Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality

Jul 01, 2010 By Marla Paul

(PhysOrg.com) -- "This is the first we know in the history of medicine that clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality," says Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University, have brought to national attention the first systematic approach to prenatally preventing homosexuality and bisexuality. The "treatment" is targeted at one particular population of girls, but the researchers involved in the work say their findings may have implications beyond this population.

The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia. Their endocrine problem will require medical management from birth onward. Research has shown that females born with CAH have increased rates of tomboyism and lesbianism.

The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

Dreger and Feder's paper on the topic appears in the Bioethics Forum of the Hastings Center and can be read at www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140 .

A new consensus from seven major medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) will be published in August indicating that this use of prenatal dexamethasone is experimental and not to be treated as standard of care. This comes in the wake of Dreger and Feder leading an investigation showing that the chief proponent of this off-label use, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, treated hundreds of women with this experimental drug without proper research ethics oversight. Time magazine related that aspect of the story: www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1996453,00.html .

The FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections are now investigating these formal complaints.

Explore further: Study reveals new mechanism for estrogen suppression of liver lipid synthesis

Related Stories

Women's cancer outcomes improved by surgical evaluation

Feb 12, 2009

Many women scheduled to undergo hysterectomy for pre-cancerous cell changes actually need a more comprehensive surgery, something they should discuss with a gynecologic oncologist, say researchers at the University of Alabama ...

Post-partum suicide attempt risks studied

Aug 06, 2008

Although maternal suicide after giving birth is a relatively rare occurrence, suicide attempts often have long-lasting effects on the family and the infant. In a study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Jo ...

Prenatal meth exposure linked to abnormal brain development

Apr 15, 2009

A first of its kind study examining the effects of methamphetamine use during pregnancy has found the drug appears to cause abnormal brain development in children. The research is published in the April 15, 2009, online issue ...

Multiple myeloma clinical trial closes early

Apr 05, 2007

Mayo Clinic Cancer Center announced today that a multiple myeloma clinical trial has shown a significant improvement in survival with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone therapy compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose ...

Recommended for you

Scientists discover molecule triggers sensation of itch

May 23, 2013

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health report they have discovered in mouse studies that a small molecule released in the spinal cord triggers a process that is later experienced in the brain as ...

Discarded immune cells induce the relocation of stem cells

May 23, 2013

Spanish researchers have discovered that the daily clearance of neutrophils from the body stimulates the release of hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow into the bloodstream, according to a report published today ...

User comments : 460

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gunslingor1
4.4 / 5 (27) Jul 01, 2010
God that is incredibly unethical and hypocritical. You can't be gay, you can't wear a condom, you can't have an abortion, you can't experiment with steam cells from a dead featus, but hey, you want to experiment on an unborn featus, BE MY GUEST!
frajo
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2010
that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.
Quite "abnormal" ethics surface in this
New York-based group of clinical researchers
.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 01, 2010
This is definitely one of the most abhorrent articles I've read in some time.
otto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2010
As usual, emotions disrupt any attempts of frajo to engage her intellect.
"The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia". The article describes a treatment for a serious disorder.

"Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University".

Religionists offer a very polarizing and incendiary opinion and frajo, with blind obedience, takes the bait.

Kneejerk Ideologues are so easy.
kaypee
4 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2010
Wow. Sounds like something the Nazis would be accused of doing.
gideon
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2010
While I find the implications abhorrent, there is something that may come of this. The one group of people I see wanting to use this application are people who hate homosexuals and the biggest argument they use against homosexuality is that it's a choice and that it's unnatural, yet if your using a genetic technique to prevent it, then it becomes undeniable that it IS in fact natural and NO it never was a choice. Whether that leads to acceptance is another matter (sadly I'd still suspect no) but that is one false argument against homosexuality that could no longer be repeated. Still, would this lead to some kind future with no homosexuals? Will people who wish to keep homosexuals from being 'treated' be accused of endangerment for allowing them to develop into "abnormal" adults? This is definitely going to be some kind of turning point in the debate.
Briantllb
1.4 / 5 (27) Jul 01, 2010
Homosexuality or tendencies in these cases is not natural at all. It is a genetic DEFECT as are Downs Syndrome and Cerebral palsy. There are no moral or ethical problems with researchers attempting to cure those genetic defects. Why the uproar about trying to cure this one?

In cases where homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE, well that is not natural either it is a perversion. The purpose of sex is reproduction. The survival of species kind of depends Heterosexualality. Homosexuality has no benefit to offer. those for whom it is a lifestyle choice tare of no use to the species. They cannot contribute anything to the evolutionary development . If it is in fact the consequence of a genetic defect then correcting the defect if it is possible is the right action to take.
otto1923
3 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2010
The one group of people I see wanting to use this application are people who hate homosexuals and the biggest argument they use against homosexuality is that it's a choice and that it's unnatural
Dude (I assume you're a dude), read the article again- the drug is meant to treat ambiguous genitalia. Even gays dont want ambiguous genitalia, as it makes their 'choice' even harder.

People whose jobs depend on finding ethical violations in science (ie, religionists) are FABRICATING an issue for their own benefit. They're using you, playing on your emotions. Doesn't that make you angry?
otto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2010
The purpose of sex is reproduction. The survival of species kind of depends Heterosexualality. Homosexuality has no benefit to offer. those for whom it is a lifestyle choice tare of no use to the species.
Yes indeed, sex is 1/2 of a whole thing. But when populations have grown to capacity in a niche, many species have mechanisms to reduce growth. Rabbit does for instance will absorb a fetus.

Humans can seek to limit growth artificially, as with abortion and the destruction of the family unit, or by encouraging the separation of sex from pregnancy; making it a form of recreation, communication, or athletic endeavor.

Homosexuality may be a form of natural pop control, but it can also be added or subtracted from the equation as needed. As easily as the age of consent can be raised or lowered to suit, or extramarital sex legalized. Etc.
ormondotvos
5 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2010
So homosexuality, or sexuality in general, is a cultural choice, and we're just watching competition of cultural memes?

Doesn't that just make you want to sterilize the memes?
xamien
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2010
This experiment, in addition to be unethical, is also quite contradictory to its own point. Someone else was making this exact same point, which is that the only people especially interested in preventing homosexuality are the same vehemently against procedure with an unborn fetus... But it's okay to risk fetal abnormalities with a chemical they poorly understand and isn't even a part of the natural evolution? In this case, they can't have their cake and eat it, too.

And Briantllb, the scientific research into homosexuality and principles of evolution actually much to say on the subject of you being wrong.
0c4pnh4nk
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
Isn't homosexuality nature's population control?

Cause that's how I look at it. And it's damn unfortunate sometimes, because I would rather most of them breed than religious fanatics who preach about divinity.

It's cool that we can pinpoint what's going on, very cool. But the social implications of some of these studies are definitely questionable and the atmosphere in North America is much to volatile to even begin to think about publishing this to the masses.

I sincerely hope mass media will continue to ignore most science and report on how many wardrobe changes Lady Gaga has made in the past 1/2 day.
Objectivist
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
Why is everybody focusing on the homosexuality part? What about the "serious endocrine disruption" part?

http://en.wikiped...nditions

It looks to me that as you are the people focusing on sexuality, you are the discriminating bunch. This trial is obviously meant to treat this condition, and as a study doctors observe the result in sexual preference to validate previous research. In no way did I interpret this as someone deciding to "cure" homosexuality, as the rest of you did.
PJK
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2010


It looks to me that as you are the people focusing on sexuality, you are the discriminating bunch. This trial is obviously meant to treat this condition


From the article:

The prenatal treatment at issue, however, DOES NOT TREAT OR PREVENT the CAH.
...the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality.
Objectivist
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2010
The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia.

It treats a symptom of CAH, which is development of ambiguous genitalia. This is the reason for the treatment, and homosexuality happens to be linked to this. What is disturbing is that so many refuse to accept that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality or bisexuality, can be caused by a disease or a health condition.
Sonhouse
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2010
So what would be the end result of this? We 'cure' homosexuality, thus confirming the religious right's stand, and the ones that slip through the cracks are now criminals like in some countries? What, we ship them off to an isolated island like we used to do with 'lepers'?
danlgarmstrong
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2010
The prenatal treatment ... does not treat or prevent the CAH...the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest...can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

Poor kids. My opinion is that those researchers, and the kind of parents who would submit themselves and their children to the snake oil these charlatans are pushing are the *abnormal* ones.

Bonkers
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2010
In related news, Left-handedness is now curable.

Or - to continue the analogy, a genetic condition causing deformed hands, whose victims are predominantly left-handed, is curable. The cure may be extensible to left-handedness in general, the inherited aspect at least.
Why do we need to cure 'innate' homosexuality? From a society perspective it has long been a useful trait within the population, or rather, strongly associated with other useful traits such as political astuteness, wit, leadership.
We eliminate variation in our genetic and psychological make-up at our peril, what if all the weedy geeky people had been corrected before birth, would we have an internet? Shame on us all for harrying Alan Turing to his grave, and giving him breasts, all because of his private sexual orientation. These things are not ours to judge.
jtdrexel
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2010
Like for any disorder, disease or abnormality, humans try to develop ways to deal with the issue and of course there are people that both agree and disagree with the developed remedies. But the truth of the matter is that it has to happen!
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2010
Poor kids. My opinion is that those researchers, and the kind of parents who would submit themselves and their children to the snake oil these charlatans are pushing are the *abnormal* ones
Lessee, should I risk having a baby with ambiguous genitals or destroying her chance to be gay due to the fact she's got a debilitating disease?

Who are the monsters here? Who here would rather a child be born deformed than for doctors to cross some 'ethical' line that threatens THEIR own lifestyle?

Many of us here understand that our biologies leave us with very few 'choices' in life. Behavior is dictated largely by the constitution of our genes and the resulting chemistry they produce. Seems to me that freeing ourselves from these limitations gives us MORE freedom to choose, not less.

Keep in mind, again, that what we have in this little article is heresay from some ethicists who earn a living by being alarmist. We do not have the full story.
otto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
Why do we need to cure 'innate' homosexuality? From a society perspective it has long been a useful trait within the population, or rather, strongly associated with other useful traits such as political astuteness, wit, leadership.
We eliminate variation in our genetic and psychological make-up at our peril, what if all the weedy geeky people had been corrected before birth, would we have an internet?
As spokesperson for all witless, unfunny hetero thugs in the world, might i say you seem like the kind of bigot who believes in the stereotypes social propagandists like to conjur up, eh?
Bonkers
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
You may, might i respond however that Wikipedia defines a bigot thus:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
might i leave it there?
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
It is outrageous (tho not unexpected) that physorg would publish this rubbish! It seems that the authors (and how a 'religionist' got on the team is a different matter) are taking us back to the pre-1940's ... What will be their next target gene: blackness?? muslim-ness?? The field of Religio-Science has much fodder, if people such as these authors and those who support them have a say!
(On their downside, i read that the 'Creationist Museum' is now in bankruptcy )
Arkaleus
5 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2010
Otto, you're a busy troll. This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate, not your version of petty tyranny and your twisted values. You represent every anti-intellectual force that has caused suffering and confusion since we crawled out of the caves. This world feeds you by mercy, Otto, perhaps you should give thanks for it.

As for these "scientists" trying to classify a natural mammalian behavior as a disease, I recommend they be publicly denounced and their vile politics exposed. Unethical research should be remedied by revocation of licenses.

ArcainOne
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
First of all I have to point out that this article is incredibly miss leading. The title explicitly states "First Experiment to Attempt Prevention of Homosexuality in womb". This immediately grabs all of our attention no matter where you are on the fence about homosexuality. In truth this article is talking about the issue of ambiguous genitalia and its POSSIBLE future uses, not the Prevention of Homosexuality in the womb. The experiment itself is not unethical the articles method to grab your attention maybe, and the experiment's possible future usage definitely is.
zevkirsh
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
it would be more interesting and useful if you could find a way to make someone more homosexual, or just plain homosexual. a predictably homosexual crop of humans could be utilized for jobs and social cohesiveness in environments where having children would be a burden. PROBLEM IS....plenty of homosexuals like to adopt or get inseminated (artificially or naturally ) and raise kids. ....ah, the complexity of human behavior...
USofMH
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
This is seriously the most disturbing article I've ever read on here...
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
O.K. I can understand the ambiguous genitalia repair, that seems like a completely reasonable repair to be made. If in the meantime, it reduces the occurrence of homosexuality as a bi-product then fine, since that is only a side effect of physical body repair. If they however just try to stop homosexuality in fetuses that do not require the procedure for actual physical malformation then it's very unethical. How would you even know you succeeded? You would never know if they were actually going to be homosexual. Who knows, if they were born homosexual it may not be a failed cure, but rather the result of you tampering with a heterosexual fetus. You may have caused it."tomboyism"? Is that a real term?
sherriffwoody
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
Its been done in adults already. By correcting hormones in gay peoples brains with hormone treatment they became atractted to the opposite sex. I can not remember where it was I read of the experiment. I have no issue, if parents don't want a gay child then so be it - money talks
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
@bonkers
homosexuality? From a society perspective it has long been... strongly associated with other useful traits such as political astuteness, wit, leadership.
...what if all the weedy geeky people had been corrected before birth, would we have an internet?
What, you dont see these stereotypes as bigotry? You left out the first phrase in the wiki definition: "A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person..." Your inane willingness to use less contentious stereotypes only enables those who wish to do serious damage with theirs.

I hated being called a geek in high school. your implications offend me.
otto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
Otto, you're a busy troll. This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate, not your version of petty tyranny and your twisted values.
Bite me. No wait- I can say something rational...
As for these "scientists" trying to classify a natural mammalian behavior as a disease, I recommend they be publicly denounced and their vile politics exposed.
It seems we are in accord in this instance. I might point out in addition, that you seem to be implying some sort of conspiracy -?
Unethical research should be remedied by revocation of licenses
Again we agree. Perhaps a more suitable punishment (in the spirit of sharia?) would be to somehow induce congenital adrenal hyperplasia and the expression of ambiguosity in the offenders? Or would that be unethical...?
otto1923
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
I quote from a previous thread:
Taking cues from their NAZI predecessors, any information that reveals the true nature of the war being waged against an innocent population will be suppressed, but thank God for the Internet and the bravery of American soldiers who dare to confront this injustice.
And your statement about the need for an objective approach to this discussion:
This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate
How can we expect reasoned opinion from blind, starry-eyed ideologues such as yourself? You rarely think about specific instances and pertinent facts, you just search these articles for cause celebres to attach your lofty moral preconceptions to. This too is bigotry.

Many people feel trapped in their homoerotic personas. Would you deny them a way out of their dilemma merely on principle?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
I agree with a lot of people here. This treatment has nothing to do with Homosexuality, but birth defects.

If the treatment cures birth defects there is nothing wrong with it, it would be nothing more objectionable than fixing an unborn baby's heart defect.

BTW for all you progressives who lack scientific information, homosexuality has NOT been proven to be in the genes.

If for arguments sake there is a cure for homosexuality in the womb, there would be nothing wrong in using it.
dolson
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2010
This article appears really quite mis-titled. It is indeed about intersexulaity and impaired in-womb genital development. But, as said, it is likely that this will be exploited by those who wish, by eugenics, to eliminate homosexuality. We knew this eventually would be coming, which makes Gideon's comments all the more interesting. Arguments using natural law philosophy against homosexuality have been bankrupt for years, as can be seen in Briantlib's post. His logic is really quite screwed up.

dolson
5 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2010
Briantlib, if sex is solely for reproduction, why is there a human drive to have sex apart from reproduction. Secondly, given that most people are heterosexual, and thus most sex in the world is heterosexual sex, and thus most sex for non-reproductive purposes is heterosexual, your argument also condemns this form of sex as being a perversion. As per your comment, I suggest you stop having sex immediately lest you be a self-labeled pervert.

Your effort to give an evolutionary reason here against homosexuality is naive, stupid, and likely an overreach to justify highly sinful religious beliefs. For one, there would not be homosexuals if it were not selected for. Since there are homosexuals, evolution selects for them. I would say more, but perhaps telling you to "eat feces" would suffice.
danlgarmstrong
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
Homosexuality is not a disease. It was removed from the list of mental disorders decades ago. Why are 'doctors' still trying to cure it?
croghan27
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
This is definitely one of the most abhorrent articles I've read in some time.


Maybe not the article - but the 'treatment' is something out of the middle ages .....
Anbec
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
They are clearly stating that they want to cure homosexuality, and they also clearly stated that
"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

This is just disgustingly vile and wrong.
otto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
@anbec et al
I guess you missed this:
Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia.
But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used IN THIS POPULATION [emphasis otto's] to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest THESE GIRLS [emphasis otto's] tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.
In THESE GIRLS, homosexuality is a DIRECT RESULT of their disease. The disease is an abnormality, and so is their homosexuality as a result.

You would condemn them to a lifestyle that they did not choose.

How dare you.
Anbec
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
So..they're trying to cure the disease even though

"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

Hmm.

[MOST] clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. [BUT] the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
Reminds me of this tragedy:
"The concept of environmentally programmed gender identity dominated the 1970s, promoted by John Money, PhD, at Johns Hopkins University. Practitioners of this theory believe that gender identity is a result of gender training, so for example, any child treated as a girl would grow up to feel like a woman. Dr Money followed a set of twin boys, one of whom was raised as a girl after a bungled circumcision destroyed his penis. Dr Money published a series of papers about the twins' successful social adaptation to their gender roles. In fact, the child was not faring well, and upon learning of his anatomic history as a teenager, he promptly began living as a boy, eventually underwent phalloplasty, and married a woman. He later reported that he never felt like a girl."

-Because of academic dogma some kid had to suffer through a tormented childhood.

This is just disgustingly vile and wrong.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2010
So..they're trying to cure the disease even though

"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

Hmm.

[MOST] clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. [BUT] the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.
READ IT AGAIN. In that specific population. ONLY.

In that population ONLY, homosexuality is abnormal. Thats what it SAYS.
So..they're trying to cure the disease
NO theyre not. Theyre trying to treat the symptoms, as it SAYS.
freethinking
1 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2010
Interesting moral question. If there is a test for homosexuality in unborn humans, and if there was a cure for homosexuality in unborn humans is it wrong to cure these unborn children of homosexuality?

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.

However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.
croghan27
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2010


Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.

However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.


What amazing convoluted logic just to get in a shot at pro-CHOICERS.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2010
Interesting moral question. If there is a test for homosexuality in unborn humans, and if there was a cure for homosexuality in unborn humans is it wrong to cure these unborn children of homosexuality?

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.


Pro-Choice advocates are in favor of an adult human female having control over her body. It isn't an issue of the value of fetal life.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.


"normal life"? What the hell is normal? If the baby was homosexual by natural development then that is normal. You reprogramming it isn't normal.

trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.


First, you are assuming pro-choice advocates endorse abortion for medical reasons. That may not be the case for all. Second, downs children are substantially more handicapped than a homosexual. Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will burn in hell. Sorry to generalize, but it seems to be a theme you support. Who "hates" homosexuals more? The people who want to let them live the way they were developed or the people who want them "cured" because they are going to hell?
Husky
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2010
if sex was only for reproduction and food only for survival we wouldn't have porn and burgers
Nanomid
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2010
Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will


And I ascertain that you are a Godless Socialist (more insincere commie double speak).

Reproductive technology will eventually turn the womb into a manufacturing plant.
Let's make measurably better babies, and deselect for more than just reproductive problems (like not having genitalia or using them inefficiently). We can rebuild them. We can make them stronger, faster, smarter, less sticky.

Oh, and deselect for rap. I hate rap.
trekgeek1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will


And I ascertain that you are a Godless Socialist (more insincere commie double speak).

Reproductive technology will eventually turn the womb into a manufacturing plant.
Let's make measurably better babies, and deselect for more than just reproductive problems (like not having genitalia or using them inefficiently). We can rebuild them. We can make them stronger, faster, smarter, less sticky.

Oh, and deselect for rap. I hate rap.


I am a godless socialist. Well, I am godless, and I support many social programs, but not all. I am godless, that's the important part. I am a free market socialist. I support free market with socialist boundaries to establish a basic standard of living.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2010
More on this from NEWSWEEK ...

http://www.newswe...rug.html
Starblade_Enkai
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
Okay, how can you seriously be for abortion but against this? It's not like they're doing anything to an entity that's already been born. Until it is born it really shouldn't matter what the mother does to what is essentially a part of her own body.

Outlawing this kind of procedure is step 1 to outlawing all different kinds of genetic engineering, which itself is just a step further in the direction of making the world into a haven for totalitarianism of all kinds.
Starblade_Enkai
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
PS: I am not against homosexuality. I am against people having NO CHOICE in their sexuality. It would be just as bad for a person to be homosexual and want to be heterosexual as it would be for a person to be heterosexual and want to be homosexual.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
More on this from NEWSWEEK ...
Thanks for the link. Everybody engaged in this discussion ought to read the newsweek article.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2010
READ IT AGAIN. In that specific population. ONLY.
In that population ONLY, homosexuality is abnormal. Thats what it SAYS.
Saying so implies one's conviction of homosexuality being - at least in some cases - an abnormality. This in turn implies a) one's conviction to be able to define normality and b) one's conviction to have the right to impose this self-defined normality onto others.

So..they're trying to cure the disease

NO theyre not. Theyre trying to treat the symptoms, as it SAYS.
This implies their/your claim that homosexuality is - at least in some cases - a symptom of a disease.
Which is a bit surprising to hear from someone who is advocating overpop and a global grand scheme stretching over several millennia.
xamien
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
It is such a bootless argument that is made by the people saying that this is to help those with NO CHOICE in their sexuality. Are you paying attention to your logic? By the same logic, you claim that those without the CAH, that are otherwise "normal" should also be "cured" because they also do not have any choice in their sexuality.
Which leads to my next point arguing against those ridiculous others that argue for the genetics of homosexuality. There IS, in fact, scientific evidence in support of this, which you would know if you actually looked the papers up for yourself.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2010
Saying so implies one's conviction of homosexuality being - at least in some cases - an abnormality.
Non sequitor. It implies that i read the article and based my judgement on the facts as presented and not on what i thought they ought to be.

You seem to be a person who would think that it is more important to 'send a message' in a court trial rather than judge a defendant based on the particular facts of his case.

You would condemn these people to be born with this predisposition caused solely by their disease, just because you don't like the word 'abnormal', a valid medical term with no social connotations. Reminds me of the CA woman who was arguing against a gun law. "It's ok to shoot bad guys but you don't have to blow them away."

I'll read the link after this- opinions here were based solely on the physorg article which you and others failed to read and understand, instead taking the opportunity to moralize and thus miss the point entirely.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
This implies their/your claim that homosexuality is - at least in some cases - a symptom of a disease.
Which is a bit surprising to hear from someone who is advocating overpop and a global grand scheme stretching over several millennia.
You also didn't read my earlier posts where I said I believed that homosexuality was a natural form of pop control. Personally I think it might be an epigenetic expression of a mother who senses that pops have reached capacity, resources and living space are becoming scarce, and more people would endanger the chances of future offspring surviving to maturity. So she neuters her baby in the womb so it can't produce competition.

