violent religions conquering everything and oppressing every rival thought present. The warmongering hateful religions which couldn't find room for any doubt in the higher power they believed in.

    Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting the minds" of young people. No wonder there's never been any successful atheist society, they never even had a chance!

    ---

    You didn't make much sense in this post with only empty assertions and generalizations.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Thats called competition. Survival of the fittest and all.

    You might also want to take a gander at this article here.
    ???

    No shit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Atheism is not a "new" concept. It has come up again and again at different periods of society, there are at least two of six Hindu philosophical schools that are atheist. And no, they were not "persecuted", Hinduism is an inclusive philosophy. The only time that an atheist surge was seen was when the Carvakas became popular and their philosophy still survives in India and is followed by Hindu atheists. However, it has never built a community, despite being at least 1400 years old. IMO, if they could not do it in India [where every religion to date has formed a community, even foreign immigrant religions like the Parsis and Jews, not to mention Islam which has been there since 1400 years] they'll never manage it anywhere.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Atheism is not a "new" concept. It has come up again and again at different periods of society, there are at least two of six Hindu philosophical schools that are atheist. And no, they were not "persecuted", Hinduism is an inclusive philosophy. The only time that an atheist surge was seen was when the Carvakas became popular and their philosophy still survives in India and is followed by Hindu atheists. However, it has never built a community, despite being 1000 years old. IMO, if they could not do it in India [where every religion to date has formed a community, even foreign immigrant religions like the Parsis and Jews, not to mention Islam which has been there since 1400 years, they'll never manage it anywhere.
    When did I say atheism was a new concept?

    The Carvakas are interesting, but religion is merely a part of society. Aren't we forgetting the political ideologies involved in order to make a society function?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    When did I say atheism was a new concept?

    The Carvakas are interesting, but religion is merely a part of society. Aren't we forgetting the political ideologies involved in order to make a society function?
    That would be relevant if it was not post facto. You first need a society before a political ideology becomes relevant. Or you end up with stuff like communism, which then has to be forced upon people and becomes irrelevant and impracticable. Kinda like forcing democracy on people through war. Society requires a vision, a reason for being. Most of those reasons [justice, community, shared goals] are subjective and abstract. Religion is a quick fix that offers all on a platter.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    That would be relevant if it was not post facto. You first need a society before a political ideology becomes relevant. Or you end up with stuff like communism, which then has to be forced upon people and becomes irrelevant and impracticable. Kinda like forcing democracy on people through war. Society requires a vision, a reason for being. Most of those reasons [justice, community, shared goals] are subjective and abstract. Religion is a quick fix that offers all on a platter.
    Ah, I see. Then a society is firstly built upon ethnicity, right? A group of people who survive and depend on together.

    Survival is the best reason for people to form a society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Ah, I see. Then a society is firstly built upon ethnicity, right? A group of people who survive and depend on together.
    Then we'd all still be black people living in Africa, wouldn't we? 8)
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Then we'd all still be black people living in Africa, wouldn't we? 8)
    Somehow I think you misunderstood. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Somehow I think you misunderstood. :P
    Maybe. :P

    To elaborate, I think being inclusive is the more difficult option especially when people are naturally inclined to be exclusive. But, conversely, people want to be inclusive, which may be an outgrowth of their social evolution. I think religion successfully overcomes this dichotomy of human psychology, which is why the more inclusive a religion is, the more popular it becomes. The most "successful" religions cross all barriers and persist the longest and have formed the largest inclusive communities globally. Their common ground is, they make it mandatory to get together and confirm their faith at least once a week. And of course, they compete with each other, which appeals to the exclusion principle, while cementing the group psychology of opposition, ie, there are more church going Christians in Europe in the regions where there are most Muslims.

    How can atheism compete with that?
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm afraid I don't see the distinction you are drawing.
    That would make us equal considering you stated I didn't draw the same conclusion as you earlier.

    Do you think your moral code was not handed down to you?
    No, it wasn't. No form of absolutism was handed down to me.

    I think if you analyze it, it is shaped by your parents, the society you live in, books you read, etc.
    In other words, an individual learns from an array of sources their entire lives the trial and errors of living, and the consequences of actions.