And I'm not implying anything derogatory by this either.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2010
From the newsweek article:
"What makes both the clitoral surgery and the prenatal steroids so cringe-inducing, however, is that they seems like throwbacks to the 1950s, not only culturally (when there was really only one way to be female, and it came with an apron and kids) but scientifically (when anatomy and biochemistry were destiny)."

-So in other words, because they are 'like' something that is bad then they must be bad in themselves. Dreger and feder should lose their jobs for their repeated unethical behavior in sensationalizing issues for their own benefit.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2010
One concern mentioned in the Time article but not discussed here is - the approach to research here undermines a patients right to informed consent. From the article:

"It....enables doctors to do human research without gaining proper approval. All participants in human medical research are, by law, entitled to the protective oversight of an institutional review board (IRB), a committee that safeguards the interests of research volunteers and ensures they have been fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of an experimental treatment. If doctors are simply treating a patient with an off-label drug, they are not required to obtain written informed consent from patients. But if doctors give treatment with the intent to gain knowledge, they are technically doing research, which must receive IRB approval."

Those receiving this treatment are at least due informed consent.

http://en.wikiped...ocedures

ruebi
5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2010
I think we need a new amendment to separate church from science. If you just take those two words they are absolutely different. Religion cannot evolve, if there ever was a first book... it is the only one that can possibly be correct. Science can only evolve as more FACTS are discovered. Science is a power we created and cultivated over thousands of years.

And for the record I thought all were created equal? Don't start messing with God's perfection now.
Starblade_Enkai
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2010
What does this experiment have to do with religion? Nothing. Atheists can be just as worried about their child being born with no sexual choice as theists can be. Serously, don't try to make this idea into something it's not.
MNIce
3 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2010
Would anybody be complaining if this treatment protocol "cured" kleptomania?

If the best hope for treating a facial defect is experimental prenatal surgery, is that unethical? Is there any debate about "choosing" a unique appearance in such a case?

What if it is found that susceptibility to temptation to homosexual behavior is increased by prenatal exposure to bis phenol A or other hormonal analogs not naturally present? We know these chemicals cause gender abnormalities in fish hatched in waters polluted by them. Would more people then understand this as a problem that needs to be addressed?
MNIce
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2010
The misconceptions on display here about the "religious right" and Christian belief regarding homosexuality are not surprising, given that approval of homosexuality accompanies rejection of God and His word (Romans 1 in the Bible).

Aside from "God hates fags" heretics, Christians do not hate homosexuals. Their behavior is abominable, but so are adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc. But we don't want them exiled; then they can't hear us. "God ... wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

There is a difference between being tempted to a sin (whether influenced by environment or by genetics) and giving in to the temptation (behavior). Christians do not expect drugs to "cure" a besetting sin, be it illicit sex, slander, or other evil that bars entry into God's kingdom. We warn of sin's consequences and point to Christ as the Answer because it would be hateful not to do so. (I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2010
Gods got nothing to do with this. Actually, gods got nothing to do with anything, in reality. Your god is the epitome of rejection- of exclusivism- he and his so-called 'chosen people. And no I don't mean Jews, I mean all of you who think your god loves you best because you fawn over him so much.
(I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."
-Like I said. Your little godman is only one of a few dozen, all mutually exclusive, by Design.
Birthmark
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2010
The PROBLEM is that in trying to prevent a life style (because it can be conclusive that even if you are born gay, it becomes or is a conscious life style, as is being athletic, etc.) it then is viewed as terrible and in need of a "cure." This is not being created for the well-being of homosexuals, it is being created for the well-being of the homophobes. This is ridiculous.

To the guy who said homosexuality is a defect like down syndrome and other born defects, you may have it right, but in homosexuality nothing is impaired...Homosexuals interact, behave, adapt, and contribute to society as good if not better than the next heterosexual. You CAN NOT compare homosexuality to down syndrome! Homosexuality does not need a cure!!
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
No birthmark, that's not what the article says, that's what you THINK it says because that's what you want it to say so as to make an issue out of it. Your cognition is just as askewed as the god-lover above, and just as easy to manipulate as he is as a result.

Free yourself- see things for what they really are,. Leave your emotions out of it.
Homosexuality does not need a cure!!
Except when it's caused by a disease, which this is.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2010
And as usual, another xian spouting off who doesn't know his own holy book- or who thinks he can interpret it any way he wishes, or he can ignore parts he don't like, which is worse. Blasphemer.

Leviticus

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

-Plus what Paul had to say, plus what happened to Sodom and gemorrah because the men wanted to rape an angel-
looseyarn
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
they clearly do not beleive in free will, lol.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
Gods got nothing to do with this. Actually, gods got nothing to do with anything, in reality. Your god is the epitome of rejection- of exclusivism- he and his so-called 'chosen people. And no I don't mean Jews, I mean all of you who think your god loves you best because you fawn over him so much.
(I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."
-Like I said. Your little godman is only one of a few dozen, all mutually exclusive, by Design.
That's otto1923's opinion. A legit opinion. But why does he present his opinion to the public? Does he really think it will have any effect on anybody, enlighten anybody?
And, "only one of a few dozen" isn't even corrct when you regard religions like Hinduism. Neither is his "all mutually exclusiv" correct. So what the heck is otto1923 trying to accomplish?
frajo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
And as usual, another xian spouting off who doesn't know his own holy book- or who thinks he can interpret it any way he wishes, or he can ignore parts he don't like, which is worse. Blasphemer.

Leviticus

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

-Plus what Paul had to say, plus what happened to Sodom and gemorrah because the men wanted to rape an angel-
I'm wondering why you don't grasp that your ostensible knowledge of all Christianity is at best the knowledge of a relatively small, albeit - because at home in the US - not unimportant, part of Christianity? As a confessing anti-Christian you are definitely not entitled to tell what a "good Christian" has to believe of the scriptures. As neither the pope is entitled to tell pregnant women what to do and not to do with their fetus.
MadPutz
not rated yet Jul 05, 2010
I would say interfering with a fetus' development is all the same, whether it is to cure a disease or reverting a certain genetic tendency toward homosexuality. In both cases you permanently alter the person that results and the person technically becomes a different person and the past one is neutralized. Say, for instance, my ADHD was eliminated genetically in the womb - I would have led a totally different academic, social, and professional life, my being would be different, and technically I would have never existed.

The moral debate should be on whether alteration is ethical, not what types. Personally I think it should be up to the parents to decide on how to alter their child - homosexuality editing or not. Some will, some won't - maybe some will actually force their child to be homosexual or transgendered - who knows.

In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures (though they may not, as they will fear for their current mode of existence if their physiology/psychology is changed).
MadPutz
not rated yet Jul 05, 2010
Interfering with a fetus' development is all the same, whether it is to cure a disease or reverting a certain genetic tendency. In both cases you permanently alter the person that results and the person technically becomes a different person and the past one is neutralized. Say my ADHD was eliminated in the womb - I would have led a totally different academic, social, and professional life and technically I would have never existed.

Philosophically the debate should be on whether alteration is ethical, not what types. Personally I think the parents should be free to decide on how to alter their child - homosexuality editing or not. Some will, some won't - maybe some will actually force their child to be homosexual or transgendered - who knows. Homosexual couples will probably have children through manual DNA recombination techniques too.

In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures (though they may not, as they will fear for their current mode of existence if their physiology/psychology is changed).
Starblade_Enkai
not rated yet Jul 05, 2010
You can't kill a potential. It never existed.

That being said, I am pro-choice, not only in that I support the woman's right to choose, but also in that I believe that a person shouldn't be born with only one option when it comes to sex.

If someone chooses to be homosexual that's fine with me, but I find it very unfortunate for those who are homosexual and WANT to be heterosexual, since they never had any say in it whatsoever.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
That's otto1923's opinion. A legit opinion. But why does he present his opinion to the public? Does he really think it will have any effect on anybody, enlighten anybody?
As usual, the godder started it. I feel it is my duty to respond.
As a confessing anti-Christian you are definitely not entitled to tell what a "good Christian" has to believe of the scriptures.
Sure I do, as they do me. Wennschon dennschon. And I'm pretty good at it. Na und?
why you don't grasp that your ostensible knowledge of all Christianity is at best the knowledge of a relatively small, albeit - because at home in the US - not unimportant, part of Christianity?
How would you know? You don't know what I know. Your statement is un-falsifiable.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
So what the heck is otto1923 trying to accomplish?
Otto is having fun.
Shootist
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2010
You people have been politically corrected. To death.

This is wonderful. If homosexuality can be cured; what a glorious day for its millions of suffers.

otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures
You're a lawyer aren't you? Only a lawyer could truly appreciate the potential in what you're proposing here.
croghan27
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
You people have been politically corrected. To death.

This is wonderful. If homosexuality can be cured; what a glorious day for its millions of suffers.



EEEEUUUUUUU Politically correct is sooooo 1990s!

Now Obama has announced that referring to waterboarding as torture is 'politically correct' in an attempt to pretend it never happened.

Gotta look forward, not back. ('Supose he can talk to the local, politically correct, authorities about that parking ticket of mine?)
jsa09
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2010
So what is really wrong with ambiguous genitalia?

A lot of people would really like to be able to go both ways.
hylozoic
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
Hilarious comment stream. By the way, does anybody know if research into the prenatal prevention of heterosexuality is underway somewhere?
Anyway, keep the 'dialogue' flowing, cats -- the comedy masquerading as 'reason' is making many people happy!
shadow_man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/
shadow_man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.

The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection, http://www.scienc...459.htm, demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family.
croghan27
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.

The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection, http://www.scienc...459.htm, demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family.


Yo Shadow .... could not find the article you mentioned in the link, but the magazine looks interesting. Thanks for that.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
As Hitchens said before: religion poisons everything.

How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.
croghan27
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
or perhaps ... "there is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by religion...."
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
@shadowman
-You're awful freaking naive.

" In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”  In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.""

-These religions are about growing their numbers at the expense of unbelievers. Homosexuality, if natural, is a mechanism for limiting growth.

As usual, blaspheming godlovers get to interpret the word of their god to suit their own weltanschuung.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
More heresy
Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.
I don't recall ever seeing anything about the scientific 'benefits' of homosexuality to the species. You wanna be more specific? You have any links to non-religious info to support this? Anybody?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2010
You wanna be more specific? You have any links to non-religious info to support this? Anybody?

I can provide that, you actually commented on the article when it appeared on physorg. http://www.inform...04832632

Effectively the societal benefit of homosexuals are in the assimilation of males into a nurturing role. They're more likely to provide the benefits of male upbringing while ensuring the nurturing nature of women through genetic similarity.

Basically, helping the women raise the children in pre-civilized society.
otto1923
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2010
"Homosexuality and Family Relations:
Views and Research Issues 12/89"
-Well, im not going to read it. Reminds me of the character in Little Big Man who stayed behind with the squaws. Im going to assume that this was research based on working hypotheses back in 1989, before evolutionary psychology and sociology really took off, about the time the movie came out? Lots of contemporary political correctness in that movie (and academia), now much of it heavily discounted.

I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.
Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away. The research is rather recent and isn't really too politically correct.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.
Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.
Much like eunichs in the harem eh?
The research is rather recent and isn't really too politically correct.
What- the desire to find an evolutionary basis for the existance of homosexuality to discredit those who claimed it was a defect? Very political. Like tabula rasa.

I wonder if there are observed examples in modern-day primitive societies which might bear this out?
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
Croghan: Ahh, sorry about that. It looks like when the link is converted, it points it in the wrong direction.

***.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm, change the *** to www and it should point you to the article. A very interesting study.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.
It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.
Ratio can be offered, but then it has to be accepted by the intended recipient to become effective. Without consensual acceptance it won't work as brainwashing never has worked in history.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
to suit their own weltanschuung.
"Weltanschauung", se parakalo.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
Otto wrote: "Romans 1:26-1:27" It looks like you're taking Romans out of context :) When you examine Romans as a whole, and account for the historical times, it is clear that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

Romans interpretation by scholars

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols.

(Continued)
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.
It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.
Ratio can be offered, but then it has to be accepted by the intended recipient to become effective. Without consensual acceptance it won't work as brainwashing never has worked in history.

You're completely correct. I can only hope you didn't take my statement literally or as preference.
I wonder if there are observed examples in modern-day primitive societies which might bear this out?
Thailand comes to mind.
shadow_man
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2010
Romans continued
Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

Therefore, it is very obvious that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
otto wrote: "I don't recall ever seeing anything about the scientific 'benefits' of homosexuality to the species."

You obviously missed my link =)
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.
Much like eunichs in the harem eh?
While I don't appreciate the unreasonably simplifying notion of "alpha males" (which serves the one and only purpose of yielding a projection role for dissatisfied male individuals of the species homo sapiens), I neither see any reason for using the relation "much like" when comparing homosexuals and harem eunuchs, my main reproach being the (un- or intentional) omission of the consent factor.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
Alpha males and homosexual males share one very common characteristic. They both know that sexual attraction is not a choice. The alpha male knows that females dig the "bad guy", while the beta males don't get any sex because they do not realize that very fact. In the same way, homosexual males know that sexual attraction is not a choice as well.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
When you examine Romans as a whole, and account for the historical times, it is clear that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

Romans interpretation by scholars
-who differ with other scholars who have diametrically opposed 'interpretations' to theirs.

Your holy book is infinitely redefinable by anyone with an agenda to foist. But as far as context goes, and from an historical perspective, the bible as a whole vilifies homosexuality and, by extention, so does your god.

Xians throughout history have universally condemned the practice- except within the confines of monasteries and nunneries, where those who had been graced by god from birth were bound by no laws save their own judgement. Charlemagne himself felt compelled to issue a writ condemning the debauchery there.

Not only xians condemn it; ahmedinijad can declare that 'there are no homosexuals in iran' because his own book tells him so.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2010
Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.
Much like eunichs in the harem eh?
While I don't appreciate the unreasonably simplifying notion of "alpha males" (which serves the one and only purpose of yielding a projection role for dissatisfied male individuals of the species homo sapiens), I neither see any reason for using the relation "much like" when comparing homosexuals and harem eunuchs, my main reproach being the (un- or intentional) omission of the consent factor.
Eunachs were chosen to be harem administraters expressly because they posed no threat of surreptitious impregnation, the issue SH pointed out.

AGAIN, you allow your emotions to totally preempt your understanding. Can you see this for the problem that it is? Freaking hell. Unglaublich.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.
Ratio- reason? Reason can prevail only among relatively undamaged and well-constructed minds. Something we have a chance to increase the ratio of in the general populace through mandatory prenatal screening and therapy.
"Weltanschauung", se parakalo.
AGAIN, too many freaking letters. Germany ought to accept the concept that letters can be pronounced different ways in different words, and thereby save a lot of typing.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: I have read both sides. -One side (The anti-gay side) cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it's wrong with no evidence.
They even added the word "homosexual," a word that wasn't even used this way till the 1800's.

-The other side actually looks at and relates the historical times, provides plenty of evidence using the Bible itself, looks at the Bible as a whole, relates the context to other lines and passages, interprets them properly, doesn't distort their meaning, translates the Greek words properly and sees how they are used in various locations of the Bible to get a clear definition, and provides sufficient evidence. It's easy to see why the latter wins out.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2010
Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship.
Uh, no it wasn't.
Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities.
No, that's not true either.
Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.
Christian and Jewish law are quite clear that immoral acts were effectively anything other than face to face heterosexual interaction for purposes of having a child. Perhaps you should re-read the book, especially where Jesus commands his followers to be more knowledgable than the Pharisees in matters of spiritual law.

Since you're playing the Greek translation role, would you care to translate this line for me?

ie Sous Khristos
otto1923
3 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: I have read both sides. -One side (The anti-gay side) cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it's wrong with no evidence.
You're wrong. All sides cherry pick to support their views.

The bible is a vast cloud of amorphous bullshit that can say whatever you want it to say. It might mean something if god were real or if souls existed, but he isn't and they don't.

The bible was written by philosopher scholars for wholly sociopolitical reasons. They were concerned with what the people did in THIS life and knew full well there was no place to go after death but back to the dust.

Beyond that, it does tell us a great deal about exactly how they intended to create Order out of chaos in this world, and for that it is a brilliant mystery.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.
Oh I would say, and if you were being objective and detached you would agree with me, that 90% of the sex people are having today is little more than mutual masturbation.

I'm not saying it's wrong, for me personally it seems pointless and distasteful, but it does work very well to retard population growth and so it's a good thing. You should just know that this is why it is encouraged today, and vilified in the past when the First Priority was filling up the world with more of us and fewer of them. You are a demographic Tool. Embrace it.
croghan27
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Oh I would say, and if you were being objective and detached you would agree with me, that 90% of the sex people are having today is little more than mutual masturbation.


some snipping of otto's comment occurred.

While 'mutual masturbation' may have something to do with sex these day - but it is such an intimate and personal act that it may be a mistake to attribute one single cause. There are all sorts of things like personal affirmation and conventional expressions of affection involved.

To see gay sex as a population controlling mechanism seems to be to be an unintended result of the process and rather a pie-in-the-sky conclusion. As well, I am not sure that it does work - as SH pas pointed out role reversing increases maternal impulses.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
To see gay sex as a population controlling mechanism seems to be to be an unintended result of the process and rather a pie-in-the-sky conclusion.
Not when seen in concert with other social developments: the reversal of mores throughout society; abortion legalization, decriminalization of extramarital sex, pornography, and masturbation, women in traditional male professions, destruction of the traditional family and church influence, etc.

Taken as a whole, the most substantial effect of these social changes has been the drastic reduction in growth of western populations, allowing for immigration of third worlders and the further re-homogenization of the species.
croghan27
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2010
Not when seen in concert with other social developments: the reversal of mores throughout society; abortion legalization, decriminalization of extramarital sex, pornography, and masturbation, women in traditional male professions, destruction of the traditional family and church influence, etc.

Taken as a whole, the most substantial effect of these social changes has been the drastic reduction in growth of western populations, allowing for immigration of third worlders and the further re-homogenization of the species.


One of the stronger arguments in favour of legal abortions is that abortions will and do happen despite any legal status. Legalizing it just makes it safer.

As for extra-marital sex - are you saying that this is a new thing??? Look to the history of the Kings (and Queens) of England to see this is not a new thing.
Pornography? That is in the eye of the beholder - see some SE Asian temples and their stimulating art works.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
masturbation is a new thing? Aux contrare, mon amie.

women in unconventional occupations?? Not sure what you mean there - farming is a very difficult occupation and the majority of farmers in the world are women ....

le plus ca change, le plus ca le meme chose ...

As for the homogenizing of a gene pool by immigration - this is only a reverse method of the usual, one of the 'spoils' of war as allowing the rape of the enemies women - thereby diluting any gene pool.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
One of the stronger arguments in favour of legal abortions is that abortions will and do happen despite any legal status. Legalizing it just makes it safer.
You guys are so hopelessly myopic:
http://www.johnst...310.html
-1 BILLION abortions worldwide. There are not enough coathangers in this world... Whatever spin we've been handed, whether 'right to choose' or 'freedom' or whatever, can remotely equal the impact of this obvious massive depopulation effort.
masturbation is a new thing? Aux contrare, mon amie.
Masturbation and fornication USED to be felonies.
women in unconventional occupations?? Not sure what you mean there - farming is a very difficult occupation and the majority of farmers in the world are women ....
Youre feigning ignorance? Why? Women were encouraged to seek higher education in the 20th cent and become professionals. more time in school and the office = less time to bear and raise children.
croghan27
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010

Youre feigning ignorance? Why? Women were encouraged to seek higher education in the 20th cent and become professionals. more time in school and the office = less time to bear and raise children.

You leave no room for rational decisions here? A woman's right to chose encompasses the choice to have a baby or not.

it is an intellectual decision, not a sociological or scheduling one.

qnd again - all sorts of things have been at one time of another against laws .... but I submit there have been wankers all along. :)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
You leave no room for rational decisions here? A woman's right to chose encompasses the choice to have a baby or not.
Rational decisions, right to choose = a few million?
Population control = 1 BILLION and their decendents = 1/5 the population of the WORLD.
it is an intellectual decision, not a sociological or scheduling one.
1/5 the population of the WORLD not being born, does not equal intellectual decisions. Use your freaking mind.
I submit there have been wankers all along
-and those who were caught doing it were labeled deviates, disowned by their families, thrown out of the community and tossed into prison. And excommunicated, possibly the worst punishment. You ARE naive, or possibly uninformed, or probably both.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
One of the stronger arguments in favour of legal abortions is that abortions will and do happen despite any legal status. Legalizing it just makes it safer.
Hundreds of 1000s of women have been maimed, rendered sterile, or have died as a result of legalized abortions.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic: "Uh, no it wasn't." "No, that's not true either."

Lol, nice arguments. Now wheres your proof? Oh thats right! The anti-gay side never offers valid proof =)

"Perhaps you should re-read the book, especially where Jesus commands his followers to be more knowledgable than the Pharisees in matters of spiritual law."

I have re-read the book, all of it, not 4 passages that you pick out and try to twist God's words.

"Since you're playing the Greek translation role, would you care to translate this line for me?

ie Sous Khristos"

Ahh, either bad trolling, or bad reading comprehension. Which one is it? I never said i was a biblical scholar. However, i cite the sources of biblical scholars and historians to prove my point.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: "You're wrong. All sides cherry pick to support their views. "

Lol, OoooO, more comments without any backup :) I have clearly proven how your side takes lines out of context. Unfortunately for you, you haven't done the same for my side, because you can't :) My side takes the whole bible into account. As an example, one of my websites gives every instance of abomination in the old testament, and proves that it's always associated with idolatry.

"The bible is a vast cloud of amorphous bullshit that can say whatever you want it to say."

While i can agree with you to an extent on this, my "bullshit" has more evidence going for it than the anti-gay's sides "bullshit" =)

"They were concerned with what the people did in THIS life and knew full well there was no place to go after death but back to the dust"

If you're trying to turn this into an athiest vs theist debate, i don't care about that subject =) I'm arguing about homosexuality, not whether or not God exists.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: "Oh I would say, and if you were being objective and detached you would agree with me, that 90% of the sex people are having today is little more than mutual masturbation. "

But most gay couples are not having mutual masturbation nor idol sex nowadays. Most of it is real sex. What's your point? =)
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
Otto wrote: "You guys are so hopelessly myopic"

If you're trying to troll, you are doing it all wrong :) A good troll incites anger. But none of the people in here look angered or even annoyed. Merely getting responses is not trolling, because anyone can do that. What makes a troll unique is their ability to incite anger. If you've managed to talk to us for this long, and haven't even raised a hair on our skins, you are clearly doing something very wrong. =) 4chan-type trolling fails 99% of the time because it is very obvious, and uses the same techniques that veteran users can easily see.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic: "Uh, no it wasn't." "No, that's not true either."

Lol, nice arguments. Now wheres your proof? Oh thats right! The anti-gay side never offers valid proof =)
You might want to understand my views before you profess to call me antigay. Secondly, you may want to cite your own sources before you attempt to state there's a lack on my side.
ie Sous Khristos"

Ahh, either bad trolling, or bad reading comprehension. Which one is it? I never said i was a biblical scholar. However, i cite the sources of biblical scholars and historians to prove my point.

You're not proving anything. Your religion is horridly contrary to your stance. If you don't believe in it why say you do and go through the ridiculous contortions you're doing here?

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-gay, nor am I a fan of any form of descrimination based upon religious edict and ignorance.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
skeptic heretic wrote "You might want to understand my views before you profess to call me antigay. Secondly, you may want to cite your own sources"

Lol what? I already cited my own sources. And you have clearly not provided evidence of your views.

"You're not proving anything. Your religion is horridly contrary to your stance."

Lol, and this my friend, is what we call intolerance. The difference is though, i have backed up my views with links, evidence, and logic, which you have failed to do.

"If you don't believe in it why say you do and go through the ridiculous contortions you're doing here?"

Ahhhh, more claims without evidence i see.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: "You're wrong. All sides cherry pick to support their views. "

Lol, OoooO, more comments without any backup :)
All of xian history backs me up. Your progressive interpretation is new to this era and certainly rare among xians today.
But most gay couples are not having mutual masturbation nor idol sex nowadays. Most of it is real sex. What's your point? =)
I would say that enduring, monogamous gay 'couples' are in a minority, and so would you.

I would say, to cite only one example of 1000s of incidents which happen every day in pickup joints and restrooms around the world, that George Michaels was not looking to express 'love' of anything but the big 'O' when he propositioned that undercover cop in a toilet not so long ago. And Cosmo is not teaching women how to express their love by telling them how to experience the perfect orgasm.
If you're trying to troll
Nah, just being observant and commenting on it sincerely. You ARE myopic.
shadow_man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otta wrote: "All of xian history backs me up."

Let's see it then :)

otta wrote "I would say that gay 'couples' are in a minority, and so would you."

They are in the minority, just like black people in America, blue-eyed people, and left-handed people. I don't deny this.

otto wrote: "to cite only one example of 1000s of incidents which happen every day in pickup joints and restrooms around the world"

These incidences happen regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, since straights far outnumber gays, it is logical to assume that those incidences have a far higher occurrence among straight people.

"Nah, just being observant and commenting on it sincerely. You ARE myopic."

More name-calling :D Fail troll is fail.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Let's see it then :)
Ha. Read a history book. I am thinking that, like most other xians, you are being purposely deceptive by misrepresenting what you really know.
These incidences happen regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, since straights far outnumber gays, it is logical to assume that those incidences have a far higher occurrence among straight people.
EXACTLY. So you can conclude that liberated sex today is mostly about the enjoyment of sex, ie mutual masturbation, and not love as you stated earlier. You were either lying then, or if you deny it, lying now.
shadow_man
4 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2010
otta wrote: "Ha. Read a history book. I am thinking that, like most other xians, you are being purposely deceptive by misrepresenting what you really know."

Let me translate what you just said

otta wrote: "I do not have any evidence to back up what i said. I made my argument and now i want you to find the evidence to support my claims"

Lol, it doesnt work that way my friend. You make a claim, you back it up.

otto wrote: "So you can conclude that sex is mostly about the enjoyment of sex, ie mutual masturbation"

Your trolling is becoming more and more obvious. Another common tactic is called circular arguments. You need lessons in the art of trolling my friend. Being that obvious is the weakness of about 99% of the trolls out there nowadays.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Dude, youre a newbie here. What trolls do is try to incite anger, which you are trying, but mostly they are dishonest in their tactics, which you are being extremely. Maybe you want to go expose yourself somewhere else?
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
otto wrote: "Dude, youre a newbie here. What trolls do is try to incite anger, which you are doing, but mostly they are dishonest in their tactics, which you are extremely."

The truth hurts doesn't it :) A lot of trolls realize they aren't as good as they thought they were. If you were good, you would have incited anger in me by now.

otto wrote: "Maybe you want to go expose yourself somewhere else?"

If i was trolling, i wouldn't provide evidence or any links. Looks like you have a lot to learn in the art of trolling.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
otto wrote: "Maybe you want to go expose yourself somewhere else?" And take frajo with you. Shes lost all sense of self respect.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
otto wrote: "Shes lost all sense of self respect."

I don't see that poster being angry, so you have failed against her as well. ^_^
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2010
Lol what? I already cited my own sources. And you have clearly not provided evidence of your views.
No, you said "scholars say", which scholars, provide links or textual references.
Lol, and this my friend, is what we call intolerance. The difference is though, i have backed up my views with links, evidence, and logic, which you have failed to do.
Believing in a single word of the Bible with anything more than the same passing interest that one gives Aesop's fables is illogical. Debating the Bible, a flawed, mistranslated, and obviously manually engineered text is illogical. Calling yourself a gay christian is illogical. Christianity and defense of christianity is illogical. You've done nothing logical whatsoever.
Ahhhh, more claims without evidence i see.

The evidence mounts each time you click submit.

Otto, we're being trolled by someone who is not proficient in the art. I'd recommend we move on.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Du hast es gesagt-
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 07, 2010
Vollstandig.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
skeptic heretic wrote "No, you said "scholars say", which scholars, provide links or textual references."

I said i cited those links, not wrote them =)

skeptic heretic wrote "Debating the Bible, a flawed, mistranslated, and obviously manually engineered text is illogical. Calling yourself a gay christian is illogical. Christianity and defense of christianity is illogical. You've done nothing logical whatsoever."

Ahh, notice how you dodged my links and just resorted to claiming everything "illogical" with no proof :)

skeptic heretic wrote: "Otto, we're being trolled by someone who is not proficient in the art."

If i was trolling, i wouldn't provide any evidence or links. Unfortunately for you, i already knew that you and otto were trying to troll, and failing miserably at it :D
frajo
2 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
There are two camps. The majorities of both camps consist of people whose reactions when being confronted with someone from the other camp are best described as "Pawlowian". Because it doesn't matter how the one from the other camp behaves or what he expresses - the reaction is hostile in any case. Worse: even people from the own camp are treated in this hostile way if they don't participate in some identification ritual which denounces the other camp's inhabitants.

Fortunately, there is always a small minority in both camps who are free enough to talk to eachother without feeling to be forced to daemonize the other party. Where they differ, they agree to disagree.
My brother is one of them, on the other side of the fence. The other day we were chatting about the religious "wars" in our forums. I wasn't surprised at all to learn that he's more disgusted by some people from his own camp.

The great chasm doesn't exist between the two camps. It exists between their lower ranks only.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 08, 2010
Frajo, your folly is that you assume that there are camps in the first place. How would you suggest grouping these people? Which "camp" would I fall into? Would you put Otto and I in the same camp? Would you put Marjon and yourself in the same camp?

This is another illogical argument. You're grouping people by belief or lack of belief. You and I both disagree that there are Unicorns roaming the Midwest as we've never seen them. That doesn't automatically mean that our views on the issues of the Midwest are congruent.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 08, 2010
I think frajo fails to recognize 'hostile' in religious attitudes being expressed where they don't belong, and with the presumption that they are obviously right and can't be questioned.

Religionists are hostile from their first comment. Frajo thinks we need to be 'tolerant' and 'respectful' and 'civil' in responding to this? Is frajo so timid and fearful of confrontation which the religionist ALWAYS initiates with smiles and pleasantries and cute little emoticons?

Frajo sides with those who are pleasant rather than with those who are right, and so forfeits her claim to being a proponent of reason and logic. /$:(b-
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010

I would say, to cite only one example of 1000s of incidents which happen every day in pickup joints and restrooms around the world, that George Michaels was not looking to express 'love' of anything but the big 'O' when he propositioned that undercover cop in a toilet not so long ago. And Cosmo is not teaching women how to express their love by telling them how to experience the perfect orgasm.
If you're trying to troll
Nah, just being observant and commenting on it sincerely. You ARE myopic.


Was that not Larry (Wide Stance) Craig - another one of the 'family values' Republicans?

http://en.wikiped...ry_Craig
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
Was that not Larry (Wide Stance) Craig - another one of the 'family values' Republicans?

Why stop there? Hoiw about we look at all the other moral highground attributes that the religious right expounds upon?

Higher incidences of abortion, unwed mothers, violent crime, std infection, divorce, domestic violence, and on and on and on amongst "conservative christians". All statistics available from the Barna Research Group.
http://www.barna.org/

What's even more humorous is how they project their social poisons upon those of us who not only know better, but also act better.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
frajo:

The following people are trolls:

skeptic heretic
otto

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 08, 2010
For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun.
Debating YECs and brutally ignorant people about scientific matters is not fun, it is necessary.
They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality.
Strawman argument, when did either Otto or myself say that gay marriage is verbotten or that homosexuality is wrong?

I've stated and questioned you on one thing and one thing only: your belief in the Christian God, when the edicts of Christianity call for your death due to your preference in sexual partners.

I've called you out on your intellect, not your topic of choice. Your continual restatement that I'm antigay rights is pure trolling.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
Continued: They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.
shadow_man
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
skeptic_heretic wrote: "Debating YECs and brutally ignorant people about scientific matters is not fun, it is necessary."

Lol, you actually thought i was gonna let you troll another poster :D Think again my friend.

skeptic_heretic wrote: "Strawman argument, when did either Otto or myself say that gay marriage is verbotten or that homosexuality is wrong?"

OoooO, now trying to take what i say out of context. I am talking about trolls in general =) But of course, that's a common tactic trolls use.

skeptic_heretic wrote: "I've stated and questioned you on one thing and one thing only: your belief in the Christian God, when the edicts of Christianity call for your death due to your preference in sexual partners."

I've already disproved that above :)
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
You've proven your stripe. Enjoy the moderator ban hammer, whenever they get around to it.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 08, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic wrote: "Enjoy the moderator ban hammer, whenever they get around to it."

Sorry, but i have not broken any rules :) And i will continue to make people aware of your trolling.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
I generally agree with shadow man (on the Biblical issues).

I too have generally found that the ultra-conservative (hateful) types are the least aware of the actual content and context of the Word.

Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate - but rather to love (even our enemies). Therefore, haters are not acting as faithful followers.

It's very sad really... very sad, indeed.
croghan27
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
Hold on thar shadow person .... am I missing something here - are you a moderator - or one of the people that (both) Sceptic H and otto rail against - mostly those that refuse to accept evidence of anything that runs contrary to their views. (even as their views tend to differ.)

I have bumped into both of them in other 'threads' and while I may not agree with them, they are certainly entitled to their opinions. I have learned from both of them.

If there is any 'odd-man-out' (no matter what gender) it is you for slagging other posters.

Now, let us get back to a discussion of the article - I have found many of the entries enlightening.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2010
Hold on thar shadow person .... am I missing something here - are you a moderator - or one of the people that (both) Sceptic H and otto rail against
Nah, he's an embarassingly naive gay xian troll- He doesnt understand what a community is because hes no doubt quickly thrown out of them-
Now, let us get back to a discussion of the article - I have found many of the entries enlightening.
Good idea.
Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate
Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
Jesus came to spread hatred and destruction- with smiles and loving care- because thats what revolutionaries do in order to succeed.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' -Matt10

-Jesus taught his sheep how to be martyrs, how to destroy everything they cared about, including themselves, in order to overthrow the accepted norm.

OT = war and conquest;
NT = revolt- war from within.

The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?
croghan27
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Does an attempt by 'clinicians' to abolish gay homosexuality qualify as a 'hate'. It may be no end of misguided, but hate?

I have a copy of "the Skeptics Annotated Bible' on my hard drive ..searching for it I found this, 'Homosexuality in the Bible' - a quick read shows the Bible to be somewhat ambivalent toward gay behaviour, even as it the measures are extreme.

http://www.skepti...long.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
I have a copy of "the Skeptics Annotated Bible' on my hard drive ..searching for it I found this, 'Homosexuality in the Bible' - a quick read shows the Bible to be somewhat ambivalent toward gay behaviour, even as it the measures are extreme.
Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. "
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Sorry for the double post but Lev 20:13 makes the punishment for such acts plain as well.

"Lev.20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.

In any event, the practice that the title leads one to believe is the reasoning for the research is ethically deplorable.
frajo
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
If there is any 'odd-man-out' (no matter what gender) it is you for slagging other posters.
You obviously didn't read most of otto1923's comments. He ought to get this award.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2010
The following people are trolls:

skeptic heretic
otto
Skeptic_Heretic may sometimes be not too heretical and sometimes not too skeptical, but he is definitely not a troll. On the contrary, he's contributing a lot of valuable comments.

otto1923 sometimes tries really hard to give the impression of being a troll but don't let yourself be deceived. Behind his coarse behaviour and his predilection for what he perceives as being imperial thinking there is an alert mind eager to learn.

I'd define a troll as being someone who is no way interested in discussing any topic but either misuses the forum to spread advertisement or knowingly tries to disrupt discussions or somehow tries to bring the forum down.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
If there is any 'odd-man-out' (no matter what gender) it is you for slagging other posters.
You obviously didn't read most of otto1923's comments. He ought to get this award.
Only in response to nonsense.
there is an alert mind eager to learn.
Frajo offers capitulation in the form of compliments? How droll.

"12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind..." Ecc1
-And then the heavenly chorus chimes in and tells The Teacher how to calm his heart and add Meaning to the world:
"1 There is a [PROPER] time for everything [INEVITABLE],
and a season for every activity under heaven... 8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace." -Ecc3
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Nah, that's just his cynicism coming through. He teaches love, but knows many won't accept the lesson.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Nah, that's just his cynicism coming through. He teaches love, but knows many won't accept the lesson.
Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?
Nah, only the Old Testament does that. The new testament just concedes that it's man's nature to be violent. To Say otherwise, would be presumptuous (to say the least!) Truly, Jesus taught peace. But, not being stupid, he knew only a relative few would accept the lesson.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?
Nah, only the Old Testament does that. The new testament just concedes that it's man's nature to be violent. To Say otherwise, would be presumptuous (to say the least!) Truly, Jesus taught peace. But, not being stupid, he knew only a relative few would accept the lesson.
Jesus led his followers into jerusalem on the hebrews holiest day, marched into the temple, threw out all the lawful currency traders there, and confronted the sadducees face to face and told them he was their king. He then calmly awaited martyrdom as an example for the millions who would follow. This is a clear expression of audacity, of Force of Will. Not Peace.

You cant have revolution without martyrs. Jesus taught the world how to do this as no one else ever had.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.
Wouldn't that be like blaming every mistake you ever made on your teachers? And, since teachers know you won't absorb all the information they provide, wouldn't that similarly mean they intend for you to screw up?

It's a teacher conspiracy! :)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.
Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Jesus led his followers into jerusalem on the hebrews holiest day, marched into the temple, threw out all the lawful currency traders there, and confronted the sadducees face to face and told them he was their king. He then calmly awaited martyrdom as an example for the millions who would follow. This is a clear expression of audacity, of Force of Will. Not Peace.

You cant have revolution without martyrs. Jesus taught the world how to do this as no one else ever had.
And this is why democracy perseveres. He taught us to question authority, and the status quo. How is that a bad thing?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.
Wouldn't that be like blaming every mistake you ever made on your teachers? And, since teachers know you won't absorb all the information they provide, wouldn't that similarly mean they intend for you to screw up?

It's a teacher conspiracy! :)
The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
And this is why democracy perseveres. He taught us to question authority, and the status quo. How is that a bad thing?
'He' taught us to hate and kill and ruin and exterminate and suffer and die to accomplish these things, and to feel that it was gods will and so not to feel reluctant or unenthusiastic about it.

And yes it is not a bad thing because it was absolutely necessary because the inevitable alternatives were all FAR WORSE and suicidal. Those who invented the biblical characters were the Ultimate Pragmatists.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New. That the Old Testament law is to be set aside is both in the Old Testament (where it predicts the New Covenant) and in the New Testament. "Hebrews" comes to mind as a good resource (off the cuff). By "fulfilling the Law," He means it's done... finished... kaput.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New. That the Old Testament law is to be set aside is both in the Old Testament (where it predicts the New Covenant) and in the New Testament. "Hebrews" comes to mind as a good resource (off the cuff). By "fulfilling the Law," He means it's done... finished... kaput.
Maybe in your particular sect or denomination.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.
Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.

Seriously, it was primarily written by believers and scholars, not politicians. That some happened to have political connections is largely irrelevant, as they obviously weren't well enough connected (hence the persecutions).
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.
Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.

Seriously, it was primarily written by believers and scholars, not politicians. That some happened to have political connections is largely irrelevant, as they obviously weren't well enough connected (hence the persecutions).
Bullshit. You too are critically Naive. See a [witch]doctor.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Maybe in your particular sect or denomination.
Like I said, few (self-described) Christians actually know the content and context of their own Book. Realization of this initiated the Protestant movement, but sadly, people often fall into apathy and let wannabe leaders tell them what to believe.

Like Jesus, they need to question authority. They need to question the status quo. Unfortunately, few are willing to shoulder the responsibility.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Bullshit. You too are critically Naive. See a [witch]doctor.
That's not much of an argument. What happened? Did you run out of steam?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Okok, I was pressed for time-
Alizee you don't seem to be the type who would necessarily trust everything you read? We can tell what these designer religions are for by observing what they have accomplished and how they did it. Xians greatest effect on the world was not what it said it would do, saving souls, which there can never and never has to be any proof of whatsoever, but in the consolidation of much of the world under a common cultural norm by Force. In studying the whole phenomenon one eventually realizes that such a social force could not have accomplished this unless it had, in fact, been Designed for the Purpose. One must conclude that it's Form was not happenstance but a concerted, conscious effort designed to accomplish exactly what it did in this world. It's accomplishments were wholly sociopolitical, and so it must have been conceived by scholar philosophers, probably those in places like Alexandria or tarsus.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Supposing that is true, who then is the architect?

Also, I am not Alizee. I have only the one screen name (no sockpuppets).
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Philos back then were primarily political in the spirit of Plato and Aristotle- they were pragmatic sociologists who sincerely wanted to find the best ways to govern people and preserve their culture. It was apparent to them that in order to do this into the indefinite future it was not enough to order their own little corner of the world; they would have to conquer all of it or inevitably be overrun by the vast hordes of humanity which surrounded them.

And so we can see how they began to conquer and consolidate ever larger regions, by convincing the leaders there that they both shared a common enemy- that being the people they struggled to govern. They conspired to pit their people against one another in constructive ways, by giving them these religions to convince them who was in Charge, who was their enemy at any given point in time, and what they needed to do about it in order to preserve their place in eternity.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Supposing that is true, who then is the architect?
Who knows? Doesn't matter. A trap set for all those enamored with the Star Culture. Only matters what They did, and are doing, and Why.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
...it must have been conceived by scholar philosophers, probably those in places like Alexandria or tarsus.
Wow. You give a lot of cedit to those ancients. Do you really think they could possibly predict that something they supposedly made up would so change the world?

It seems it's you that's making up the fairytales now! LOL.

Can you say, "conspiracy"
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Who knows? Doesn't matter. A trap set for all those enamored with the Star Culture. Only matters what They did, and are doing, and Why.
Who? Doing what? Why?
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Otto is a confirmed troll :) Prove him wrong with facts, but never let him incite anger, that's what he wants.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Otto is a confirmed troll :) Prove him wrong with facts, but never let him incite anger, that's what he wants.
I'm not angry. Do I appear angry?

What I am is amused.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.
No, but you might concede upon reflection that people like Nero and Constantine did a great deal to tailor the emergent form of roman Catholicism, by Force, in culling all xians whose beliefs did not conform. And Jews of course. Xianity was a powerful backfire set against Hebrew proselytism which had threatened to engulf empire. In the end Rome had to destroy the entire state.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Nah, you don't appear angry at all. I'm just giving you a heads up that he's a troll =)
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
No, but you might concede upon reflection that people like Nero and Constantine did a great deal to tailor the emergent form of roman Catholicism, by Force, in culling all xians whose beliefs did not conform. And Jews of course. Xianity was a powerful backfire set against Hebrew proselytism which had threatened to engulf empire. In the end Rome had to destroy the entire state.
So you're saying they had to cut out their own heart, to spite themselves?

Hmm... Maybe it's that man must believe in something. For you, perhaps your rejection of religion forces you to find these ...substitutions.

Well, it's been amusing, but I must go now. Have a nice day. :)
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
Wow. You give a lot of cedit to those ancients. Do you really think they could possibly predict that something they supposedly made up would so change the world?
Why would you necessarily discredit them? They knew the configuration of the solar system, the size of our planet, geometry, medicine, etc. They had 1000s of years of civilizations to study, what worked and what didn't. And they knew all about animal husbandry and the fact that humans were indeed animals:
"18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" -ecc3
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
They knew how to be Shepherds.

Ever read platos Republic? It couldn't be more explicit.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New.
That's NOT what the passage says. 'Jesus' is very explicit here and elsewhere that the NT is an extention of the OT- it's why they are canon. Jesus and the disciples quote the Law and the prophets, major and minor, many times. Of course, heresies in your particular cult or coven may differ.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2010
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

Then one would wonder why Jesus would instruct those who wish to be Christian to be "of greater knowledge of the laws than the Pharisees".

I hear often that Jesus came through and changed all the rules but this doesn't jive with Christian dogma. If Jesus is an avatar of God as Christianity holds then why would he change his mind if he is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and not subject to causality? Just a few logical reasons for this would be
1. God doesn't exist and Jesus was a philosopher on the human condition. His divinity is a mortal invention
2. God exists but Jesus was not his avatar and Chirstianity is wrong
3. It's a total sham and JC did not exist.

All equally valid and, given the established evidence, more valid than the current dogma of all Christian sects. No one can say there isn't a God, however, once you claim to know something of him you immediately invalidate your stance.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New.
That's NOT what the passage says. 'Jesus' is very explicit here and elsewhere that the NT is an extention of the OT- it's why they are canon. Jesus and the disciples quote the Law and the prophets, major and minor, many times. Of course, heresies in your particular cult or coven may differ.
Obviously, you've been cherry-picking then. Really.

Hebrews 8:6- 8-13. Says that God found fault (yes, fault) with the Old Covenant and replaced (yes, replaced) it with the New Covenant. I quote: "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one."
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
More:

Jeremiah 31:31-31:34 "The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new contract (covenant)... (Looky! It's in the Old Testament!)

Romans 11:25-11:32 This passage is particularly interesting because it talks about the Jews hating the Gospels (as you seem to) and what happens to them in respect to God's prior promise.

Mathew 26:28 "...for this is my blood, sealing the New Covenant."

There is much more, but this is sufficient to get you started.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Then one would wonder why Jesus would instruct those who wish to be Christian to be "of greater knowledge of the laws than the Pharisees".