    Are your beliefs less absolute?
    How can something be "less absolute?" It either is or isn't.

    You seem rather sure of yourself when condemning certain aspects of religion.
    One can be as sure as the words written within the doctrines of religion, which is there for all to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Atheism is not a "new" concept. ...every religion to date has formed a community, even foreign immigrant religions like the Parsis and Jews, not to mention Islam which has been there since 1400 years] they'll never manage it anywhere.
    "Atheism" has not had the effect of conquering many countries and indoctrinating their peoples into an ideology on pain of death, like Islam.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Somehow I think you misunderstood. :P
    Maybe. :P

    To elaborate, I think being inclusive is the more difficult option especially when people are naturally inclined to be exclusive. But, conversely, people want to be inclusive, which may be an outgrowth of their social evolution. I think religion successfully overcomes this dichotomy of human psychology, which is why the more inclusive a religion is, the more popular it becomes. The most "successful" religions cross all barriers and persist the longest and have formed the largest inclusive communities globally. Their common ground is, they make it mandatory to get together and confirm their faith at least once a week. And of course, they compete with each other, which appeals to the exclusion principle, while cementing the group psychology of opposition, ie, there are more church going Christians in Europe in the regions where there are most Muslims.

    How can atheism compete with that?
    It can't and would never have to compete with myth and superstitions, or your fallacious and intellectually dishonest explanations.

    Making it mandatory to get together once a week to confirm a faith is called indoctrination, which is mental abuse and is not considered "successful" in forming communities as statistics of violent crimes and murder demonstrate those communities to be of the highest numbers compared with secular communities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)

    How can something be "less absolute?" It either is or isn't.
    All right then, how would you classify your degree of certainty that the morality of the Bible is cruel? Absolute or not absolute?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    All right then, how would you classify your degree of certainty that the morality of the Bible is cruel? Absolute or not absolute?
    The morals from the bible are absolute, but it is the individual's genetic, altruistic makeup and their sense of self-preservation that would determine whether or not those morals were cruel.

    Here's the kicker.

    The bible also states it itself is the word of god, hence to the followers, no actions by god could possibly be cruel, even though the individual knows well enough the moral cruelty behind those actions.

    The biblical flood is a good example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    All right then, how would you classify your degree of certainty that the morality of the Bible is cruel? Absolute or not absolute?
    The morals from the bible are absolute, but it is the individual's genetic, altruistic makeup and their sense of self-preservation that would determine whether or not those morals were cruel.

    Here's the kicker.

    The bible also states it itself is the word of god, hence to the followers, no actions by god could possibly be cruel, even though the individual knows well enough the moral cruelty behind those actions.

    The biblical flood is a good example.
    I don't think you are answering the question. Pick out the worst, cruelest passage of the bible. Does it lead the follower of the Bible to an action that is morally wrong? How certain are you that it is morally wrong? Absolutely, or not absolutely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I don't think you are answering the question.
    Of course, I answered the question, Harold. I will repeat myself for your benefit:

    "it is the individual's genetic, altruistic makeup and their sense of self-preservation that would determine whether or not those morals were cruel. "

    Pick out the worst, cruelest passage of the bible. Does it lead the follower of the Bible to an action that is morally wrong?
    The bible is fantasy, hence the actions are based on whatever fiction the author wrote in the first place and whatever beliefs he held about his god; the kicker.

    How certain are you that it is morally wrong? Absolutely, or not absolutely.
    Well, the Abrahamic god murders millions in the bible. My personal view of those murders is that the Abrahamic god is immoral, as I personally consider the taking of human life immoral.

    What do you think about murdering people? Do you consider it moral or immoral?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Well, the Abrahamic god murders millions in the bible. My personal view of those murders is that the Abrahamic god is immoral, as I personally consider the taking of human life immoral.
    Absolutely immoral?
    What do you think about murdering people? Do you consider it moral or immoral?
    It doesn't matter what I think. I'm simply demonstrating your hypocrisy because you said morality is relative and that only theists believe in absolute moral truths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Do atheists have some better guidance? Maybe you should write a book of your own, then we could pick that apart and find the inconsistencies. I'm betting the atheist bible would look pretty quaint after a century or two, also.
    I can't speak on behalf of atheists, but from a skeptical perspective there's always room to challenge any given belief. There's no unchallengeable authority like the supposed author of the bible. There's no self delusion that the that the original text would be perfect and that we're merely interpreting it incorrectly in the light of conflicting evidence. While a skeptic is ready and able to revise the book, the fundy is only willing to revise his interpretation and force reality into his shrinking grasp of what's continually being discovered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Absolutely immoral?
    I did not say that, did I?

    It doesn't matter what I think. I'm simply demonstrating your hypocrisy because you said morality is relative and that only theists believe in absolute moral truths.
    My hypocrisy? What are you on about? You've demonstrated nothing of the kind. Clearly, you're delirious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman Nicole_Tesla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The Bible can be and has been interpreted in different ways, and it changes over time. Nineteenth century slaveholders could easily find passages in the Bible to justify slavery. One need look no further than the 10 commandments, one of which cautions against coveting thy neighbor's slave. Abraham Lincoln had a different view of slavery, so he found an anti-slavery message in the Genesis passage "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."

    Plenty of other examples can be found where the interpretation of the Bible changes over time.

    Do atheists have some better guidance? Maybe you should write a book of your own, then we could pick that apart and find the inconsistencies. I'm betting the atheist bible would look pretty quaint after a century or two, also.
    I agree with you on the interpretation part, as a result I think it is unrealistic to say that any book or writing can truly be the absolute "word of God." Also, it was men, not God himself that wrote the Bible. Thou I do not personally believe in any type of God, I would think that the only true way to know what God wants one to do would be to talk to him directly.

    In the end, it all comes down to personal morals.
    "You can have whatever you want
    But are you disciplined enough to be free?"
    I Know What I'm Here For by James
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    The OT is a book of HATE because it teaches 'discrimination'.

    The YHWH in the bible is a mass murderer that uses that as a cult purification
    tool. So all the religions and organization (communism) from it are also doing that. In other words, this is forced slavery.

    The OT promotes sexism and racism also by portraying women as sinners and 'eating the fruit from a tree' as an insult to the Apes that I consider as our ancient anscestors.

    The 1st 3 commandments promote the 'one god concept'.
    So its offspring are all at war to be the one god. Ha ha.

    In other words, the OT has created its own dinosaurs and enemies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It doesn't matter what I think. I'm simply demonstrating your hypocrisy because you said morality is relative and that only theists believe in absolute moral truths.
    So, where did you go, Harold? First, you say you've demonstrated my hypocrisy, and then you went out straight away and began pushing your own morals on others posts, clearly demonstrating your own hypocrisy, by your own logic, of course.

    What say you now, Mr. Pot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman Nicole_Tesla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The OT promotes sexism and racism also by portraying women as sinners and 'eating the fruit from a tree' as an insult to the Apes that I consider as our ancient anscestors. Cosmo
    Amen :-D
    "You can have whatever you want
    But are you disciplined enough to be free?"
    I Know What I'm Here For by James
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It doesn't matter what I think. I'm simply demonstrating your hypocrisy because you said morality is relative and that only theists believe in absolute moral truths.
    So, where did you go, Harold? First, you say you've demonstrated my hypocrisy, and then you went out straight away and began pushing your own morals on others posts, clearly demonstrating your own hypocrisy, by your own logic, of course.

    What say you now, Mr. Pot?
    I neither claimed morality was relative nor did I claim it was absolute, nor did I say there was anything wrong with being hypocritical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    The OT is a book of HATE because it teaches 'discrimination'.

    The YHWH in the bible is a mass murderer that uses that as a cult purification
    tool. So all the religions and organization (communism) from it are also doing that. In other words, this is forced slavery.

    The OT promotes sexism and racism also by portraying women as sinners and 'eating the fruit from a tree' as an insult to the Apes that I consider as our ancient anscestors.

    The 1st 3 commandments promote the 'one god concept'.
    So its offspring are all at war to be the one god. Ha ha.

    In other words, the OT has created its own dinosaurs and enemies.