I hear often that Jesus came through and changed all the rules but this doesn't jive with Christian dogma. If Jesus is an avatar of God as Christianity holds then why would he change his mind if he is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and not subject to causality? Just a few logical reasons for this would be
1. God doesn't exist and Jesus was a philosopher on the human condition. His divinity is a mortal invention
2. God exists but Jesus was not his avatar and Chirstianity is wrong
3. It's a total sham and JC did not exist.

All equally valid and, given the established evidence, more valid than the current dogma of all Christian sects. No one can say there isn't a God, however, once you claim to know something of him you immediately invalidate your stance.
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.
And right there you claim knowledge of a being you cannot have knowledge of. ie: Bearing false witness. If you're a Christian, that's a forbidden practice.

This is the problem with organized religion. Self contradictory and logically impossible to follow. Effectively you can never be good enough, regardless of how good you are at suspending your rational mind.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Uba- I didn't know you were one of those godlovers with self-inflicted myopia. This should be sufficient to get you ended (but somehow I doubt it):
"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -rev22
-and��2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
-The bible is the complete and perfect word of god hisself IN IT'S ENTIRETY. You really shouldn't be claiming that god makes mistakes or forgot something in the OT- you'll burn in the lake of fire with the rest of us.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Let otto set aside his incendiary persona for a moment:
Hebrews 8:6- 8-13. Says that God found fault (yes, fault) with the Old Covenant and replaced (yes, replaced) it with the New Covenant.
Pauls letter to the Hebrews is an argument that the gospel is a continuation of, and not a replacement for, the Law. Throughout the book Paul uses the Law as proof that jesus is a High Priest of a New Covenant (contract), a new agreement to abide by the Law.

Gods first 'covenant' was not faulty in itself. The people he made it with were faulty. 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people..." A covenant is an agreement between parties to abide by the Law. The Law is still valid but god seeks a new agreement with the people to abide by it, the covenant being jesus himself and the NT.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
"9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,

because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,

and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts."

-God makes repeated covenants which are basically agreements to abide by his laws in return for deliverance. His people break these agreements many times but god comes up with new agreements each time. The Laws as described in the OT do not change, only the ways of observing them; xians still practice the ritual sacrifice with the eucharist; the 10 commandments still stand; etc.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.
And right there you claim knowledge of a being you cannot have knowledge of. ie: Bearing false witness. If you're a Christian, that's a forbidden practice.
Wrong. The Bible explains this relationship quite clearly, in many places.

Regardless, just as we can observe the behavior of a parent with his children and make valid assumptions about his feelings for his children - and we can even go so far as to predict probable future behavior - we can likewise do with any other socially interacting group (i.e. God and man).
This is the problem with organized religion. Self contradictory and logically impossible to follow. Effectively you can never be good enough, regardless of how good you are at suspending your rational mind.
Wrong again. There's no being "good enough" to being a Christian. That's the whole point. It's a reconciliation for the fact that no one can be "good enough."
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Wrong. The Bible explains this relationship quite clearly, in many places.
But the Bible isn't the authority on the concept of God. You cannot use the Bible as evidence for nature when it was clearly authored by men, and not by divinity.

Regardless, just as we can observe the behavior of a parent with his children and make valid assumptions about his feelings for his children - and we can even go so far as to predict probable future behavior - we can likewise do with any other socially interacting group (i.e. God and man).
But we are not unique in that respect, and within nature all manner of relationship is represented. That means that the relationship between God and man could parallel anything within nature, including predator and prey, master and slave, torturer and tortured.

Wrong again. There's no being "good enough" to being a Christian.
Then you haven't read your bible. To be a Christian is to follow rules. Xians state that there must be submission
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

-It is not the Law which is obsolete but only the contract the hebrews made with god to abide by it.

"6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.'

-Again it is not the Laws that are new but the ministry of them- the way they are delivered to the people- which has been updated.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
God is offering better and more enticing lies of eternal life (which is really only freedom from the fear of death in this life):

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

-Which Paul blatantly admits to.

Over and over the NT repeats this mantra because it is its most powerful bribe. God promises unending free tickets at NirvanaDisney to compel the people to love only him and his #1 Pudel jesus; and to obey all those appointed by him unto the death, so wahr mir gott helfen.

(the evil otto has returned)
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Uba- I didn't know you were one of those godlovers with self-inflicted myopia.
Technically, I'm not. I'm rather open minded about the whole thing. I simply choose to be a Christian because Jesus is worth believing in - if not for the religion, then for the philosphy.

By helping me look beyond my own selfish needs and desires, being a Christian genuinely helps me to be a better citizen.

Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person. For instance: It taught me to forgive others when they screw up, but more importantly, it taught me to forgive myself when I screw up.

People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.
Well then why isn't that the content of the faith?

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
Now youo've taken the philosophical parts of Christianity and seperated them from the religion. The philosophy of Christianity isn't from Christianity. It's from far earlier sources.

Why keep the detrimental part of the dogma intact to promote the good when the good itself can be performed without the dogma? In short, you can be Christlike without being Christian.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -rev22
In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.
-and��2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
-The bible is the complete and perfect word of god hisself IN IT'S ENTIRETY. You really shouldn't be claiming that god makes mistakes or forgot something in the OT- you'll burn in the lake of fire with the rest of us.
LOL. You bring the beer, I'll start the barbecue.
otto1923
3 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Technically, I'm not. I'm rather open minded about the whole thing. I simply choose to be a Christian because Jesus is worth believing in - if not for the religion, then for the philosphy.
And yet, and yet... you still express the assurance typical of Believers, that their own particular interpretation of the gospels is gospel, and not subject to scrutiny.

Your discounting of the OT for instance... you must know that millions of xians every bit as knowledgable as you hold views opposed to yours, and yet each will not budge unless an epiphany update finds them born again in a new and identical iteration.

Thats the problem when you place 'faith' in something insubstantial. Youre always at odds with people who feel your beliefs are threatening theirs.
Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person.
So would ecstacy, another drug of the same ilk.
Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
I prefer the Truth.
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Let otto set aside his incendiary persona for a moment:
Ahh ...and I was having fun.
Pauls letter to the Hebrews is an argument that the gospel is a continuation of, and not a replacement for, the Law. Throughout the book Paul uses the Law as proof that jesus is a High Priest of a New Covenant (contract), a new agreement to abide by the Law.

Gods first 'covenant' was not faulty in itself. The people he made it with were faulty. 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people..." A covenant is an agreement between parties to abide by the Law. The Law is still valid but god seeks a new agreement with the people to abide by it, the covenant being jesus himself and the NT
Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.
In your opinion. Which differs from millions of other pious godfearing people.
This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.
Dude. It SAYS "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". You sure you dont want to retract that? You dont NEED a barbeque in hell-
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
-God makes repeated covenants which are basically agreements to abide by his laws in return for deliverance. His people break these agreements many times but god comes up with new agreements each time. The Laws as described in the OT do not change, only the ways of observing them; xians still practice the ritual sacrifice with the eucharist; the 10 commandments still stand; etc.
Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.

We keep the Ten Commandments because Jesus told us to, not because it's in the Old Testament. He clearly told us the Old Law was done ..finished ...kaput, save for the Ten Commandments. He then added another: Love others as you'd like to be loved (paraphrased).
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.
No it doesnt. Read my rational, measured arguments again. The covenants are not the OT. The ministries are not the OT. The OT in its entirety- the prophesies, the Laws, the stories, the lineages, all of it- is necessary to justify and legitimize the NT and the identity of jesus as god. Paul and jesus himself both say this.

Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.
Correct, but this is as the invention of Jesus supposedly satisfies the conditions of the OT bringing the need for the NT of Jesus, creating the ideology of Jesus as the Avatar of God. Hence the story of the stolen ass so that the Messiah of the OT prophecy would be fulfilled by the King of the Jews entering their City on a donkey.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.
Correct. It fulfilled the Law; it didnt replace it.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2010
Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.
Correct. It fulfilled the Law; it didnt replace it.

It fulfilled the terms of the Covenant, which was carried by the Ark. That was the original Jewish Law. "In it, rested the essence of God". Jesus was the return of the word in Christianity. Fulfilling the Covenant and replacing it.

It's old Torah prophecy. Uba is correct.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
But the Bible isn't the authority on the concept of God. You cannot use the Bible as evidence for nature when it was clearly authored by men, and not by divinity.
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But we are not unique in that respect, and within nature all manner of relationship is represented. That means that the relationship between God and man could parallel anything within nature, including predator and prey, master and slave, torturer and tortured.
Which only serves to show you can believe any ol' thing you might imagine.

I choose to believe in my beliefs, because they suit me. You're free to make your own choices.
Then you haven't read your bible. To be a Christian is to follow rules. Xians state that there must be submission
Submission to God, not to the rules of men. Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But God cannot be.
Submission to God, not to the rules of men.
But who has made us aware of the rules of God? A man. There are no laws of God that haven't been given to us by anything other than a man. You require extraordinary evidence to make extraordinary statements.
Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).
Then why the concept of Heaven?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
Meaning, of course, it's being replaced.
-It is not the Law which is obsolete but only the contract the hebrews made with god to abide by it.
The Law and the Contract are one and the same.
"6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.'
Meaning, of course, Jesus' teachings supersede the Old Law.
-Again it is not the Laws that are new but the ministry of them- the way they are delivered to the people- which has been updated
If not to you, it's apparent to me that your interpretations are skewed by your own predeterminations.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
God is offering better and more enticing lies of eternal life (which is really only freedom from the fear of death in this life):

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

-Which Paul blatantly admits to.

Over and over the NT repeats this mantra because it is its most powerful bribe. God promises unending free tickets at NirvanaDisney to compel the people to love only him and his #1 Pudel jesus;
A strange way of putting it, but not inaccurate.

and to obey all those appointed by him unto the death, so wahr mir gott helfen.
Wrong. He repeatedly admonishes us to beware of false leaders.

(the evil otto has returned)
LOL.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.
Well then why isn't that the content of the faith?
Presuming you mean as practiced by various churches, that's a very good question ...indeed.
Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
Now youo've taken the philosophical parts of Christianity and seperated them from the religion. The philosophy of Christianity isn't from Christianity. It's from far earlier sources.
But it's all there in one convenient package.
Why keep the detrimental part of the dogma intact to promote the good when the good itself can be performed without the dogma? In short, you can be Christlike without being Christian.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
But it's all there in one convenient package.
I don't think it's all there. There's no statements on the equality of people. No statements against slavery or censorship. No edicts against human rights abuses. It's an incomplete work.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?
The prohibitions against people who don't fit the Christian edicts of personal life, the equality of women. Slavery, etc...
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
And yet, and yet... you still express the assurance typical of Believers, that their own particular interpretation of the gospels is gospel, and not subject to scrutiny.
Really? It's not intended.
Your discounting of the OT for instance... you must know that millions of xians every bit as knowledgable as you hold views opposed to yours,
The Bible teaches us that the majority will get it wrong. Therefore, I prefer to be in the minority.
and yet each will not budge unless an epiphany update finds them born again in a new and identical iteration.
An excellent description of what it is to become a born again Christian!

Thats the problem when you place 'faith' in something insubstantial. Youre always at odds with people who feel your beliefs are threatening theirs.
Well that's true of anything.

Often it's the opposite, faith in the substantial will put you at odds against those with preconceived notions.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person.
So would ecstacy, another drug of the same ilk.
Oh I doubt drugs can make you more compassionate.

Anyway, beyond the obvious problems with drug abuse, drugs take you away from the realities of life. Christianity helps you enjoy the realities of life.
Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
I prefer the Truth.
That is the truth.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.
In your opinion. Which differs from millions of other pious godfearing people
Good. That's how I prefer things.
This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.
Dude. It SAYS "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". You sure you dont want to retract that? You dont NEED a barbeque in hell-
I don't see the conflict.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.
No it doesnt. Read my rational, measured arguments again.
LOL. You crack me up.
The covenants are not the OT. The ministries are not the OT. The OT in its entirety- the prophesies, the Laws, the stories, the lineages, all of it- is necessary to justify and legitimize the NT and the identity of jesus as god. Paul and jesus himself both say this.
That's (presumably) why Jesus told us to hang on to it.
Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.
Looky at that. I apparently presumed correctly! (Or as stated above, I'll grant you the NT is an evolution from the OT.)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
It fulfilled the terms of the Covenant, which was carried by the Ark. That was the original Jewish Law.
Even hebrews confuses the terms 'covenant' and 'Law', which is to be expected in a work written by ? and translated by ? But in reading through hebrews it seems clear that the 2 are distinct:

"18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people..."

The covenant is the promise, the agreement, the pact.

The laws are the things that are being agreed to.

The type of agreement changes. The form the Laws take change. Jesus became the living sacrifice and so ended the need to sacrifice animals (and feed levite priests)- but sacrifice, in jesus, was still part of the Law which still applied.

They say that ecstacy does, in fact, make one more empathic. Maybe more so than the kind of selective empathy that crusaders or inquisitors or phalangists tend to feel, or not.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But God cannot be.
One way of viewing it is He is nature, or He is the essence of nature.
Submission to God, not to the rules of men.
But who has made us aware of the rules of God? A man. There are no laws of God that haven't been given to us by anything other than a man. You require extraordinary evidence to make extraordinary statements.
Actually, the Bible was written by many men, over many generations. Even so, it makes a unique sense when taken in its entirety. Like consciousness inexplicably arises from the apparent chaos of neurons, Truth arises from the apparent chaos of the Bible.
Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).
Then why the concept of Heaven?
Obviously, it serves as an enticement to help folks want to be Christian, but maybe there's more to it...
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
The Law and the Contract are one and the same.
Show me where it states this unequivocally and why you think it does. Please.
The Bible teaches us that the majority will get it wrong. Therefore, I prefer to be in the minority.
Thats what they think about you. Whos right? Neither.
drugs take you away from the realities of life. Christianity helps you enjoy the realities of life.
You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.'

"People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and the absense of pain." -Epicurus
Looky at that. I apparently presumed correctly! (Or as stated above, I'll grant you the NT is an evolution from the OT.)
The OT is indispensible to the NT. You say that its not. Which is it? You cant say its obsolete and yet is still necessary for Pauls argument. Or is Pauls argument superfluous and Jesus just 'is'? Who needs the NT then -?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
But it's all there in one convenient package.
I don't think it's all there. There's no statements on the equality of people. No statements against slavery or censorship. No edicts against human rights abuses. It's an incomplete work.
I'd say The Golden Rule covers that.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?
The prohibitions against people who don't fit the Christian edicts of personal life, the equality of women. Slavery, etc...
What prohibitions? What are you talking about?

Were you raised in the Catholic Church, by any chance?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Show me where it states this unequivocally and why you think it does. Please.
Even better: "The term Torah (...or "law")..."

Source: http://en.wikiped...ical_law

Thats what they think about you. Whos right? Neither.
Perhaps.
You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.'

"People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and the absense of pain." -Epicurus
But again, it's disassociated from reality.
The OT is indispensible to the NT. You say that its not. Which is it? You cant say its obsolete and yet is still necessary for Pauls argument. Or is Pauls argument superfluous and Jesus just 'is'? Who needs the NT then -?
I only said; save for the Ten Commandments, OT law isn't applicable to Christians.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Even better: "The term Torah (...or "law")..."
We're wearing you out i think. Show me where it states that 'Law' and 'covenant' are one in the same (and I will offer an equally credible source to prove that theyre not).
But again, it's disassociated from reality.
So is your religion. Duh.
I only said; save for the Ten Commandments, OT law isn't applicable to Christians.
I think what youre saying is youve lost. Jesus holds no claim to the throne of david without the prophesy and the lineage to back it up. He's just another traveling magician and snake oil salesman.

Paul was only selling more snake oil if the OT was not, in fact, setting the stage for the coming of this new and final Messiah. Sure, you can claim he is, and cherry pick the NT for phrases which say he is, but unless the prophets were talking about jesus and the Law was written with the Lamb in mind, then he is not. The OT must be valid for jesus to be. Jesus didnt abolish sacrifice; he IS sacrifice.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
We're wearing you out i think.
LOL.

Show me where it states that 'Law' and 'covenant' are one in the same (and I will offer an equally credible source to prove that theyre not).
You mean you want redundant terms in the same sentence?

Leviticus 26:15: ...if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant...

Deuteronomy 29:21: ...the covenant written in this Book of the Law...

Psalm 50:16: But to the wicked, God says: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?"

Hosea 8:1: ...the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law.

Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10, and Hebrews 10:16: "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

There's plenty more...
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
(Regarding drug use) You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.
But again, it's disassociated from reality.

So is your religion. Duh.
No it's not. I associate my religion in everyday activities and events. Unlike drugs, it's not an escape from reality. It's an enhancement to reality.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
I think what youre saying is youve lost.
LOL. Hardly!
Jesus holds no claim to the throne of david without the prophesy and the lineage to back it up. He's just another traveling magician and snake oil salesman.
We've already been over this. "That's (presumably) why Jesus told us to hang on to it."
Paul was only selling more snake oil if the OT was not, in fact, setting the stage for the coming of this new and final Messiah.
When did I say it didn't?
Sure, you can claim he is, and cherry pick the NT for phrases which say he is, but unless the prophets were talking about jesus and the Law was written with the Lamb in mind, then he is not.
Didn't you see my Jeremiah reference? Are you not checking my references?
The OT must be valid for jesus to be. Jesus didnt abolish sacrifice; he IS sacrifice.
How can it be applicable when He said it isn't?

Have you ever worked with contracts? When you replace a contract, you usually reference the old contract.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
No it's not. I associate my religion in everyday activities and events. Unlike drugs, it's not an escape from reality. It's an enhancement to reality.
Sez you. Thats what you believe. Doesnt make it real.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
The COVENANT is the promise... to put the LAWS into their minds. They are 2 different things.
How can it be applicable when He said it isn't?
He didnt. Again youre mixing up covenant and law. They are 2 different things.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Leviticus 26:15: ...if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant...
Decrees, laws, commands as agreed to in the covenant; that is, the promise to carry them out.
Deuteronomy 29:21: ...the covenant written in this Book of the Law...[
The covenant- the smaller thing- attached to the larger group of things they were bound to abide by as agreed to in the covenant.
Psalm 50:16: But to the wicked, God says: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?"
Recite...OR take...Speak one OR the other.
Hosea 8:1: ...the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law.
Broken their promise (covenant} by rebelling against my laws. Separate things.

"I swear to uphold the laws of the united states..." -This is the covenant, the promise to uphold the Law. The Law is NOT included in the body of the promise.
Are you not checking my references?
You posted after I did.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Jesus told us to hang on to it.
What do you think he meant exactly by this phrase 'hang on to' -or perhaps he didnt use those exact words?
There's plenty more...
-that you havent read and understood as they were actually written. Youve only presented things that, when properly interpreted, reinforce the fact that the OT and all of its laws, in spirit if not in substance, are an inseparable part of the gospels. Jesus is the embodiment of those Laws, meant by god to be delivered in a brand new form.

Too bad none of it is real and none of it ever happened.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Here is a wiki page that might clarify things:
http://en.wikiped...iblical)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Otto should like to disclose a prophesy at this point in time, it being saturday night in the year of our lord marduk...I have been given a Vision of Great Promise! It appears thusly:

Mel Gibson has one more movie to do. He will give himself the lead role in the production to be called "Joshua". Mel will be leading the unending hordes of israel throughout canaan, destroying, plundering, raping, killing, burning, tearing asunder and otherwise spreading the good word of god across the land. Pillar of smoke by day, fire by night.

So Spraecht OttO
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
-that you havent read and understood as they were actually written. Youve only presented things that, when properly interpreted, reinforce the fact that the OT and all of its laws, in spirit if not in substance, are an inseparable part of the gospels. Jesus is the embodiment of those Laws, meant by god to be delivered in a brand new form.

Too bad none of it is real and none of it ever happened.
If I break a contract, do I literally break it over my knee? No. I break the conditions of the contract.

If I void a contract do I retain the conditions of the contract? No. They are no longer applicable.

If I void a contract and write a new one, saying only these things from the old contract are still applicable, then is the whole old contract still applicable? Of course not.

Obviously, the contract and the conditions of the contract aren't literally the same thing, but in essence ...they are.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Here is a wiki page that might clarify things:
http://en.wikiped...iblical)
You mean like where it says:

In theology and Biblical studies, the word "covenant" principally refers to any of a number of solemn agreements made between God and the children of Israel, ...as well as to the New Covenant, which some Christians consider to be the REPLACEMENT or final FULFILMENT of these, see Supersessionism. (capitalization is mine) and when you click on the supersessionism link you get:

http://en.wikiped...ssionism

...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.

But, you're free to believe whatever you want.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Otto should like to disclose a prophesy at this point in time, it being saturday night in the year of our lord marduk...I have been given a Vision of Great Promise! It appears thusly:

Mel Gibson has one more movie to do. He will give himself the lead role in the production to be called "Joshua". Mel will be leading the unending hordes of israel throughout canaan, destroying, plundering, raping, killing, burning, tearing asunder and otherwise spreading the good word of god across the land. Pillar of smoke by day, fire by night.

So Spraecht OttO
Blasphemy! LOL.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
If I void a contract do I retain the conditions of the contract? No. They are no longer applicable.

If I void a contract and write a new one, saying only these things from the old contract are still applicable, then is the whole old contract still applicable? Of course not.
You could write a new contract which includes new laws in addition to the old, or you could write one which describes new ways of honoring existing laws.

A new contract does not require you to write new laws nor discard the old. It might include new parties (gentiles), updated language, or include provision for new technologies (Jesus the wonderboy)
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
the word "covenant" principally refers to any of a number of solemn agreements made between God and the children of Israel...
Right. A covenant being a "solemn agreements" which the article describes previously, as abiding by various laws.

You did read this:

"That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel" -that is, the covenant in which isreal promises to abide by the Law, as herein attached or referenced thereto.
...as well as to the New Covenant, which some Christians consider to be the REPLACEMENT or final FULFILMENT of these
-To reiterate, the replacement OR final fulfilment; either/or, depending upon whichever Coven you may belong to. The author is describing conflicting beliefs among all you adherents, each one of whom is Sure they got it right.

Semantics got you down? Try german- its much better for discussing this sort of thing. So I'm told.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Supercessionism. Good link. Many options, at most only one of which can be right. But which? Hold on- not door #3, that ones glowing kind of red...

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill." -Matt 5:17-20

-SH posted this one didnt he? I like the option, and I think the pope will agree with me here on this, the one which consolidates OT and NT. The more constraints on the people the better.

The OT is Useful. It is good when the Proper time comes for hating the enemy and fighting them. It is useful when one needs to feel a part of a Chosen Group which deserves salvation instead of others- like when wall st crashes or you want to pass on the shoulder.

It is especially useful for studying Ecclesiastes and understanding how and why the world is so Masterfully under the Control of Empire.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Supercessionism. Good link. Many options, at most only one of which can be right. But which? Hold on- not door #3, that ones glowing kind of red...
That's the beauty of Christianity. You can't blow it. You're forgiven.

The OT is Useful. It is good when the Proper time comes for hating the enemy and fighting them. It is useful when one needs to feel a part of a Chosen Group which deserves salvation instead of others- like when wall st crashes or you want to pass on the shoulder.
(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P

You crack me up.

It is especially useful for studying Ecclesiastes and understanding how and why the world is so Masterfully under the Control of Empire.
But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
"That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel" -that is, the covenant in which isreal promises to abide by the Law, as herein attached or referenced thereto.
Right, because the Old Testament is still in effect. duh. It's just not in effect for everyone. Didn't you read my Romans 11:25-11:32 reference in regard to the Jews?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
Ich spreche kein Deutsch. Zwar hore ich gute Dinge uber sie. Wie ware es mit Schwedisch?

Din skal, min skal, Alla Vackra Flickor skal!
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P
Yeah. Me and Joshua, and the crusaders, etc etc. Sarcasm.
...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.
Hardly, because Otto thinks all you xians are mushheads. =O
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?
uba makes fun of ottos musings? Just remember his theories- though rather hard to believe- are nevertheless possible. The bible is hard to believe because the things it describes are NOT possible.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P
Yeah. Me and Joshua, and the crusaders, etc etc. Sarcasm.
...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.
Hardly, because Otto thinks all you xians are mushheads. =O
Perhaps. But Pascal's Wager is a worth some consideration.

See: http://en.wikiped...'s_Wager
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?
uba makes fun of ottos musings? Just remember his theories- though rather hard to believe- are nevertheless possible. The bible is hard to believe because the things it describes are NOT possible.
I'll concede that many of the stories are parables (a story form of analogy), but who's to say what's truly possible? For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
"even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose"

-I think you lose your allegiance to reason, and at some point you begin to suffer for it. Religions have more than proven their danger to the world. You may think yours is benign, and maybe it is at the moment, but it's existence enables the ones that menace us to exist.

I say none are worth indulging.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 11, 2010
who's to say what's truly possible?
WE are. The species.
For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
If consciousness is not just the grand illusion I think it is, then we'll find out. No need to jump to the wrong conclusions now, is there? Of course not.

We admit we don't know, then set about finding out. That's how it's done.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
Perhaps. But Pascal's Wager is a worth some consideration.

See: http://en.wikiped...'s_Wager
Actually no it isn't. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two options, God or no God. It is fundamentally false as there are a great multitude of gods all of which state explicitly that they are jealous gods and petty towards those who preach another religion.

Effectively your chances drop significantly. With no observational evidence for the existence of any god you have divided up the "with God" side of the pie over 150 different ways, and that's jsut the current Gods, not their predecessors.
For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
Is it possible for an electromagnetic wave to interact with matter all by itself? No of course not. There have to be physical attributes that determine these mechanics, and behind them further rules that govern energy mechanics. The debate is on whether a "who" implemented it.
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
otto: It looks like your trolling is still failing miserably :D
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
Bump

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinfu
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.u...tion.pdf
http://www.newsci...sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnew...,00.html
http://www.livesc...nes.html
http://www.spring...k586276/
shadow_man
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
shadow, no one is disputing whether homosexuality is natural or not, jsut about all of us agree that it is. What we're addressing with you is whether being a Christian homosexual is a logical construct.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
Gaydom is normal. Shadowman is pretty well screwed up.
frajo
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
no one is disputing whether homosexuality is natural or not, jsut about all of us agree that it is. What we're addressing with you is whether being a Christian homosexual is a logical construct.
Whether it's a "logical construct" or not - the rest of the world has to live with it. Is evolution exclusively based on "logical constructs"?
Is altruism a "logical construct"? Is (non-religious) abstinence a "logical construct"?
No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.
However we are greatly limited by the depth of the illogical ones, to the detriment of the individual as well as the species.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.
However we are greatly limited by the depth of the illogical ones, to the detriment of the individual as well as the species.


Cannot totally agree with that one, SH - have you looked at voting patterns in the major democracies lately?

"WE'RE GOING BROKE! QUICK - GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE RICH."
or perhaps the foreign policies:

"LET'S SHOW THESE PEOPLE WILL LOVE THEM AND BOMB THE SNOT OUT TO THEM."
Ethelred
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
Actually no it isn't. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two options, God or no God.


Not quite right. It ALSO assumes that there is only one god and that god is Jehovah. Which is strange since in Exodus Jehovah clearly thinks that there is more than one god.

Thou shalt not have OTHER gods before me.

and there are other signs as well.

Of course there is also the possibility that god is Allah or Odin or something even more psychotic. OR even a god that doesn't want to be worshiped. Might send you to Niffleheim for worshiping it or any other god.

Ethelred
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
Not quite right. It ALSO assumes that there is only one god and that god is Jehovah. Which is strange since in Exodus Jehovah clearly thinks that there is more than one god.
Keeps refering to himself as 'we' also. Implying either committee or psychosis, or at least wife.

Who would want to worship a god that wanted to be worshipped? What a fop.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
Cannot totally agree with that one, SH - have you looked at voting patterns in the major democracies lately?

"WE'RE GOING BROKE! QUICK - GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE RICH."
or perhaps the foreign policies:

"LET'S SHOW THESE PEOPLE WILL LOVE THEM AND BOMB THE SNOT OUT TO THEM."
And who leads these charges?

The most illogical of all, our elected officials. Forget not that in order to be elected to office in the US you must be a believer in some sort of God, or downplay your rational methodology of falsification. I never said the majority of people were logical, if anything, I imply the opposite.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
who's to say what's truly possible?
WE are. The species.
Well, we've often been wrong...
For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
If consciousness is not just the grand illusion I think it is, then we'll find out. No need to jump to the wrong conclusions now, is there? Of course not.
According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real.

We admit we don't know, then set about finding out. That's how it's done.
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
I never said the majority of people were logical, if anything, I imply the opposite.
And how!

I'm convinced that most people are nuts some of the time, and some people are nuts most of the time, but when enough people are nuts at the same time, they screw everything up!

That's it. I'm getting aboad my spaceship now, and leaving this dirtball ...forever! :P
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
Well, we've often been wrong...
Yeah so? This is how we learn. We've often been right- more often than people know.
According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real
Descartes like most state-sponsored philos was a propagandist, charged with spreading the official state weltanschaaung. Philos research with words- as if that ever could work.
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Well, you know, we looked for god, because we want to live forever too ya know? And we looked for him in the first place we're told to look, the bible. But all we found there were mistakes, bad editing, political silliness.

So we had to conclude that if god existed he had to be a malevolent liar because he couldn't even write a competent book. Luckily he's also an impotent god because the only ones who kill heretics like us are indignant self-righteous godders.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 13, 2010
At any rate we can pretty much discount god and move on to learning about things which can really have an impact in our lives and our futures.

Unfortunately, control freaks who want to be the know-it-alls in front of their congregations, but who aren't capable enough to assume positions where they can actually LEARN about what actually is or CONTRIBUTE to finding out, don't want to surrender the god myth and further, will oppose anything which threatens to discount it, and them.

They love watching people jump through hoops when they tell them they have the secret to eternal youth.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2010
According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real.
Rene Descartes was a drunken fart I drink therefor I am. - Monty Python
And that is just as likely to be true. For the drinkers anyway

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that any "being" we've described either in conversation or in the written word does not exist due to the content of the story.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that any "being" we've described either in conversation or in the written word does not exist due to the content of the story.

Yeah? How so?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
Descartes like most state-sponsored philos was a propagandist, charged with spreading the official state weltanschaaung. Philos research with words- as if that ever could work.
So you're saying he was wrong? You think, therefore you're not?

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Well, you know, we looked for god, because we want to live forever too ya know? And we looked for him in the first place we're told to look, the bible. But all we found there were mistakes, bad editing, political silliness.

So we had to conclude that if god existed he had to be a malevolent liar because he couldn't even write a competent book. Luckily he's also an impotent god because the only ones who kill heretics like us are indignant self-righteous godders.
Which part(s) did you read?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
At any rate we can pretty much discount god and move on to learning about things which can really have an impact in our lives and our futures.
As you've attested, the mere belief in God has a significant impact on our lives and futures. Wouldn't it therefore be wise to learn about it?

Unfortunately, control freaks who want to be the know-it-alls in front of their congregations, but who aren't capable enough to assume positions where they can actually LEARN about what actually is or CONTRIBUTE to finding out, don't want to surrender the god myth and further, will oppose anything which threatens to discount it, and them.

They love watching people jump through hoops when they tell them they have the secret to eternal youth.
Sadly, you're not wrong here.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2010
As you've attested, the mere belief in God has a significant impact on our lives and futures
Impact yes good impact, well sometimes. Twenty-five percent of Americans are out of touch with reality to the extent that they will deny that the Bible has contradictions. Fifty percent deny evolution and most of those actually believe in the Flood Story. There was no such flood in the world we live in. That is quite a disconnect from reality and I can't see why anyone rational would think that is a good thing.
Wouldn't it therefore be wise to learn about it?
Learned enough to know that the Bible was written by men with no special knowledge of reality. No more wise than many other religious writers and often showing a tendency to accept psychotic behavior if someone claimed that Jehovah said it was OK to murder people.

Faith had its chance. I think it is just plain wrong to go on faith in denial of reality.

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
Fifty percent deny evolution and most of those actually believe in the Flood Story. There was no such flood in the world we live in.
You need not be religious to notice an astonishing multitude of deluge myths in completely independent cultures around the world.
Thus we can't exclude the possibility that these myths either have (different) real backgrounds or even one common background far back in the past.
One - disputed - hypothesis is that of Ryan-Pitman which could be the origin for the mediterranean myths.
Another one - this is speculation only - could be the Toba eruption about 75000 years ago which would have brought homo sapiens to the brink of extinction.

When the inhabitants of America some centuries ago talked of "white gods" who had arrived we can't dismiss their observations just because their language was that of a mythical culture.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
You need not be religious to notice an astonishing multitude of deluge myths
"I am astonished to see that gambling is happening here".

I astonished that you are astonished. EVERY culture has had major floods. So every culture will have a myth. Not counting the ones that borrowed the Jewish myth after hearing about it. One of the TWO Greek flood myths is clearly newer and clearly based on the Bible.

myths either have (different) real backgrounds or even one common background far back in the past.


We can't exclude the possibility that either A or Not A is true or false or both either.
hypothesis is that of Ryan-Pitman
Don't know that one.
Another one - this is speculation only - could be the Toba eruption about 75000 years ago


No. Waayy too far back and not needed.

THIS ONE covers the Eastern Mediterranean.

Oh this is Ryan-Pitman:
http://en.wikiped...e_theory

Con
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
tinued

Why didn't you say the Black Sea? This is what I think of for that:
http://www.nation...sea.html

Ballard's work is what I read about a decade ago.

And not many Flood believing Christians think that was the one in the Bible. It was too long ago and not world wide. However it is real and likely the source of the Sumerian myth which is the source of the Biblical myth.

Emphasis on myth or in this case nearly lost legend. 2500 years before being recorded in cuneiform. Well the Persians still tell horror stories about Iskander.

Now for a REALLY BIG flood. But no one remembered this one. No humans around. Barely even any early apes.

http://en.wikiped...an_flood
http://news.bbc.c...4363.stm

None of this however is the Biblical flood, killing all but 8 humans and covering the highest mountain. That is what the Fundamentalists and many non-Fundamentalists believe. Which is a disconnect from reality.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
Yeah? How so?

Go through any story of "God" and list each and every attribute granted, then ask yourself "how did someone determine this without direct revelation" then recognize that all direct revelation stories match up very closely to the madness found in each and every assylum in the country. Inconsistency and self contradiction further the thought that the codified gods don't exist.

Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
And not many Flood believing Christians think that was the one in the Bible. It was too long ago and not world wide. However it is real and likely the source of the Sumerian myth which is the source of the Biblical myth.
An interesting hypothesis was put forth i think by jared Diamond? who speculated that the garden of eden was actually the plain now covered by the Persian gulf.

He identified the 4 rivers mentioned in genesis and speculated the existance of a proto-civilization there which was the source of the earliest ones we are aware of- the indus, egyptian, sumerian, etc. This area was inundated, gradually or in a series of storm surges or the like, as waters rose at the end of the last ice age.

Reference also Graham Hancock, 'Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization' (ya I know its not science) about coastal regions now underwater. Rising waters in coastal flood plains could generate many independent legends which might tend to grow and merge over time.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
When the inhabitants of America some centuries ago talked of "white gods" who had arrived we can't dismiss their observations just because their language was that of a mythical culture.
Yes there and elsewhere; another widespread and apparently independently-generated myth, exploited in 'chariots of the gods' and other alien nonsense.

They were actually very human Enochian emissaries of Empire, sent to share Knowledge of the mutual Problems all leaders had in common in governing exploding populations; and Their own creative Methods in how to deal with these Problems.

And so the people were divided up according to Plan, and set against each other in creative Conflict; and also employed in building great piles of stones to expend their energy and reduce their growth. They built 25k miles of paved roads, also bridges and dams, which were of little use to them but were essential in gathering up all the gold by conquistadors. This too would in effect be repeated elsewhere.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
You're being very cryptic here uba but it seems like what you're saying is that 'it' won't work unless everybody believes the same things you do, right? If so then you're faith is consistant with other beliefs. They all need theirs to be the ONLY religion.

You understand this is the main reason why religions are so foul? ALL hide behind the same general moral code, which they think is exclusively theirs. All will use this moral self-assurance to criticize, condemn, vilify and exclude; and NONE will yield because their very souls are at stake. There are no Good religions.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 15, 2010
And of course they ALL exclude those who reject the concept of god or a soul entirely, but few really make a distinction between atheist and other-religionist: all are unbelievers, all are a threat, as I think you are saying, yes?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
One thing I've been thinking about recently, is the Fall from Grace and it's relationship to religionism. Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and suddenly realize they are naked, and are ashamed.

I always considered the 'good and evil' part as creative editing, like victorian fig leaves on Renaissance statues, but consider this: the snake tempts them to eat, and afterward they acquire morals. Who is the traditional Steward of social mores in society, but the church?

Satan gave the couple a sense of morals in defiance of gods will, and this is why they were banished. Is genesis warning that the false morality of organized religion is the gift of Satan?

So many things religions have done in the name of selective morality can be considered evil, and we can find the source of this in genesis. Our 'Fall from Grace' was away from 'god' and toward the corruption of religion. Yes indeed.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
You're being very cryptic here uba but it seems like what you're saying is that 'it' won't work unless everybody believes the same things you do, right? If so then you're faith is consistant with other beliefs. They all need theirs to be the ONLY religion.
Well, if I claimed to understand Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and insisted it was about rogue robots taking over the world, would you agree I truly understood Hamlet? Why would you knock my personal interpretation?

Claiming you understand a literary work and truly getting it, are not the same thing.

In the case of the Bible, for instance, many religious leaders (whether intentional or not) teach hateful dogma that's simply contrary to the content and context of the Bible.

I'm not saying eveyone should believe exactly as I do (if they did, I'd know I was doinig it wrong), but rather the Bible (like any other literay work) conveys specific information that can generally be stipulated. One of which is to not be a hater.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
You understand this is the main reason why religions are so foul? ALL hide behind the same general moral code, which they think is exclusively theirs. All will use this moral self-assurance to criticize, condemn, vilify and exclude; and NONE will yield because their very souls are at stake. There are no Good religions.
It seems you're quite happily criticizing, condemning, and vilifying. Why would you expect anyone else to be any different? (rhetorical)

Obviously, you expect religions to hold to a "higher" moral code than your own. Why is that?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
One thing I've been thinking about recently, is the Fall from Grace and it's relationship to religionism. Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and suddenly realize they are naked, and are ashamed.

I always considered the 'good and evil' part as creative editing, like victorian fig leaves on Renaissance statues, but consider this: the snake tempts them to eat, and afterward they acquire morals.
My personal interpretation of this is it's simply a reference to human sentience. Sentience sets us apart from the natural world (i.e. Eden).
Who is the traditional Steward of social mores in society, but the church?
Perhaps traditionally, but not legally.
Satan gave the couple a sense of morals in defiance of gods will, and this is why they were banished. Is genesis warning that the false morality of organized religion is the gift of Satan?
Morality cannot be "false." It's subjective to individuals and societies.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
In the case of the Bible, for instance, many religious leaders (whether intentional or not) teach hateful dogma that's simply contrary to the content and context of the Bible.
In your opinion. You forgot to say 'in my opinion...' -see? This is how it starts.
I'm not saying eveyone should believe exactly as I do (if they did, I'd know I was doinig it wrong),
oh Please
but rather the Bible (like any other literay work) conveys specific information that can generally be stipulated. One of which is to not be a hater.
Maybe you're a hater too but you don't feel it because you're enshrouded in Jesus loving countenance? Your post about unbelievers indicates that there are those whom you wish would accept or... die? It can reach that point so easily, so quickly when eternal salvation (and starving children) are at stake.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Morality cannot be "false." It's subjective to individuals and societies.
'You shall have no other gods before me' is moral, and unequivocal, and false.
Up until very recently, and in much of the world now, religions are, which you know full well


Read my post about religions being the gift of 'satan' again. I really think I'm on to something here. There are natural, intrinsic morals which all normal, healthy individuals feel toward one another (in times where there's enough of everything for everybody) and there is church morality based on exclusion and rejection, which flows from the first and most important commandment. Which cause trouble?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
So many things religions have done in the name of selective morality can be considered evil, and we can find the source of this in genesis. Our 'Fall from Grace' was away from 'god' and toward the corruption of religion. Yes indeed.
For decades, religion was outlawed and banished from much of the communist block. Did these countries suffer less corruption than others? Hardly.

Religions are often corrupted, but it's the corrupted people in them which makes them so. In other words, religion or not, people will be corrupt - and corrupted people are a corrupting influence.

Religion is simply our way of trying to find a way back to God. Therefore religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
In your opinion. You forgot to say 'in my opinion...' -see? This is how it starts.
Nope. This is about basic tenets. Saying otherwise would be like saying the U.S. Declaration of Independence states we should all worship King George. Obviously, it doesn't
oh Please

Maybe you're a hater too but you don't feel it because you're enshrouded in Jesus loving countenance? Your post about unbelievers indicates that there are those whom you wish would accept or... die? It can reach that point so easily, so quickly when eternal salvation (and starving children) are at stake.
Again, you obviously want everyone to accept your ideals. Why would you expect others to behave differently?

However, in truth, I would that everyone learned to believe in things that are truly inspiring and worth believing in. It doesn't even matter if they're true or not. What matters is it makes you feel better as a person, and sets a better example for a civil society.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
'You shall have no other gods before me' is moral, and unequivocal, and false.
Not for that religion. It's simply a rule of the club (so to speak).
Up until very recently, and in much of the world now, religions are, which you know full well
Read my post about religions being the gift of 'satan' again. I really think I'm on to something here. There are natural, intrinsic morals which all normal, healthy individuals feel toward one another (in times where there's enough of everything for everybody) and there is church morality based on exclusion and rejection, which flows from the first and most important commandment. Which cause trouble?
To whom are you responding to here? What's the context?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).
Interesting qualifiers you add. What considerations do you have to take into account to see the NT as consistent?

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Well I'd like to say I already "get it", but I find it utterly disgusting to feed the inner ape of my mind and allow it to run screaming from each and every shadow it perceives. I see religion as an excuse to not be curious, to not achieve, and to not improve our lives. After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
No, religions are the problem because they exclusively promise salvation and eternal life from a god who DOESN'T EXIST. They use their books to describe him and the process for securing these gifts, but the books were obviously written by LIARS and so their god they describe does not exist.

People are the problem because their reproductive rate inevitably causes collapse. We may be on the verge of conquering that inevitability. The evil of god worship is no longer needed to maintain order by setting people at each others throats in orderly ways.
Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality
is the context. Godders brought up what they think are their moral laws, and I'm addressing that.

otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven
Of course we won't be able to get there until all the people down here who would prevent it from happening are either CONVERTED or DEAD, as uba graciously points out. Onward Xian/Zion/islam soldiers marching [as] to war.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Interesting qualifiers you add. What considerations do you have to take into account to see the NT as consistent?
It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.
Well I'd like to say I already "get it", but I find it utterly disgusting to feed the inner ape of my mind and allow it to run screaming from each and every shadow it perceives. I see religion as an excuse to not be curious, to not achieve, and to not improve our lives. After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven.
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.

Therefore (and obviously then), you don't get it.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.
It's supposed to be perfect because it says so, and the majority of your people believe it is. But it's not, that's been proven.
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement.
At the expense of others. All religions promise exclusively to make believers better people- better than the heathen and the blasphemer.
are taught to be self-sufficient and generous.
With the flock, to the flock.
They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.
Waaaa! You ARE naive. More creative interpretation of the Word of God. You WILL burn sir.

Although, they will challenge the status quo when the status quo is perceived to be godless or sufficiently deficient in divine guidance- which they are always eager to provide and insist upon. Because it's only right.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
No, religions are the problem because they exclusively promise salvation and eternal life from a god who DOESN'T EXIST. They use their books to describe him and the process for securing these gifts, but the books were obviously written by LIARS and so their god they describe does not exist.
So? Why should that matter to you? Why do you feel a need to suppress other people in pursuit of their personal interests?
People are the problem because their reproductive rate inevitably causes collapse. We may be on the verge of conquering that inevitability. The evil of god worship is no longer needed to maintain order by setting people at each others throats in orderly ways.
That's simply naive.
is the context. Godders brought up what they think are their moral laws, and I'm addressing that.
The context still isn't clear. Perhaps you might post the whole text of the fragment to which you were responding, or provide a link?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Of course we won't be able to get there until all the people down here who would prevent it from happening are either CONVERTED or DEAD, as uba graciously points out. Onward Xian/Zion/islam soldiers marching [as] to war.
When did I ever "point out" anything like that?

It seems your morals are slipping here. Perhaps you need some reigious, moral guidance? :D
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
It's supposed to be perfect because it says so, and the majority of your people believe it is. But it's not, that's been proven
Perhaps it's perfect in ways you haven't considered.
At the expense of others. All religions promise exclusively to make believers better people- better than the heathen and the blasphemer.
Which is different from your suppression of the religious how, exactly?

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches us to love everyone, even our enemies.
With the flock, to the flock.
Nope. For ourselves and to everyone.
Waaaa! You ARE naive. More creative interpretation of the Word of God. You WILL burn sir.

Although, they will challenge the status quo when the status quo is perceived to be godless or sufficiently deficient in divine guidance- which they are always eager to provide and insist upon. Because it's only right
Now you're just being spiteful.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
I think I am just as on-topic as you, even more so, because Otto never adds anti-god into a thread until a religionist mentions god. And as far as 'why do I care', I just like to know the real reasons why things happen. There are Very Good Reasons why all the state-sponsored religions offer the same things but can be used to polarize people so easily.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
I think I am just as on-topic as you,
Actually, it appears you're having trouble with continuity.
even more so, because Otto never adds anti-god into a thread until a religionist mentions god.
?
And as far as 'why do I care', I just like to know the real reasons why things happen.
So antagonizing the religious accomplishes this how, exactly?
There are Very Good Reasons why all the state-sponsored religions offer the same things but can be used to polarize people so easily
To what "state sponsored religions" do you refer?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Perhaps it's perfect in ways you haven't considered.
Don't matter. It says things happened when they obviously did not. If these are parables it does acknowledge them as such, even when Jesus said people with hard hearts need parables. Therefore the whole schlemiel is bogus.
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
HERE is where uba proclaims he is holier than thou.
Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches to love everyone, even our enemies.
Nah, it teaches you to FEEL this if you choose to be martyrs or to slaughter your enemies with holy impunity, or anything in between. It enables you to ACT despite the reservations you would normally have without it.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.
Ok, but that means that it is not consistent. The text is self contradictory in multiple places and typically one must utilize some sort of contorted logic to assume self-consistency.
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.
Disagreed. The text uses large amounts of parable and demands acceptance of metaphysical divinity of a mortal man. It is not a purely philosophical text when it hands down unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality and immorality.

Therefore (and obviously then), you don't get it.
And I could say the same of you.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
The bible does NOT acknowledge it's fables as parables but presents them as fact. Ottos iPhone struggles with this thread.
To what "state sponsored religions" do you refer?
And now uba asks questions without thought like marjon because he is running out of ammo and failing badly. Catholic, Hebrew, Islam, I'm not going to write a list. The religions which give the state the moral authority to destroy all religions in opposition to it. They work together. Protestantism in all it's iterations were sponsored, enabled, legalized, adopted by states in one form or another. Sometimes these States are not readily apparent.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Don't matter. It says things happened when they obviously did not. If these are parables it does acknowledge them as such, even when Jesus said people with hard hearts need parables. Therefore the whole schlemiel is bogus.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy.
HERE is where uba proclaims he is holier than thou.

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches to love everyone, even our enemies.
How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.
Nah, it teaches you to FEEL this if you choose to be martyrs or to slaughter your enemies with holy impunity, or anything in between. It enables you to ACT despite the reservations you would normally have without it.
That's ridiculous. Show, in context, where it says this in the New Testament.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
@SE:
Ok, but that means that it is not consistent. The text is self contradictory in multiple places and typically one must utilize some sort of contorted logic to assume self-consistency.
Nah. Everyone paraphrases events in their own way. Minor variations therefore aren't inconsistencies. They're just the personal interpretations of the writers.

Think about having a class write an essay on one scene in a movie. Do you think each student is going to turn in the exact same essay, verbatim? Of course not. Are they therefore contradictory? They might be. Are they therfore inaccurate or false? Not necessarily.

continued...

ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
@SE (2 of 2)
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.
Disagreed.
Okay then. Where does it teach the contradiction?
The text uses large amounts of parable and demands acceptance of metaphysical divinity of a mortal man. It is not a purely philosophical text when it hands down unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality and immorality.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
And I could say the same of you.
You could, but could you back it up with references?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
I like your introductory analogy to an essay with multiple readers, however, do you not see the difference? When someone, or in this case, something declares authority, and encourages the adherance to that authority while remaining non-distinct and nebulous the only potential use is eventual ethical evil.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
Well go ahead and list the necessary social attributes one must have to be considered saved or Christian as lain out through the different versions of the Bible. When one pushes codified morality and backs it up with eternal punishment from a loving god, that smacks of not only contradiction but utter lunacy as well.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
So are you now stating that you believe it literally as well? As for references, where are yours?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
@SE:
I like your introductory analogy to an essay with multiple readers, however, do you not see the difference? When someone, or in this case, something declares authority, and encourages the adherance to that authority while remaining non-distinct and nebulous the only potential use is eventual ethical evil.
It's not non-distinct or nebulous.

However (and even The Bible says this will happen) evil minds do use it for evil purposes. But then evil minds will use anything to their evil purposes, won't they?

Good minds, likewise, will embrace the good in it and use it for ethical good. This is obvious from the works of many Christian or faith-based individuals and organizations. In fact, I'd be willing to wager there are many more faith-based charities, doing good work, than there are agnostic or atheist charities doing similar work.

continued...
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
Well go ahead and list the necessary social attributes one must have to be considered saved or Christian as lain out through the different versions of the Bible.
Apples and oranges. Being saved has litle to do with Biblical declarations of morality. It's simply a matter of faith.
When one pushes codified morality and backs it up with eternal punishment from a loving god, that smacks of not only contradiction but utter lunacy as well.
What Bible are you reading? There's no "codified morality backed up with eternal punishment from a loving god" in Christianity. That's the whole point. We're forgiven.
So are you now stating that you believe it literally as well?
That's a loaded question. Be more specific.
As for references, where are yours?
I asked for yours first.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
It's not non-distinct or nebulous.
Then there would be no room for interpretation by definition.
That's the whole point. We're forgiven.
So then I should be able to perform any act I wish within this existence, and as long as I say "I'm sorry God" and mean it with the fervor of total belief I'm cleared for eternity? Then why have a hell?

That's a loaded question. Be more specific.

Let me rephrase. Where you state that it isn't purely a philosophical work, that implies that you take parts of the Bible as literal truth, is this accurate? If so, which parts and how do you delineate the philosophy from the historical record?
I asked for yours first.

And you made the first assertion without reference. Where our subject matter is the subjective interpretation of a written work we're speaking more on matters of opinion than scholarship. If you feel otherwise I'd like you to pre-reciprocate and substantiate your assertion of "I [SH] don't get it."
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Hi uba!
That's ridiculous. Show, in context, where it says this in the New Testament.
What makes you think that this would be in the bible? Although it implies it, throughout both ot and nt, by the actions of israelites and early martyrs who gladly do what they do because they perceive it as gods will.

Whether it be gideon enslaving fellow hebrews or jesus himself awaiting martyrdom, all find courage and resolve in gods authority.

You have to look at history to see what the great religions have enabled their adherents to do in gods name, rather than what their holy books say they do. This enabling process is the most significant result of religionism. Religions promise to save souls but they NEVER have to PROVE that they can or do.

They all promise to make the world a better place and they do- by initiating the conflict which causes the deaths of so many people and the destruction of their obsolete cultures. Everybody can afford to be civil and pious afterward.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
You have to look at history to see what the great religions have enabled their adherents to do in gods name, rather than what their holy books say they do. This enabling process is the most significant result of religionism. Religions promise to save souls but they NEVER have to PROVE that they can or do.

I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, but only in scope. Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty. For example, the morals and ethics of the military as instilled in Timothy McVeigh led him to seek retribution against the government for what he saw as an unjust interference into the lives of people such as the Branch Davidians. The military training he had recieved instilled the ethic of "killing for justice" and under such circumstances, he performed admirably.

All codified morality can be twisted if the mind receiving it is able to envision doing so. This is the basis for mob mentality, and bigotry on the whole.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
So antagonizing the religious accomplishes this how, exactly?
You religionists always initiate the antagonizing, like I said. Otto merely responds in kind.
?
??
How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.
My comment was to your statement quoted above it, wherein you proclaimed that the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post. Why are you misreading my posts unless its to avoid admitting youre wrongness?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty.
No argument there. The state religions seem especially configured for the purpose however, as are the pseudo-religious movements with messiahs like hitler or napoleon, who take their ques from those such as muhammud and constantine; or even the so-called godless constructs like communism, which function in reality just like the medieval xian martial law oppression in europe, no matter what they profess.
croghan27
4 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010

snip

I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, but only in scope. Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty.

snip

All codified morality can be twisted if the mind receiving it is able to envision doing so. This is the basis for mob mentality, and bigotry on the whole [b]

John Le Carre has George Smiley say, in one of his books, that even the most harsh of political regimes can be humanistic if applied with kindness, as even the best of systems is cruel if applied with spite.

George is worth listening to.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
@frajo
WHAT? Please qualify your displeasure. Heck, maybe i was wrong (not)- at least give me a chance to address it. Or we can go back to trading one-slaps.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
No, not "displeasure". Only disagreement. Because communism is the odd one out in your Tale of the Empire. Communism is - especially in the Western World - regularly (and not by chance) confused with "communism".
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
Communism is - especially in the Western World - regularly (and not by chance) confused with "communism".
I am assuming you meant 'socialism'? Whatever. In substance and degree of oppression and modus operendi it is essentially identical to conditions extant in europe in the middle ages. One party rule selectively restricting movement, imposing poverty, destroying disparate cultures in the cause of 'heresy' or opposition to the party ideology. Much the same as what is going on in Tehran, but maybe not to the same extent.

The exact same environment which would oppose homosex, to address the topic. As amadiginedad has said, 'There are no homosexuals in iran.'

In europe the church was a little more pragmatic. Knowing that the tendency was natural and unavoidable, pope gregory and others reconfigured their religion to provide a safe haven in monasteries and nunneries for this group of outcasts. Who would be more grateful and dependable than those who desired the lifestyle?
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
The extent to which the church embraced the homosexual minority: they made the magdalene a whore when she was most likely 'the one jesus loved'. Jesus became the long-haired, soft-spoken leader of 12 wandering, carefree batchelors, spreading peace and love across the land.

Jesus' mom became the only woman ever to give birth without being sullied by the touch of a man.

If you set out to design two icons for gays and lesbians you would not come up with anything more obvious than this.

The personas, the lifestyle, the philosophy all were expressly designed with homosexuals in mind... or rather, most likely a continuation of an earlier priestly cult system with the same configuration. Dionysus? Vestal virgins? Sibylline oracles and their priestly interpreters? Nothing new under the sun-
frajo
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
I'm sorry, otto1923, there's no retaliation, only a deep disagreement with your superficial, superstitious, and biased narrative of someone who's grown up and traumatized in the immediate vicinity of hardcore creationists or WASPs and without any perspective from beyond that frog pond.

As this is a scientific site I'm not inclined to join you in your raving about biblical themes.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
superficial, superstitious, and biased narrative of someone who's grown up and traumatized in the immediate vicinity of hardcore creationists or WASPs and without any perspective from beyond that frog pond.
But in spite of all that I do make sense. And I do explain a lot which needs explaining. And I do do it with a theory that is concise, systematic, comprehensive, and falsifiable (if you discard the bankrupt rationale that things which happen by themselves will still produce results which consistantly turn out for the better).

The idea of the homocentricity of the catholic infrastructure is not even that far from the mainstream. I would appreciate it if you criticized the theories rather than just dismissing them out-of-hand. Prove me wrong, or at least illogical.

I did not grow up near fundamentalists. I was methodist for god sakes. I arrived here by logic and the study of history with the idea that maybe the 'villains' werent the real bad guys.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
As this is a scientific site I'm not inclined to join you in your raving about biblical themes
Yes, but youre willing to tolerate mainstream religionists and engage them in 'rational' debate; people here enjoy doing this.

Totally 'new' theories though are beneath consideration? Even when theyre wholly based on the human potential in a totally physical reality; while religious 'reason' dwells in a place called the metaphysical, which absolutely does not exist?
superficial, superstitious, and biased narrative
I think you find the 60s liberalism far too comforting. Its icons are crumbling one by one, and explanations such as mine are gaining ground every day. No more behavioral blank slate thank god. Im proud that I used to get jealous-
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Then there would be no room for interpretation by definition.
That's not true. Modern laws, for instance, are written as concisely as modern legislators can right them, are tested and interpreted through time by society and the judiciary, and yet re-examinations of long used laws turn up new interpretations.
So then I should be able to perform any act I wish within this existence, and as long as I say "I'm sorry God" and mean it with the fervor of total belief I'm cleared for eternity? Then why have a hell?
Is Hell a place? Is it a metaphor? Is it a permanent separation from God? Who knows?

continued...
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Let me rephrase. Where you state that it isn't purely a philosophical work, that implies that you take parts of the Bible as literal truth, is this accurate? If so, which parts and how do you delineate the philosophy from the historical record?
It's not as simple as that. Sure, some parts are true in the sense that they're backed up by the archaeological record, but the truth I would speak of is a very personal and emotional truth.

See: http://fictionand...l-truth/

And you made the first assertion without reference. Where our subject matter is the subjective interpretation of a written work we're speaking more on matters of opinion than scholarship. If you feel otherwise I'd like you to pre-reciprocate and substantiate your assertion of "I [SH] don't get it."
Now you're asking me to preach. Is that really what you want?

Here's a relevant reference: http://gospelway....self.php
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.

My comment was to your statement quoted above it, wherein you proclaimed that the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post.
When did I say that? It's certainly not in the text to which you refer. I was only explaining to you that your problem with "religionists" is misdirected to the religion, rather than to the responsible parties, themselves.
Why are you misreading my posts unless its to avoid admitting youre wrongness?
Maybe it's that your assertion was so disconnected from my context that I had a hard time associating it with my text?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
but the truth I would speak of is a very personal and emotional truth.
Very William Lane Craig-ish of you. Not that I'm drawing a parallel between your statements and his, jsut the style in this phrase. Personal and emotional truths are philosophy, not subjective truth, so again you're sidestepping.
Is Hell a place? Is it a metaphor? Is it a permanent separation from God? Who knows?
Religion holds rather flatly that it is a place, akin to heaven. The attributes of one must be generally similar to the other.
Modern laws, for instance, are written as concisely as modern legislators can right them,
Are you insisting that modern laws are never nebulous or non-distinct? Many are intentionally written to be non-distinct. This isn't a strong point in your favor in this discussion.

I don't see the concept of God as evil. I see a codified god that is shared and has personal interaction as greatly evil.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
@uba
-You made a statement which you havent owned up to and have yet to explain. You said:
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-To which I responded:
[You seem to be saying that] the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post.
To which you replied:
I was only explaining to you that your problem with "religionists" is misdirected to the religion, rather than to the responsible parties, themselves.
-which does not address your original comment at all. Explain to me please how your original statement is not an expression of exclusivism, meaning to exclude all those whose beliefs which are different from yours?

And just who are the 'certain people' you wish to exclude, and from what?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
@frajo
-In my defense I offer exerpts from a work by 2 well-regarded gay scholars:
http://www2.hu-be...#_ref-18

"Under Charlemagne (768-814), a secular enactment assigned penances for sodomy and a capitulary condemned sodomy among monks, remarking that it had become common."

"About 1051 Saint Peter Damian, a member of the circle of papal reformers, in the Liber Gomorrhianus, bitterly denounced male homosex, particularly among the clergy where it deemed it rampant"

"Leo was quite willing to let the moral status quo in the Church remain, perhaps sensing that a campaign to identify and oust transgressors would only amount to a selfinflicted wound. That so many individuals with unconventional sexual preferences should have over the centuries served a religion that uncompromisingly forbade their sexual self-indulgence is, in retrospect, a political as well as a psychological problem."
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
-Only to show that homosex was indeed prevalent in church in the middle ages and was often tacitly overlooked even as it was routinely condemned and punished on the outside.

This last paragraph is curious:

"Whether there were gays in the Middle Ages as Boswell stated in his earlier book and insisted in an article,[48] or even homosexuals (understood as a type of person), as opposed to merely persons indulging in sodomy,[49] is an ongoing debate. But that established churches condoned such "sins" and created liturgies to bless couples so engaged (the love so decadent and unnatural it was not even supposed to be mentioned among Christians) is an anachronistic twist not heretofore imagined and should not be taken seriously."

-Two points worth making:

1) Why would there be any question as to whether there were gays in the middle ages? This paper was written within the last 10 yrs by gay activist scholars. Why would they question this or not deem the question absurd?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
2) The idea of mine that the church did condone gaydom is apparently not new (which I was aware of), according to the authors, even as they discount it as an anachronistic twist. Whether they agree with the idea or not, their statement acknowledges that there are knowledgable people who do.

And, despite their conclusion, I dont see much in the body of their text that substantially refutes the idea, or prevents us from entertaining the idea that the very structure of the church could have been designed by those such as gregory and Irenaeus to embrace homosexuality, even as they publicly condemned it.

Again, we can contrast the official policies of church officials vilifying 'this sin against nature' against the actual conditions in monasteries and the clergy, where it was rampant, according to the authors.

Another example of the tendency of church and state to say one thing while doing something completely different.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
gaydom?

Wass Iss?

Why the Kingdom of Gay LaFleur of course!
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
@SE:
Very William Lane Craig-ish of you. Not that I'm drawing a parallel between your statements and his, jsut the style in this phrase. Personal and emotional truths are philosophy, not subjective truth, so again you're sidestepping.
To the individual, they're solid truths. As the Bible aims to save individuals, this is quite fitting.
Religion holds rather flatly that it is a place, akin to heaven. The attributes of one must be generally similar to the other.
I guess that would depend on your religion. In mine, I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me. Objectively speaking, the Bible speaks of both a Hell and a Hades. (the former being eternal, the latter not).
Are you insisting that modern laws are never nebulous or non-distinct? Many are intentionally written to be non-distinct. This isn't a strong point in your favor in this discussion.
Obviously, I wasn't referring to intentionally non-distinct laws.

continued...
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
gaydom?

Wass Iss?
Iss a convenient way of abbreviating a # of things. See context for specific meaning. Or peruse these:
http://www.google...7ADRA_en
-Or specifically this:
http://www.urband...m=Gaydom
Gay LaFleur
Pepe Le Pew? Guy Caballero?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
@SE (2 of 2):
I don't see the concept of God as evil. I see a codified god that is shared and has personal interaction as greatly evil.
Codified? Where do you live? Religion is decidedly not codified in my country. In fact we have people who dilligently and quite successfully work to eliminate even the appearance of codification.

Of course, this kind of secularism isn't universally true. Many countries don't have the freedom of (and from) religion as we have here.

See: http://en.wikiped...religion

otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me.
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

And if you keep spouting heresy such as the following,
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.
-as I've pointed out before, you WILL burn. And no. it doesnt take another starry-eyed god-lover who sees it, to make it true.

Anyway, answer my previous post addressed to you sir. Admit that religions are meant to divide and not consolidate, which you yourself hold to be true by your own pronouncement.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
@uba
-You made a statement which you havent owned up to and have yet to explain. You said:
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-To which I responded:

To which you replied:

-which does not address your original comment at all. Explain to me please how your original statement is not an expression of exclusivism, meaning to exclude all those whose beliefs which are different from yours?

And just who are the 'certain people' you wish to exclude, and from what?
I see no use of the word "exclude" (or any of its synonyms) in my text. You'll have to explain your interpretation.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
That was quick.
it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.
Maybe that's how it works in your religion, but not in mine.
And if you keep spouting heresy such as the following,
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.
-as I've pointed out before, you WILL burn. And no. it doesnt take another starry-eyed god-lover who sees it, to make it true.
We've already been over this. The NT is quite clear. Have you forgotten already?
Anyway, answer my previous post addressed to you sir. Admit that religions are meant to divide and not consolidate, which you yourself hold to be true by your own pronouncement.
How so?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
That was quick.
it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
That's for them to decide, for themselves.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2010
We've already been over this. The NT is quite clear. Have you forgotten already?
Yes we have, and its clear you interpret to fit your own individual needs and not according to how it was written. Self-righteous heresy. Burn you will.
How so?
Feigned misunderstanding is another form of lie. Typical from any religionist who thinks they are above discussing religion with unbelievers.

You might enjoy playing pattycake here but you will never be honest in how you really feel or what you really think; because its not a sin to sin against the godless. Is it?

You can see why its easy to conclude why one can never trust a religionist.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Yes we have, and its clear you interpret to fit your own individual needs and not according to how it was written. Self-righteous heresy. Burn you will.
If you had an objection, why didn't you raise it then? Furthmore, for your argument to have any merit, you're going to need to provide references to counter mine.
Feigned misunderstanding is another form of lie. Typical from any religionist who thinks they are above discussing religion with unbelievers.
It's not my fault if you're not making sense.
You might enjoy playing pattycake here but you will never be honest in how you really feel or what you really think; because its not a sin to sin against the godless. Is it?
Maybe in your religion, but not mine.
You can see why its easy to conclude why one can never trust a religionist.
Maybe you're just expressing a lack of faith in yourself?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
If you had an objection, why didn't you raise it then? Furthmore, for your argument to have any merit, you're going to need to provide references to counter mine.
Again you lie. Myself and SH both provided references such as the following:
Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?
Satan hides behind your puppet god and enables you to sin, demands that you sin in order to serve him. It does not take an inquisition or a crusade to expose the evil that is your religion sir. It only takes the smallest truth in defiance of it, to prove what xians are.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
And in your passing mention you reveal another of the concepts derived from Greek Zeus worship. The time limited punishments of Hades, followed by isolation from the glory of the Mountain. Glory of the Mountain, yet another phrase used often.

It is rather interesting how you do not see the parallels to what you would surely describe as legend and myth.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
So, uba wants to rewrite the NT also? In response to my post:
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.
-in which I was refering to the well-known passage in james2:

"17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

You replied:
Maybe that's how it works in your religion, but not in mine.
Your liberties in blasphemy WILL condemn you, even if your lies to heathens do not.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Ubas response to my comment:
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
-in which I was referring to his original dismissal of:
certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem
-uba responds:
That's for them to decide, for themselves.
No it obviously is not. Uba deems anyone whose beliefs differ from his a 'problem' just because they might threaten to 'lead others away'.

And here we have an essential evil of religion, from the mouth of a believer nonetheless. He may tolerate heathens, but they will always be the enemy; and as their numbers grow, so does his ire. When they prosper, his jealous god will demand action.

For although retribution is the lords, he is powerless to exact it and can only avenge through adherents.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 17, 2010
Enjoy church tomorrow uba; your god will be staring you right_in_the_face.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Again you lie. Myself and SH both provided references such as the following:

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
We've already been over this. "Fulfill" means to finish, complete, to bring to an end.

See: http://www.thefre.../fulfill

and: http://churchtith...the-law/

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?
Here he's only saying the text will survive to the end.

As this Law pertains only to the Jews, it's also implied here that it will remain in effect, but only for the Jews.

See: Romans 11:25-11:32

Seriously. We've been over this. Do you have anything new to ad?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Satan hides behind your puppet god and enables you to sin, demands that you sin in order to serve him. It does not take an inquisition or a crusade to expose the evil that is your religion sir. It only takes the smallest truth in defiance of it, to prove what xians are.
So now you're saying you believe in Satan? Really?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
And in your passing mention you reveal another of the concepts derived from Greek Zeus worship. The time limited punishments of Hades, followed by isolation from the glory of the Mountain. Glory of the Mountain, yet another phrase used often.

It is rather interesting how you do not see the parallels to what you would surely describe as legend and myth.
When did I ever deny any such parallels?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
So, uba wants to rewrite the NT also? In response to my post:
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

-in which I was refering to the well-known passage in james2:

"17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Really? You're going to take you own posts out of context now? The proper context was:
I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me.
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.
You were trying to condemn me, yourself, to hell. You don't have that authority.

As for faith in works, it's not for me to judge my works. Christians are expected to have good works to show for themselves, as being a Christian brings with it a desire to do the right thing. If this desire isn't apparent, the implication is you didn't get what being a Christian truly means.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Your liberties in blasphemy WILL condemn you, even if your lies to heathens do not.
So now you're saying you believe in eternal condemnation too? And here I thought you were claiming to be an atheist! Please, make up you mind.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Ubas response to my comment:
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
-in which I was referring to his original dismissal of:
certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem
-uba responds:
That's for them to decide, for themselves.
No it obviously is not.
It most certainly is.
Uba deems anyone whose beliefs differ from his a 'problem' just because they might threaten to 'lead others away'.
That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.
And here we have an essential evil of religion, from the mouth of a believer nonetheless. He may tolerate heathens, but they will always be the enemy; and as their numbers grow, so does his ire. When they prosper, his jealous god will demand action.
Not.
For although retribution is the lords, he is powerless to exact it and can only avenge through adherents.
So now you're saying you believe in God now?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Enjoy church tomorrow uba; your god will be staring you right_in_the_face.
I don't need church for that. He's always with me.

Anyway, as it seems apparent that you're developing a faith of your own, perhaps you might consider attending a church?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.
uba lies yet again. Your response was to comments by SH on other belief systems, which you thought were consistant with yours. What's important is your condemnation of others who would lead people away from YOUR particular faith.

And when I use your terms like Satan and god, it's only to show the contradictions which you express in your own belief system which you have obviously custom-tailored for yourself. Ubas god does exactly what uba tells him to, leaving uba free to do what he feels is appropriate.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Faith involves surrendering your will to a higher power, not the other way around.
As for faith in works, it's not for me to judge my works. Christians are expected to have good works to show for themselves
But you seem to be content that your works are sufficient to get you saved. Your judgment or gods? Is there a difference?

Ever see the movie 'the Ruling Class'? Peter otooles character says he realized he was god when, one day he was praying and he realized he was talking to himself. Uba makes up his own faith with it's own selective rules and then declares himself saved. This is because uba doesn't want to do the work necessary to ascribe to a real belief system. Sloth- a sin. Vanity- a sin. Better expunge those too.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
-This would be all well and good, and harmless; but uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like, which any religion, after all, is only too willing to offer. Besides giving him peace of mind, perhaps uba also has gained smugness in feeling holier than thou. Again, cause or effect? Did uba shop around for a belief system which would condone his troubling animosity?

Xians enjoy walking around with their noses in the air- it gets them just that much closer to their Holy Enabler.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
When did I ever deny any such parallels?
So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.
uba lies yet again. Your response was to comments by SH on other belief systems, which you thought were consistant with yours.
So now you would take the context even farther out of place? Now, all of a sudden it's not about OUR conversation, but mine and SH's?
What's important is your condemnation of others who would lead people away from YOUR particular faith.
Not that it matters to OUR conversation, my comment was to the broader points of SH's arguments. My specific response to the SH comment you refer to, was directly above mine (that you're referencing). To whit:
(uba): I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).
Seriously, it seems you're having problems with continuity. Why is that? You wouldn't be trying to manipulate the conversation, now would you?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
And when I use your terms like Satan and god, it's only to show the contradictions which you express in your own belief system
So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?

Are your morals slipping here, or what?
which you have obviously custom-tailored for yourself. Ubas god does exactly what uba tells him to, leaving uba free to do what he feels is appropriate.
So now you're saying I wrote the Bible? Really? Just how old do you think I am!
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-This original statement of yours can stand on it's own. As does mine:
uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like
I notice you keep avoiding addressing the implications of it.

Religions are the embodiment of bigotry. Your statment is evidence to the fact. Sure, you embrace every race, creed, and culture, so long as they believe the same things you do.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Faith involves surrendering your will to a higher power, not the other way around.
Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.
But you seem to be content that your works are sufficient to get you saved. Your judgment or gods? Is there a difference?
It's a matter of faith.
Ever see the movie 'the Ruling Class'?
No.
Peter otooles character says he realized he was god when, one day he was praying and he realized he was talking to himself. Uba makes up his own faith with it's own selective rules and then declares himself saved. This is because uba doesn't want to do the work necessary to ascribe to a real belief system. Sloth- a sin. Vanity- a sin. Better expunge those too.
Again, you insist that I wrote the Bible? (incredulity)

Look pal ...I might be old, but I'm not THAT old.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?
Well, sure, when I can use it to show someone the idiocy of their own beliefs and what a danger they are to others.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
-This would be all well and good, and harmless; but uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like,
You keep insisting that my religion is exclusionary, yet you consistently fail to back this assertion up. Why is that?
which any religion, after all, is only too willing to offer. Besides giving him peace of mind, perhaps uba also has gained smugness in feeling holier than thou. Again, cause or effect? Did uba shop around for a belief system which would condone his troubling animosity?
Really? You would say I'm the one filled with troubling animosity after the recent posts you wrote?

It's become apparent, you haven't a proper sense of reason.
Xians enjoy walking around with their noses in the air- it gets them just that much closer to their Holy Enabler.
If either of us is being pious, it's you (not that you'd recognize it in yourself).
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.
There IS no other world but this one, and the one which religionists believe exists make up inside their heads; with a little help and a bunch of lies from their Holy Shepherds.

Maybe if you pray [wish] real hard, with your eyes closed tight and your fists squeezing your thumbs, it will be true! I mean, it's just gotta be, right?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division.
Neither. You're implying a conflict, where none exists.

That parrallels exist is not surprising. The Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies. You expressed this yourself when you stated a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
Again uba knows the truth but pretends like he doesn't [lies]:
Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies.
I offer as evidence the caveat to John 3:16:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

-Unless you believe you are CONDEMNED. The only reason xians tolerate unbelievers is the hope that they may be converted.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
One interesting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-This original statement of yours can stand on it's own.
Indeed, as this is generally how it was intended (within the context of mine and SH's conversation).
As does mine:
uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like
I notice you keep avoiding addressing the implications of it.
There you go with the "excludes" accusation again, with nothing to show for it.
Religions are the embodiment of bigotry. Your statment is evidence to the fact. Sure, you embrace every race, creed, and culture, so long as they believe the same things you do.
You do know that one of Christiandom's greatest saints started out as a hater of your ilk, don't you? See? Even you could join in on the fun!
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?
Well, sure, when I can use it to show someone the idiocy of their own beliefs and what a danger they are to others.
Well then, what I want to know is just how many hippos you can hold, 'cause you're one BIG hippo-crate! LOL :D
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.
There IS no other world but this one, and the one which religionists believe exists make up inside their heads; with a little help and a bunch of lies from their Holy Shepherds.

Maybe if you pray [wish] real hard, with your eyes closed tight and your fists squeezing your thumbs, it will be true! I mean, it's just gotta be, right?
True or not, it's worth believing in (unlike your obviously failed sense of morality).
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Again uba knows the truth but pretends like he doesn't [lies]:
Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies.
I offer as evidence the caveat to John 3:16:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
When did I say ALL Christian truths can be found elsewhere?

-Unless you believe you are CONDEMNED. The only reason xians tolerate unbelievers is the hope that they may be converted.
What Bible are you reading? In mine, we're generally taught to be tolerant - even of our enemies (though many Christians do struggle with this). We also do hope everyone else will see the light for themselves (be converted). But our toleration of others is not dependent on this hope.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Again uba fails to address the obvious. he asks for:
You keep insisting that my religion is exclusionary, yet you consistently fail to back this assertion up. Why is that?
-To which I offer:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." -John 3

And refrain from including a hundred others, nt plus ot 'chosen people' etc. Uba ignores proof of Xian exclusionism.

What's a good Xian to do? "Yes, we still love you, but you're condemned and thus a threat to our way of life. And your kids certainly can't play with ours. But we WILL pray for you, maybe that'll work."
True or not, it's worth believing in (unlike your obviously failed sense of morality).
Ha! As if the only option to xianism was an immoral lifestyle. AGAIN you betray your true beliefs.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
I am not immoral nor do I act that way here. Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others. Uba would rather believe in convenient and comfortable lies [his bible, or parts of it] than the truth.

Plus uba lies. Yes he does a little bit when advantageous. And he blasphemes by believing only some parts of gods holy word. That's immoral.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Again uba fails to address the obvious. he asks for:
You keep insisting that my religion is exclusionary, yet you consistently fail to back this assertion up. Why is that?

-To which I offer:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." -John 3
I don't see the word "exclude" (or any of its synonyms) here. Rather, this is obviously a plea for EVERYONE to join.

Are you really having so much trouble with the English? Or, is it a problem with your ability to reason?..
And refrain from including a hundred others, nt plus ot 'chosen people' etc. Uba ignores proof of Xian exclusionism.

What's a good Xian to do? "Yes, we still love you, but you're condemned and thus a threat to our way of life. And your kids certainly can't play with ours. But we WILL pray for you, maybe that'll work."
...Hmm... it more and more appears to be the latter.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
True or not, it's worth believing in (unlike your obviously failed sense of morality).

Ha! As if the only option to xianism was an immoral lifestyle. AGAIN you betray your true beliefs.
I didn't mean it in a broad sense. I was referring to your personal failure to follow your own creed.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
I don't see the word "exclude" (or any of its synonyms) here. Rather, this is obviously a plea for EVERYONE to join.
But we don't WANT to join your stupid bankrupt religion, do you UNDERSTAND godder? We know we are every bit as good as you (better, we can tell truth from lies) and we are TIRED of bigoted, self-righteous belief systems such as yours!

Do you get it? Of course not. That's why you're a danger to the world. That's why your car bombs are going off everywhere. That's why you threaten all life with nuclear weapons. That's why you think you own Jerusalem. That's why you're killing and destroying throughout Africa. That's why you want to end the teaching of science in schools, and make your religion the only one in the world.

You god-lovers are all alike.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
I am not immoral nor do I act that way here.
So you feel hypocrisy, virulent anger, and obvious deviations from the truth are moral acts?

You do realize these are antitheses to human society and civilized behavior, right? So, explain to me again why you think this makes you a better person than a typical Christian.
Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.
When did I say that? You did notice that I agreed with SH that a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian, didn't you?
Uba would rather believe in convenient and comfortable lies [his bible, or parts of it] than the truth.
As far as I'm concerned, they're essentially one and the same.

Anyway, are you suffering from delusions of grandeur, or what? Why would you think you have some kind of authority to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't believe in?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
But we don't WANT to join your stupid bankrupt religion, do you UNDERSTAND godder? We know we are every bit as good as you (better, we can tell truth from lies) and we are TIRED of bigoted, self-righteous belief systems such as yours!
Then don't. You have the freedom to choose for yourself (at least in my country you do).
Do you get it? Of course not. That's why you're a danger to the world. That's why your car bombs are going off everywhere. That's why you threaten all life with nuclear weapons. That's why you think you own Jerusalem. That's why you're killing and destroying throughout Africa.
Are you nuts, or what? Do you really think violence is the sole prerogative of the religious? Chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives) are quite murderous. Would you argue it's because of their religious proclivities?
You god-lovers are all alike.
Hardly.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
When did I say that? You did notice that I agreed with SH that a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian, didn't you?
But you couldn't trust him if he didn't believe in your god- false prophet, anitchrist and all that.
So you feel hypocrisy, virulent anger, and obvious deviations from the truth are moral acts?
Never been to a revival meeting, have you? Otto is very passionate in his beliefs.
Why would you think you have some kind of authority to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't believe in?
All of history proves that religions can only offer conflict, misery, destruction in this world. They gave us the dark ages, pogroms, witch burnings, endless atrocity committed against religions JUST LIKE THEIRS. Condone one, you've got to accept them all. So- all have to go- including your pleasant little hobby.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
Again uba exposes his 'predispositions' [bigotry]:
Otto posted
You god-lovers are all alike.
To which uba responded
Hardly.
-Now I know, ottos post might appear at first glance to be such a sentiment; but he believes that all religions offer the propensity for misery and ruin, as he stated. Ubas response shows that he firmly believes his Religion, and therefore all who practice it, are better than anybody else.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 18, 2010
Otto posted:
Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.
To which uba responded:
When did I say that?
You're right, you didn't, but I assumed that being a Xian meant believing in the 1st commandment? Or have you discarded that one too?
Chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives) are quite murderous. Would you argue it's because of their religious proclivities?
No, chimps are violent for pretty obvious reasons. It is hard to figure out why phalangists murder refugees, Irish Catholics murder Protestants, Shiites murder Sunnis, etc etc etc etc (well, not for Otto because he believes these religions were designed for the express purpose of dividing homogenous peoples up and setting them against one another).
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2010
One more point; when I say that adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others, again I am speaking to what I know is in the bible and what all xians are expected to believe in. Do I really need to look up the quotes? Don't you think otto knows the bible well enough by now to know he understands this?

Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.

Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2010
Otto:

Any sufficiently vaguely defined god can be neither proven nor disproven. Uvavontuba has pretty vague and flexible definition. You cannot disprove his belief even if he was willing to accept your disproof. All you are doing is attempting to browbeat him.

Behave yourself.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
But you couldn't trust him if he didn't believe in your god- false prophet, anitchrist and all that.
The sheer audacity of that statement is beyond reason.
So you feel hypocrisy, virulent anger, and obvious deviations from the truth are moral acts?

You do realize these are antitheses to human society and civilized behavior, right? So, explain to me again why you think this makes you a better person than a typical Christian.
Never been to a revival meeting, have you? Otto is very passionate in his beliefs.
Avoidance much? Answer the questions.
All of history proves that religions can only offer conflict, misery, destruction in this world. They gave us the dark ages, pogroms, witch burnings, endless atrocity committed against religions JUST LIKE THEIRS. Condone one, you've got to accept them all. So- all have to go- including your pleasant little hobby.
You're not much of a student of history, are you?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Again uba exposes his 'predispositions' [bigotry]:
Otto posted
You god-lovers are all alike.
To which uba responded
Hardly.
-Now I know, ottos post might appear at first glance to be such a sentiment; but he believes that all religions offer the propensity for misery and ruin, as he stated.
The very definition of bigotry!

bigotry:
obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions.

Source: http://www.thefre.../bigotry

Ubas response shows that he firmly believes his Religion, and therefore all who practice it, are better than anybody else.
Wow. You've really gone off the deep end now. You really get all of that from a one word response against your obvious bigotry?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Otto posted:
Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.
To which uba responded:
When did I say that?
You're right, you didn't, but I assumed that being a Xian meant believing in the 1st commandment? Or have you discarded that one too?
This is blatantly taken out of context. The proper context was:
Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.
When did I say that? You did notice that I agreed with SH that a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian, didn't you?
Obviously, the First Commandment is important to Christians, but it needn't be important to everyone that would follow other Biblical laws (for their own purposes).
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
No, chimps are violent for pretty obvious reasons.
Really? Such as?
It is hard to figure out why phalangists murder refugees, Irish Catholics murder Protestants, Shiites murder Sunnis, etc etc etc etc (well, not for Otto because he believes these religions were designed for the express purpose of dividing homogenous peoples up and setting them against one another).
Designed? By whom? So now you're nothing more than a nutter conspiracy theorist?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
One more point; when I say that adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others, again I am speaking to what I know is in the bible and what all xians are expected to believe in. Do I really need to look up the quotes? Don't you think otto knows the bible well enough by now to know he understands this?
Wow. Obviously you don't. All the first commandment says is: "You shall have no other gods before me."

There's nothing in there about "adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others."

Ladies and gentlemen, Otto's ability to reason has left the building...

Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.
Really? Where does it say that, exactly?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
@Ethelred:
Otto:

Any sufficiently vaguely defined god can be neither proven nor disproven. Uvavontuba has pretty vague and flexible definition. You cannot disprove his belief even if he was willing to accept your disproof. All you are doing is attempting to browbeat him.

Behave yourself.

Ethelred
I gave you a five because I appreciate your admonishment of Otto, but I do take objection to your statement that, "Ubavontuba has (a) pretty vague and flexible definition." I feel my definition is quite well defined, in the Bible.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
@Otto:

As your ability to reason is evidently questionable, and there's no point to reasoning with the unreasonable, I'm ending my responses to this thread at this time.

Sometime in the future, should you find yourself in a more tranquil and rational frame of mind, we might take up this conversation again.

Until then, may you find within yourself, the peace you so fervently desire.

ubavontuba
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division.
Neither. You're implying a conflict, where none exists.

That parrallels exist is not surprising. The Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies. You expressed this yourself when you stated a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian.

Certainly, but you're avoiding the question. Do you hold that your faith is a philosophical myth or that it holds some greater truth than current observation about reality? To be more direct, do you adhere to the belief that there is eternal life, a soul, the metaphysical trappings consistently teases from the text, though never explicitly stated or do you think that's a big load of bullshit and the religion is simply an effective way to convey a message, like Aesop's Fables?
Ethelred
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
"Ubavontuba has (a) pretty vague and flexible definition." I feel my definition is quite well defined, in the Bible.
It seems occasionally at variance with what the Bible says. Of course ALL Christians are inherently at variance since the Bible has contradictions. I suppose you just consider those unimportant.

For instance, has anyone seen the face of god?

If your answer isn't twofold and including contradictions then you are missing out on the fun.

I simply don't understand why people believe at all when they don't believe in so many parts of the Bible. This is one area where I actually understand the Fundamentalists.

If it is just the writing of men why believe? If it isn't just the writing of men why are there so many errors.

Myself, I noticed that anthropologists archeologists and others were willing to look at other religions objectively yet evaded that with their own religions. So I looked at Christianity objectively and found it wanting.

Ethelred
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2010
Any sufficiently vaguely defined god can be neither proven nor disproven. Uvavontuba has pretty vague and flexible definition. You cannot disprove his belief even if he was willing to accept your disproof. All you are doing is attempting to browbeat him.
NOT TRUE. I'm not trying to disprove anything. You all would try to talk these people out of their beliefs intellectually, which never works. Uba has said some miserable, bigoted things here and I am only using them to demonstrate what a religionist really is and what they will use the bible to condone.

Uba has ignored my arguments and lied when confronted. This is also good for people to see. I don't expect to change ubas beliefs- I'm no addiction councilor.
frajo
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.
You are plain wrong.
I know that Catholics are taught that it does not suffice just to be a member of the curch if one wants "to go to heaven" and that they are taught that no human being who leads a life devoted to the wellbeing of humankind is excluded from that goal.
It's not anyone's fault when he doesn't know about Catholic essentials. But refusing to learn is the intellectual bankruptcy of people who are too weak to step out of their comic strip world into the wilderness of reality.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
But you couldn't trust him if he didn't believe in your god- false prophet, anitchrist and all that.
The sheer audacity of that statement is beyond reason.
So- you accept muhammud as being Christ-like? Of course you don't, even though millions do. He doesn't fit the proper 'definition'. He didn't think that was anything more than a prophet like him.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.
You are plain wrong.
I know that Catholics are taught that it does not suffice just to be a member of the curch if one wants "to go to heaven"
What the sects 'teach' and what they 'do' are often very different. And it doesn't matter what they teach, if the bible SAYS something completely different.

If you read over ubas posts, it's clear he often ignores what the bible SAYS to enable him to 'do' what he wants. Santoria teaches to sacrifice chickens for Christ, though it's not specifically in the bible.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
and that they are taught that no human being who leads a life devoted to the wellbeing of humankind is excluded from that goal.
Frajo, you do not understand religion. Read John 3:16 INCLUDING :18. 3:16 is the verse most quoted by born-againers but it cannot exist without :18, or indeed all of the bible.

This is what all religionists believe. if you don't ascribe to their particular definition of salvation you are condemned, excluded, the enemy. Ignore their self-righteous objections and loving admonitions (but we just want to save your soul from eternal damnation!), they are lies, as uba has demonstrated in his posts.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Obviously, the First Commandment is important to Christians, but it needn't be important to everyone that would follow other Biblical laws (for their own purposes).
So. Case in point. We have to extrapolate meaning from ubas posts because, like any religionist, they will not come right out and state politically inappropriate views.

What do you think uba is saying here? Well, the bible clearly states that those who do not accept the Xian god CANNOT act morally, and thus, I would have to surmise that uba agrees because I could be wrong but 'for their own purposes' means abusing the commandments for personal gain? As in misrepresenting your moral stance to deceive?

The bible is clear on these things and so is uba the religionist.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2010
NOT TRUE. I'm not trying to disprove anything.
You certainly weren't succeeding in doing so anyway.
You all would try to talk these people out of their beliefs intellectually, which never works
Nonsense. I have even managed to change the mind of a Jehovah's Witness. A bit anyway,
Uba has said some miserable, bigoted things here
Not half as much as you have done in your misguided attempts to beat something into his head.
I don't expect to change ubas beliefs- I'm no addiction councilor.
Then quit wasting bits.

I like arguing but I want I try to give each post some meaning. If I have to wait and think for a while I am to do so. I am willing to flounder around a bit but this is ridiculous.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Nonsense. I have even managed to change the mind of a Jehovah's Witness. A bit anyway
Did you salvage him? Probably not. But you enjoy the discourse anyway.
Not half as much as you have done in your misguided attempts to beat something into his head.
Again, not true. Read the entire discussion.
Then quit wasting bits.
What? You certainly dont expect to change their minds with pleasant logic do you?
I am willing to flounder around a bit but this is ridiculous.
No, youre not willing to go the distance. Again, read the thread and try to picture otto as your favorite trial lawyer. Or is it that you all are simply afraid of a little emotion?

READ the entire ARGUMENT. understand the context which justified the emotion.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Sometime in the future, should you find yourself in a more tranquil and rational frame of mind, we might take up this conversation again.

Until then, may you find within yourself, the peace you so fervently desire.
See? This is the kind of pleasnt bile that makes you want to scream, BITE ME!! Religionists know it. They love to try to enrage their opponents because when it works they think theyve won.

How is uba different from marjon, or even alizee? He descends to the same level [he lies] and yet he is not worth the same kind of response that they are?

Uba merely flees the scene because someone has called him on some of his inequities [lies] and if he stays he might have to own up.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Frajo, you do not understand religion.
I'm going to disagree and state that Frajo understands religion perfectly well. He understands that the statement made by religious dogma and doctrine are most often wrong, just as the dogma and doctrine of all aspects of human understanding are rather often wrong.

You're taking the wrong path on this argument. There's nothing of use to be found in debating dogma with an educated person as they can simply twist the string of the tapestry that is religion.

What you should do is speak to the tenets of the religion and debate whether the religion is necessary for said tenets within the confines of human philosophy. Example, no religion is necessary to adhere to the golden rule. Religions don't dictate actions, individuals dictate actions. Attacking a belief will not further your point. Discarding the religion as unnecessary and intrusive regardless of belief is a more successful tactic and yields better results and conversation.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
To address ubas heresy:
There's nothing in there about "adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others."
The 1st Law demands acceptance of god. The bible says:

"3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." rom8

"6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, NOR CAN IT DO SO. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." rom8
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Translation: Those who do not believe in Jesus cannot be moral, period. This is also an essential tenet of religion in general, that each one is the exclusive source of morality, conditional on the acceptance of it alone.

Of course, Romans is not by far the only place where this is explicit in the bible. Uba knows this in spirit even if he is ignorant of bible content, as he alludes to it in his posts:
Obviously, the First Commandment is important to Christians, but it needn't be important to everyone that would follow other Biblical laws (for their own purposes).
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
@SH
He understands that the statement made by religious dogma and doctrine are most often wrong
Frajo says:
I know that Catholics are taught that... no human being who leads a life devoted to the wellbeing of humankind is excluded from that goal.
I think youll agree that catholics, especially, are taught to uphold the word of god; and that no one can get into heaven unless they accept christ, as the bible says.

What sect members are taught and how they choose to interpret individual passages, or which passages they might tend to invoke, can change over time. But the insistance that only believers can be saved, is universal and immutable. And so is the understanding that god is the only true source of morality, as the bible says.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
@Otto,
I think youll agree that catholics, especially, are taught to uphold the word of god; and that no one can get into heaven unless they accept christ, as the bible says.

What sect members are taught and how they choose to interpret individual passages, or which passages they might tend to invoke, can change over time.
I think if you're sufficiently schooled within the history of religion you would also know that religion has done everything but remain static in literal or interpretive meaning.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Yeah, but they never accept unbelievers in their ranks, and rarely in their communities. You'll note ubas use of the word 'tolerate', with the hope of conversion. You'll note his original 'problem' with those who might turn others away from his faith.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Yeah, but they never accept unbelievers in their ranks, and rarely in their communities. You'll note ubas use of the word 'tolerate', with the hope of conversion.
Of course, but would you say that tolerance is anything other than silent hatred?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
I read a story recently about a girl who had made friends with another girl on the Internet. Everything was fine until she disclosed that her family didn't believe in god, whereupon her new friends parents told their daughter they couldn't speak any more.

How bad does it have to be? How many religionists have you argued with who believe evolution is heresy? How dangerous do you think that is? Ever get anywhere meaningful with them?

My frustration with uba is the same as yours with margin or alizee. For the same reasons.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
My frustration with uba is the same as yours with margin or alizee. For the same reasons.
No, I disagree.

My frustration with Margarine and alizero are due to their willful ignorance of fact in reality. Not their ignorance of fact within their holy book. If you see the religion as valueless then debating the trappings of the religion is pointless.

When you take aim at a supernatural God, don't worry about the God part. Shift your aim a mere 5 characters to the left and target the supernatural.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2010
Again, not true. Read the entire discussion.
Garbage like that, from both of you, is only fit to skim. You were worse.
You certainly dont expect to change their minds with pleasant logic do you?
They didn't find it pleasant. Just hard to refute.
No, youre not willing to go the distance.
You are as delusional as a Creationist.

http://forums.pro...=21562.1

You can login as a guest.

I had the second post and the last with many between. Over 6000 posts total in the thread month after month for over a year.
Again, read the thread and try to picture otto as your favorite trial lawyer.
The one that DOESN'T go to jail for contempt of court? Unlike you.
Or is it that you all are simply afraid of a little emotion?
More like gross incompetence. Emotion is for those that can't reason. Fight cold.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Garbage like that, from both of you, is only fit to skim. You were worse.
Mine were more inspired-
More like gross incompetence. Emotion is for those that can't reason. Fight cold.
Yeah. Do me the simple honor of being specific. Cite something I actually SAID, which you disagree with, and why. Or FOAD. You dont like caps? So what?

@SH
As far as ubas use of the word 'tolerate', and the way I understood it, perhaps you would have a different take on it if used in a different context; such as 'tolerate' blacks, or 'tolerate' jews.

Religious tolerance and the word 'tolerate' have 2 different meanings.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
The one that DOESN'T go to jail for contempt of court? Unlike you.
And YOU aint the judge. Please do keep that in mind.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2010
If you see the religion as valueless then debating the trappings of the religion is pointless.
Now, ive often seen you quote the bible to expose its 'inconsistancies'. If uba says that xians dont need to follow the law and we can show where it specifically says they do, as you and I both did, then we are using their trappings against them.

Uba says that the bible doesnt require people to accept god and the first commandment in order to follow the other 9; I proved that it does.

Ubas claims about bible content are what you call
willful ignorance of fact in reality.
-as are his denial of endemic bigotry in the bible (and his own personal beliefs), or the ruinous effect that religion has throughout history, a recurring theme in the marjon chronicles. I have called uba on all of these.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Now, ive often seen you quote the bible to expose its 'inconsistancies'. If uba says that xians dont need to follow the law and we can show where it specifically says they do, as you and I both did, then we are using their trappings against them.
Yes I have, typically against a YEC because they are wholly ignorant of the actual text of the Bible, regardless of their amazing ability to quote the most common pieces of it. In that circumstance I use their own weapon against them. As you can see with Uba, the trappings don't influence his views. He's of a more modern and educated flavor, similar to frajo and modernmystic. In the eventuality that the person I'm speaking to is capable of rational thought, my tone and objectives change as my "sparring partner" isn't ridiculously ignorant of reality.

In regard to the Bible itself, it's a worthless often translated book full of fantasy, debating the content is worthless against a rational person as it is immaterial.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Certainly, but you're avoiding the question. Do you hold that your faith is a philosophical myth or that it holds some greater truth than current observation about reality? To be more direct, do you adhere to the belief that there is eternal life, a soul, the metaphysical trappings consistently teases from the text, though never explicitly stated or do you think that's a big load of bullshit and the religion is simply an effective way to convey a message, like Aesop's Fables?
There's certainly some of the latter to it, but as to the former...

You have to understand that answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical, than not. That said:

For me, the universe is a strange place. A place where consciousness arises from a mush of neurons, where a simple program would be more efficient. ...a place where conscious observation affects reality in strange ways...

So, what is consciousness?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
It seems occasionally at variance with what the Bible says.
How so?
Of course ALL Christians are inherently at variance since the Bible has contradictions. I suppose you just consider those unimportant.
Of what contradictions do you speak?
For instance, has anyone seen the face of god?
Yes.
If your answer isn't twofold and including contradictions then you are missing out on the fun.
Explain.
I simply don't understand why people believe at all when they don't believe in so many parts of the Bible.
Example?
This is one area where I actually understand the Fundamentalists.

If it is just the writing of men why believe? If it isn't just the writing of men why are there so many errors.
To which "errors" do you refer?
Myself, I noticed that anthropologists archeologists and others were willing to look at other religions objectively yet evaded that with their own religions. So I looked at Christianity objectively and found it wanting.
How so?
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Yeah, but they never accept unbelievers in their ranks, and rarely in their communities. You'll note ubas use of the word 'tolerate', with the hope of conversion.
Of course, but would you say that tolerance is anything other than silent hatred?
I keep my definitions tight. To be clear, these are the definitions I intend:

tolerance: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

tolerate: 2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2010
How so?
See your answer to Has anyone seen the face of god?
Yes.
True. EXCEPT the Bible itself says otherwise.

Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

1 John 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Example?
That depends on the person. Fundamentalists believe the world is only around 6,000 years old and the ages and lifespans in the Bible back them up on that. You either believe that or you don't believe in all the Bible even beyond the face of Jehovah problem.
To which "errors" do you refer?
Age of the Earth. Order of Creation. The murder of the first born in Egypt. The Flood. The Tower of Babel. All those things never happened. Those count as errors. Of course the Face of God is an error of some kind. Then there are the last words of Jesus on the cross. Many more if you want them. But deal with these first.

Continues
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2010
How so?
The world is old. The story of Exodus is a horror story that fortunately never happened. The whole concept of original sin makes no sense at all.

---------------------------
tolerance: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

tolerate: 2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
Those are fine. I think Otto has a strange idea of what tolerance means. He should watch the South Park episode dealing with alleged bizarre sex practices amongst some gays.

Tolerate is not the same as accept much less encourage.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
You have to understand that answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical, than not.
Which means you can apply logic to your behavior under such circumstance and deem the ideology to be of merit or not. Do you seperate your actions from your faith or does your faith guide your actions?

So, what is consciousness?
The sum total of trillions of concurrent chemical reactions.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
True. EXCEPT the Bible itself says otherwise.
Good catch. So why do you say 'true' then?
Of what contradictions do you speak?
See, now, instead of answering these questions again for uba, I would have pointed out that they had already been addressed in this and many other threads, and would wonder why uba the intellectual was asking them again when he's already heard the answers, re marjon. Even tho ethels answers were very elegant.

otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Re the toleration argument; the context:
What Bible are you reading? In mine, we're generally taught to be tolerant - even of our enemies (though many Christians do struggle with this). We also do hope everyone else will see the light for themselves (be converted). But our toleration of others is not dependent on this hope.
-I believed this statement betrayed ubas intolerance of those who present a 'problem' to believers of his faith, as he said in his earlier post:
One interesting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-which seems to me to be expressing 'intolerance' of those with differing beliefs.

As to ottos intolerance of religionism in general, me and Richard Dawkins see no reason to tolerate religionism in the world today.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Me and Richard (author of 'the god delusion') feel that no religion is benign, that all harbor the propensity for bigotry and violence. Richard and I strongly believe that religious thought threatens the future of science and the world, and that to condone one is to enable them all. All rational people should resist religions, and religionists should constantly be reminded of how we feel and why. In no uncertain terms.

Certainly this can be done by pointing out the fallacy of their beliefs, the evidence that proves their legends false, and the ongoing damage that religions are doing to the world. But, as their beliefs originate in 'the realm of emotion and not reason, it is from emotion that we should argue.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2010
Me and Richard (author of 'the god delusion') feel that no religion is benign, that all harbor the propensity for bigotry and violence.
Your shared scope is too narrow. Any group can be corrupted and utilized for bigotry and violence including Dawkins followers.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Sure but religions don't view their particular brand of Bigotry and violence as corruption. I would reference jihad, Sunni/shiia animosity, ad infinitum. Religion institutionalizes these things on authority of god. Richards not god but he's close.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
And Richard certainly does not advocate violence, only righteous indignation. And he is no bigot. But we can compile a very long list of religionists, past and present, who do advocate these things, at every degree and intensity, and demand them from their followers. No religionist is totally innocent of this, and all share in the responsibility for it wherever it occurs. As long as they advocate the worship of the unreal, they enable others to use it to extremes.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Know what I just realized? There is a freaking xian cross in the layout of the US state borders... through the four corner states of utah, colorado, arizona, and new mexico; with the long line from st george, UT (of course) to Joplin, MO. The audacity. Well, at least we have an inverted pentagram in DC (and that huge obelisk...)
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
And Richard certainly does not advocate violence, only righteous indignation. And he is no bigot.
So you're woefully ignorant of Dawkins past. Don't you recall when he insisted that we call all atheists by the term "brights" as we're , according to him, brighter than other people?
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Those are fine. I think Otto has a strange idea of what tolerance means.

Uba cherry-picked the definition for tolerance:

1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

-which was at the top of the list, and which ethelred would have seen if he had looked for himself in an unbiased manner.

My original take on ubas usage still stands: as in 'tolerate blacks, tolerate jews'. Uba the religionist tolerates unbelievers in the same manner, as do most all religionists by definition.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2010
And Richard certainly does not advocate violence, only righteous indignation. And he is no bigot.
So you're woefully ignorant of Dawkins past. Don't you recall when he insisted that we call all atheists by the term "brights" as we're , according to him, brighter than other people?
Woefully?? Source and context bitte.

Like I said, he aint god, and he will admit that freely. Unlike jesus.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
@Ethelred:
See your answer to Has anyone seen the face of god?
Sorry, you'll have to elucidate.
True. EXCEPT the Bible itself says otherwise.

Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

1 John 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
You didn't specify that it had to be someone whom is alive, or is even human.
That depends on the person. Fundamentalists believe the world is only around 6,000 years old and the ages and lifespans in the Bible back them up on that. You either believe that or you don't believe in all the Bible even beyond the face of Jehovah problem.
Or, there's a problem of interpretation. The Bible itself clearly states the scriptures won't be fully understood until the end.

continued

ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Age of the Earth. Order of Creation. The murder of the first born in Egypt. The Flood. The Tower of Babel. All those things never happened. Those count as errors. Of course the Face of God is an error of some kind. Then there are the last words of Jesus on the cross. Many more if you want them. But deal with these first.
I suppose that depends on your point of view then. I don't see it that way.

Would you consider, for instance, the moral story of the grasshopper and the ant to be an error (as ants and grasshoppers obviously can't converse)?

Simple logic dictates that if Jesus is God, and Jesus routinely spoke in parables, then God probably did too.

There's more on these issues, that I've already addressed with SH. Just look through the thread. It had to do with a movie and a class.
The world is old. The story of Exodus is a horror story that fortunately never happened.
I don't disagree.
The whole concept of original sin makes no sense at all.
It does to me.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
I think "original sin" is simply a reference to sentience. See? We CAN (and do) sin, whereas a non-sentient being cannot.
Those are fine. I think Otto has a strange idea of what tolerance means. He should watch the South Park episode dealing with alleged bizarre sex practices amongst some gays.

Tolerate is not the same as accept much less encourage.
Granted.
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2010
@SH:
Which means you can apply logic to your behavior under such circumstance and deem the ideology to be of merit or not.
Which is why I say some things are worth believing in, whether they're true or not.
Do you seperate your actions from your faith or does your faith guide your actions?
Both, neither, mixed. It depends on the circumstance.

I use my faith for general principles of behavior, but I sometimes screw that up. :)
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
So, what is consciousness?
The sum total of trillions of concurrent chemical reactions.
I disagree. That a sentient observer affects quantum reality, indicates (to me) there's more to it than that.

otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Would you consider, for instance, the moral story of the grasshopper and the ant to be an error (as ants and grasshoppers obviously can't converse)?
Reasonable people know insects don't talk. Jesus explained to his disciples why he spoke in parables, and the text generally identifies them as such.

'God' sells his events in the bible as real, which is why scads of people believe they are despite the evidence. Some would interpret this as deception on the part of the people who actually wrote the book, to make their history more grandiose than it actually was, or their prophet more special.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 20, 2010
Measuring particles generally means bouncing something off them, which will change their state. The event would be identical to one in which some inanimate force affected the particle in the same way. Makes no difference whether the initiator is 'sentient' or not.

There was a recent article here which described measuring photons in quantum wells without affecting their properties. More to follow I'm sure.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
I disagree. That a sentient observer affects quantum reality, indicates (to me) there's more to it than that.

No, a sentient observer only affects observation of quantum phenomina through interacting.

What you're saying is that the presence of an electron proves theology, and that is jsut rubbish.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
No, a sentient observer only affects observation of quantum phenomina through interacting.
But we can make choices which uniquely affect the outcome of the measurement.

"If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found."

Source: http://abyss.uore...c13.html

What you're saying is that the presence of an electron proves theology,
I didn't say that.
and that is jsut rubbish.
All I said was:
That a sentient observer affects quantum reality, indicates (to me) there's more to it than that.
I don't see the word "prove" (or any of its synonyms) in there. Do you?

Really. You atheists have got to stop making these outlandish presumptions. It quite negatively affects civil discourse.

Moving on...

So, what constitutes an observer?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2010
uba,

Your above post only shows me that you are ignorant of the fundamental concepts of QED and wave particle duality. Most people are ignorant of these findings and implications, however, it is jsut bad form to repeat the statements of people like Kent Hovind on his discourse of Quantum Mechanics as it shows that you don't consider your source when you do your investigations.

If you frame all of your conclusions around a central tenet that you cannot prove then you aren't actually performing science.

I don't see the word "prove" (or any of its synonyms) in there. Do you?
Perhaps you should frame your statements more carefully if you wish to be interpreted properly. Making shadowed insinuations will require a rebuttal of interpretation, if such an interpretation is incorrect, then your insinuation is equally as incorrect.

As for an observer, no conciousness required, simple interactive presence is all that is required.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
SH called uba ignorant- it's a start-
"If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found."
They look for these things in different ways by affecting them in different ways. Affecting particles inevitably changes their properties.

It's like, if you were walking and saw Jesus sitting quietly on a tree stump, you couldn't really tell what his state was. He could be praying or merely asleep. But if you bounced a rock off his head, his state would immediately become apparent. This is referred to as the collapse of the waveform Jesus. You would have determined his state by 'measuring' Jesus, but you would have inevitably changed others.

This would have essentially the same result if a fig tree were to fall on him, or if god wanged him with a holy orb. Same difference. Sentience is irrelevant.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
SH called uba ignorant- it's a start-
The definition used here was "unaware, or uneducated within" the specific fields I stated. It was not an insult, it was not a general descriptor.

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
And we know too that jesus is not annihilated during the experiment, as Paul tells us in the bible:

9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. -Rom6

-So we know that the experiment is potentially repeatable, an essential aspect of the scientific method. 'He lives to god', and indeed to science as well.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
-We know that we can perform all sorts of experiments on Jesus in order to determine his true nature, without fear of annihilating the host.

Experimentation of this sort can provide a wealth of new information to the forensic anti-religionist, without fear may i add of unleashing otherworldly or worldly retribution which might be the case if we were to choose, say, muhammud, for destructive analysis.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
Auf jeden Fall!

http://en.wikiped..._Antioch
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
Auf jeden Fall!

http://en.wikiped..._Antioch

Bitte
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
@SH:
uba,

Your above post only shows me that you are ignorant of the fundamental concepts of QED and wave particle duality. Most people are ignorant of these findings and implications, however, it is jsut bad form to repeat the statements of people like Kent Hovind on his discourse of Quantum Mechanics as it shows that you don't consider your source when you do your investigations.
Insults now?
If you frame all of your conclusions around a central tenet that you cannot prove then you aren't actually performing science.
Look. You asked me if I "adhere to the BELIEF that there is eternal life, a soul..."

I responded with: "...answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical..."

Which implicity means my answers are no more than opinions, and in my last statement I wrote: "..indicates (to me)..." which clearly implies it's, once again, a personal opinion.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
@SH:
Your above post only shows me that you are ignorant of the fundamental concepts of QED and wave particle duality. Most people are ignorant of these findings and implications, however, it is jsut bad form to repeat the statements of people like Kent Hovind on his discourse of Quantum Mechanics as it shows that you don't consider your source when you do your investigations.
Insults now?
If you frame all of your conclusions around a central tenet that you cannot prove then you aren't actually performing science.
Look. You asked me if I "adhere to the BELIEF that there is eternal life, a soul..."

I responded with: "...answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical..."

Which implicity means my answers are no more than opinions, and in my last statement I wrote: "..indicates (to me)..." which clearly implies it's, once again, a personal opinion.
ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
Note: Sorry about the double post above, I messed up the first time.

@SH (continued):

Perhaps you should frame your statements more carefully if you wish to be interpreted properly. Making shadowed insinuations will require a rebuttal of interpretation, if such an interpretation is incorrect, then your insinuation is equally as incorrect.
This conversation has taught me something I didn't know about atheists (but often suspected). It seems your interpretations are so extremely biased by your own dispositions that you not only misinterpret simple phrases and miss pertinent points, but you actually (and apparently regularly) see words and phrases that aren't even there at all!
As for an observer, no conciousness required, simple interactive presence is all that is required.
Interesting, but how would you prove it? Isn't the end observer of any such proof always a sentient being?

ubavontuba
not rated yet Jul 21, 2010
@SH and Ethelred:

This thread has become intolerably long and way off-topic, so I'm ending my contributions now. If you wish to continue this conversation, you may PM me.

Otherwise, see you in another thread...

ubavontuba
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 22, 2010
This conversation has taught me something I didn't know about atheists (but often suspected). It seems your interpretations are so extremely biased by your own dispositions that you not only misinterpret simple phrases and miss pertinent points, but you actually (and apparently regularly) see words and phrases that aren't even there at all!
Funny how that world looks back at you isn't it?
frajo
not rated yet Jul 22, 2010
Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
Auf jeden Fall!
The correct German answer would be "niemals" (I'd never mind).
Bitte
The correct German reply would be "danke" (Thanks for your permission).

Gebe gerne Nachhilfe. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
Auf jeden Fall!
The correct German answer would be "niemals" (I'd never mind).
He said "Absolutely"

Ethelred
not rated yet Jul 22, 2010
1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

-which was at the top of the list, and which ethelred would have seen if he had looked for himself in an unbiased manner.


Unbiased? How about you?

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. The same exact meaning.

Again acceptance is not the same as agreement or encouragement.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
This is referred to as the collapse of the waveform Jesus. You would have determined his state by 'measuring' Jesus, but you would have inevitably changed others.


OK now that is an effective way to state it. Possibly inflammatory but effective.

I have copied it to a text file in my Forum folder with appellation to Otto.

Always give credit to someone.

Someone said that. No, not me, someone else. Throw rock at him.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
This is referred to as the collapse of the waveform Jesus. You would have determined his state by 'measuring' Jesus, but you would have inevitably changed others.
OK now that is an effective way to state it. Possibly inflammatory but effective.

I have copied it to a text file in my Forum folder with appellation to Otto.

Always give credit to someone.

Someone said that. No, not me, someone else. Throw rock at him.
Alright, just one more post:

Again, the end observer is... wait for it...

...a sentient being.

That you guys think this analogy disproves anything (although it's admittedly funny - hats off to Otto) is ridiculous, it doesn't disprove anything. In fact, as I've shown above, it clearly supports my point ...which once again shows us that atheists simply don't get it.

(thinking out loud) Instead of "brights," it seems "dims" might be more apt...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
Instead of "brights," it seems "dims" might be more apt...
Highly unnecessary, especially considering your stance on adults having personal imaginary friends.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
It seems your interpretations are so extremely biased by your own dispositions that you not only misinterpret simple phrases and miss pertinent points, but you actually (and apparently regularly) see words and phrases that aren't even there at all!
Yeah, we're all alike. We can all recognize the pointlessness of your fantastical beliefs and the imminent danger they pose to the world.

Why anyone who professes to be moral and tolerant, would still want to support any system of beliefs such as this, just on the obviously false hope thay they might live forever, is beyond me. And beyond most anti-religionists.

It is selfish, immoral, and appalling.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.
Auf jeden Fall!
The correct German answer would be "niemals" (I'd never mind).
Bitte
The correct German reply would be "danke" (Thanks for your permission).

Gebe gerne Nachhilfe. :)
Macht's nichts
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2010
it doesn't disprove anything. In fact, as I've shown above, it clearly supports my point ...which once again shows us that atheists simply don't get it.
Only because you didnt digest the entire parable. I suppose you think fig trees have a collective will and a taste for revenge?

There is no Prime Mover and there need be none, even at the subatomic level. An equivalent, spontaneous interaction will have exactly the same results as one initiated by some scientist who pushes a button.

More news stories

Heart failure accelerates male 'menopause'

Heart failure accelerates the aging process and brings on early andropausal syndrome (AS), according to research presented today at the Heart Failure Congress 2013. AS, also referred to as male 'menopause', was four times ...

Feds fight morning-after pill age ruling in NY

(AP)—Department of Justice lawyers have again asked a federal appeals court in New York to delay lifting age restrictions and prescription requirements on an emergency contraceptive popularly known as the morning-after ...

Yahoo, pay-TV operators among Hulu bidders

Online video site Hulu is again up for sale, with Yahoo and pay TV operators DirecTV and Time Warner Cable among the seven bidders, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.