    Cosmo
    I find this the most disturbing piece of misinformation I have ever seen. I do not know where you got this from, but understand that communism is not Jewish (the Old Testament is followed by the Jews, unless I am wrong, so you are implying that communism is Jewish). Communism is a branch of socialism. An extremely radical one, but a branch nonetheless. It did not originate in the Old Testament.

    The Old Testament, by the way, does not hold Yahweh as a mass murderer. Apparently, unless I am again mistaken, YHWH is the name of God, just as Allah is the name of God in Islam. Who did God kill, then? Also, I can understand what you mean by the sexism, but the racist part I find a little hard to believe. Forgive me, but I very highly doubt the Old Testament promotes racism.

    The offspring of the Old Testament? Never heard of them.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370


    I neither claimed morality was relative nor did I claim it was absolute, nor did I say there was anything wrong with being hypocritical.
    That's rather... uh... slippery of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicole_Tesla
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The OT promotes sexism and racism also by portraying women as sinners and 'eating the fruit from a tree' as an insult to the Apes that I consider as our ancient anscestors. Cosmo
    Amen :-D
    THANK YOU

    Coswmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I find this the most disturbing piece of misinformation I have ever seen. I do not know where you got this from, but understand that communism is not Jewish (the Old Testament is followed by the Jews, unless I am wrong, so you are implying that communism is Jewish). Communism is a branch of socialism. An extremely radical one, but a branch nonetheless. It did not originate in the Old Testament.

    The Old Testament, by the way, does not hold Yahweh as a mass murderer. Apparently, unless I am again mistaken, YHWH is the name of God, just as Allah is the name of God in Islam. Who did God kill, then? Also, I can understand what you mean by the sexism, but the racist part I find a little hard to believe. Forgive me, but I very highly doubt the Old Testament promotes racism.

    The offspring of the Old Testament? Never heard of them.
    The namr Joseph is jewish. Karl Marx was a jew by birthright. So this obviously is a product of the OT.

    Islam is a COPY of the OT with Mohammad having the capability of hearing the voice of a deity just as Moses had. And, the Islamic portayal of women as sinners is OBVIOUS when they are forced to wear those outlandish clothing and forced to hide their faces. What does that tell you? That women are angels?
    You should understand the psychology here because of these portrayals.

    And eating the fruit of a tree is a sin? Like I said, this is an insult to the Apes who eat the fruits of trees. I should think you ought to know that .

    Besides, their language captions imply that their YHWH is WHITE and they are made to YHWH's image.
    That is why they refuse to accept Charles Darwins 'Evolution' that implies we should be black, not white.

    So, I consider communism to be an offspring of the OT because Joseph S. portrayed himself with all those photos and statues erected throughout Russia as a god .
    His murder of millions of Russian peasants and opposition to his ways is what the OT teaches as purification cleansings,

    Islam does likewise with its killings of the 'infadels.

    If you read the New American Bible, then you should know that jews were killed at YHWH's orders to cleanse the cult of any violations of the 1st 3 commandments .
    Most all of the bibles are alike.

    Nuff said.

    Cosmo




    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    What do you think of Stalins philosophy?

    Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников in Russian); other names include Союз воинствующих безбожников (The Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless[1]) and Союз безбожников (The Union of the Godless), was a mass volunteer antireligious organization of Soviet workers and others in 1925-1947. S.o.G. was an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party.


    Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, S.o.G. aimed at fighting religion in all its manifestations and forming scientific mindset among the workers. It popularized atheism and scientific achievements, conducted individual work with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion. S.o.G.'s slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture. S.o.G. had vast international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

    The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort to persuade Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and harmful, and that good citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview
    Source

    Do you disagree with any of it? I'm curious to know, because you seem to be parroting it.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Communism is a branch of socialism. An extremely radical one, but a branch nonetheless. It did not originate in the Old Testament.
    Au contraire, you will find many such comparisons demonstrating how communism originated from the OT.

    The Old Testament, by the way, does not hold Yahweh as a mass murderer.
    Perhaps, but it certainly demonstrates the Abrahamic god to be a mass murderer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    What do you think of Stalins philosophy?
    Stalin was a murderous despot, just like Muhammad and a score of other despots. Their so-called "philosophies" would place them in a godhead position. In other words, they were insane with power and used theist ideologies to get what they wanted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    So you consider the above Society of the Godless as a "murderous philosophy"?
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    So you consider the above Society of the Godless as a "murderous philosophy"?
    I consider your thinking process and conclusions to be dubious, dishonest and under reproach. Does that help?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    And I think you would have been contributing as much as you could to that society yourself, if not been a very active participant of it. In fact, if some other idiot comes up with something like that today, I bet you'd be assisting him as well. In fact, you probably are.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    And I think you would have been contributing as much as you could to that society yourself, if not been a very active participant of it. In fact, if some other idiot comes up with something like that today, I bet you'd be assisting him as well. In fact, you probably are.
    Once again, Sam, I have to remind you of your ongoing delusions and dishonesty.

    One thing IS for sure, you are a Muslim, and have demonstrated your hatred and racism for non-Muslims, especially for us poor infidel non-believers.

    Your actions today are evidence enough of your participation in a society already contributing to the division and downfall of mankind. You are the one assisting an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    So you don't give monies to societies that spread atheism? That lampoon religion and advise a scientific atheistic viewpoint?
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    What do you think of Stalins philosophy?

    Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников in Russian); other names include Союз воинствующих безбожников (The Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless[1]) and Союз безбожников (The Union of the Godless), was a mass volunteer antireligious organization of Soviet workers and others in 1925-1947. S.o.G. was an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party.


    Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, S.o.G. aimed at fighting religion in all its manifestations and forming scientific mindset among the workers. It popularized atheism and scientific achievements, conducted individual work with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion. S.o.G.'s slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie iwith economy, politics, and culture. S.o.G. had vast international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

    The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort to persuade Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and harmful, and that good citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview
    Source

    Do you disagree with any of it? I'm curious to know, because you seem to be parroting it.
    I do not know if that question is directed to me but I will answer it anyway.

    First of all, my view of Stalins communism is that it is a murderous organization as (Q) pointed out .
    Stalin was the most savage power crazy predator in world history.
    This cleansing ritual of Stakins is identical to the religions linked to the OT.

    Just because the com'ts attack the religions does not mean they did not originate from the OT. The spiritual links are there.
    Islam is also a derivitive from the OT because the similarities are also there.

    I am religious also but not a follower of any religion from the OT.

    I revere NATURE as my GOD because I consider it the GREATEST teacher with its picturesque creations.

    Its primary funtion is to LOVE as the popes teach with their 'Mother and Child' concept.

    The OT teaches the 'one god concept' and their (jews) portrayal as 'gods chosen people'. So this is a cult that isolates itself from others by discrimination.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    What do you think of Stalins philosophy?

    Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников in Russian); other names include Союз воинствующих безбожников (The Union of Belligerent Atheists or The League of the Militant Godless[1]) and Союз безбожников (The Union of the Godless), was a mass volunteer antireligious organization of Soviet workers and others in 1925-1947. S.o.G. was an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party.


    Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, S.o.G. aimed at fighting religion in all its manifestations and forming scientific mindset among the workers. It popularized atheism and scientific achievements, conducted individual work with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion. S.o.G.'s slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie iwith economy, politics, and culture. S.o.G. had vast international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

    The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort to persuade Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and harmful, and that good citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview
    Source

    Do you disagree with any of it? I'm curious to know, because you seem to be parroting it.
    I do not know if that question is directed to me but I will answer it anyway.

    First of all, my view of Stalins communism is that it is a murderous organization as (Q) pointed out .
    Stalin was the most savage power crazy predator in world history.
    This cleansing ritual of Stakins is identical to the religions linked to the OT.

    Just because the com'ts attack the religions does not mean they did not originate from the OT. The spiritual links are there.
    Islam is also a derivitive from the OT because the similarities are also there.

    I am religious also but not a follower of any religion from the OT.

    I revere NATURE as my GOD because I consider it the GREATEST teacher with its picturesque creations.

    Its primary funtion is to LOVE as the popes teach with their 'Mother and Child' concept.

    The OT teaches the 'one god concept' and their (jews) portrayal as 'gods chosen people'. So this is a cult that isolates itself from others by discrimination.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •