Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

wannabe wrote: JDHURF wrote: wannabe wrote: Quote: I wouldn’t want to practice sodomy regardless but to claim that it was okay for any society in history to hold to such immoral guidelines is fallacious, it was still immoral and should not be allowed. That is like saying gays that want to marry should just move to a different country that allows it, which is just as immoral an argument. Homosexuals should not have to move from their home country because their governments law is intolerant and bigoted, the government should change (and will, I might add).

wow! did you miss his point :shock: Actually it seems as though you have missed my point. Wormwood was suggesting that I lacked the ability to place myself in the shoes of our archaic ancestors which I pointed out was fallacious in this instance because we are currently discussion the beliefs and practices of our archaic ancestors as they are given credence and followed in modern day.

em.....his point exactly, how many Christians or Jews now-a-days are advocating the stoning of adulterers or sodomites? Like Wormwood said these are living religions, they change and adapt according to their time and circumstance. The prime orthodoxies and principals are maintained, but the specific guidance can change.

By the standards of my faith I hold that not only is stoning people wrong, but the death-penalty itself is wrong. But that opinion is my faith reacting to the times and circumstances I live in.

A society on the brink, say like the ancient Hebrews, need to live day to day by a different play book........

Im not sure you meant it quite this way but you imply that Christianity can or should change with society, and the example of stoning could not be a better example of the OPPOSITE being true, namely that society should change with Christianity.

The standards of your faith on this subject of stoning has not changed since He uttered the words "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", which is far more than a comment on stoning and proves that simple is often the most profound.

So then which is it really, "they change and adapt according to their time and circumstance" did the practice of stoning fade away because society changed Christianity or because Christianity changed society?

I reject the idea or the suggestion, that The Truth can or should be changed to accomodate a trend or fad, and that it is each of us that should change to accomodate The Truth.

[wormwood]

Quote: I take no personal offense to your screed but I am amused that you claim that “people like you are why I think PC is BS," what with all my “politically incorrectness" regarding religion, but, define me as you wish Actually it is very PC and en vogue to attack religion.

Quote: You never gave me any reasoning for why the OT law damning homosexuals is to be followed through into the NT but the others are not. Actually I believe I said I don't know why Christians choose to observe that rule. I don't recall saying that it should be followed.


Quote: Furthermore I do not claim that “every area in the world has to be completely tolerant of everything." Everything you agree with then.

Quote: Clearly if this were the case we would have to be tolerant of racism, terrorism, rape and murder; but to claim that we shouldn’t have to be tolerant of civil, productive members of our society is to not grasp the foundational purpose of having a civilization in the first place. The reason for civilization has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with maintaining a mental and social homeostasis, which if you think about it, sort of negates your point.

Quote: A remarkably transient and shallow response that fails to respond to my criticism whatsoever I think it answers your question perfectly. Post it ten more times, you will still get the same response.

Quote: No, you are talking about omniscience now. Omnipotence is exactly as I described in my post, essentially, the ability to do anything. Is your density intentional here? Omnipotence INCLUDES being able to be omniscient obviously.

Quote: If god is both omnipotent and benevolent yet there is still so much hatred, violence, horror, destruction, death and, in a word, thantos, one should question either gods omnipotence, its benevolence or, maybe, even god. Stick around, someone posts this "brain buster" every month or two.

Quote: That is actually not entirely accurate. The founding fathers knew very well the problems democracy could face with a majority subjecting a minority to inequality, intolerance, etc. Tell that to the native Americans or Africans. :lol: Honestly, if some country wants to let murder and rape etc go unchecked that is their business. If the collective will of the people was to end it, it would be ended.

Quote: If there is a society in which 99% of the people believe that the marriage between an adult male and an eleven year old girl is ethical – think Mormon extremists – while 1% realizes that this practice is unethical and should be opposed, yes, the minority should be heard over the majority and even more so if the minority consists of the young girls being married to adult males. If 99% of the society feels that way, who am I to say that they shouldn't? I wouldn't move there, but I am not so confident that my version of morality is correct, that I would go around inflicting it on other people. Isn't that what most non-religious people hate about Christians?
You only think that marriage to an eleven year old is wrong, because you have been told that, and people agreed with the sentiment and backed it up with some nod to science, or some other pseudo factual proof. The truth is that people have married young girls since the beginning of recorded history, and humanity has miraculously survived.

Quote: I wonder what Martin Luther King Jr. would have to say in response your morally baseless argument. Would it matter at all? Even if MLK agreed with you, does that somehow validate your opinion? He was trying to change the laws and policies of a democracy, in other words, change popular opinion. We were talking about a dawn of civilization despotism.

Quote: No I didn’t and I have already covered this in my response to wannabe wherein I said: “Actually it seems as though you have missed my point That was in response to a different quote. You did miss my point because you started giving the whole patriotic speech about the statue of Liberty, when America's policy is not what was in question. What WAS in question, was my idea that people should just move if they don't like their environment, and that it still stands in today's political climate, which I demonstrated.

Quote: Simply put if our ancestors claimed that it was morally justified to burn women to death on the grounds that they were witches and had been proven as such by hearsay or fallacious evidence then we are right in claiming that they were immoral and holding them to the moral standards of our time. I can't believe you don't see how fallacious this sounds. Who says our current version of morality is correct? Just because it says things that you want to hear? What if in 10 years morality 3.0 is invented, and new morality dictates that murder is ok if someone pisses you off, because that is just your natural emotional response, and emotions can't be wrong. To me this sounds like complete BS, but if enough people felt this way, it would be the accepted morality. Does that mean morality 3.0 is correct? Yes and no. In it's cultural context it is correct, but when viewed from this point in time, and perhaps later points in time, this morality will look severely stunted. Therefore there is no one set standard of morality, and claiming that we are right and they are wrong, is just self centered speculation.

Quote: Last I heard the amnesty bill was voted down You can call a bird a swing set, but it is still a bird.

Quote: Not implicitly but a lack of study doesn’t indicate comprehension even more. OK? The fact still remains.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: Actually I believe I said I don't know why Christians choose to observe that rule. I don't recall saying that it should be followed.
You said that it went against the “covenant,” that was your precise wording and I then asked you to justify this and you never did and you are now distancing yourself from having ever made such claims to begin with.
wormwood wrote: Everything you agree with then.
No, and I have no idea where you get such an idea. I said that not every area of the world has to be tolerant of everything; that is not parallel to agreeing with everything in any way.
wormwood wrote: The reason for civilization has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with maintaining a mental and social homeostasis, which if you think about it, sort of negates your point.
It doesn’t negate my point in the least bit. The reason for civilization is to protect the human race from natures elements and malign members of the species, it has everything to do with protecting civil productive members of the species that are being treated unequal. When you negate the rights of civil and productive members of the society on a bigoted basis you are necessarily denigrating the “mental and social homeostasis.”
wormwood wrote: I think it answers your question perfectly. Post it ten more times, you will still get the same response.
In that case I will take this as your concession.
wormwood wrote: Is your density intentional here? Omnipotence INCLUDES being able to be omniscient obviously.
Seems you are a bit dense and unnecessarily vitriolic. I have been discussing the contradictory nature of these two attributes in another thread. Omnipotence is the ability to, essentially, do anything; it has to do with behavior and action. Omniscience is the ability to, essentially, understand, know and expect everything. The two in combination are contradictory. Being omnipotent the entity in possession of such an attribute must be able to do anything which implies that the entity may also act in a manner that it itself would not understand, know or expect, otherwise its actions – its omnipotent attribute – becomes restricted by its inability to act outside of its own awareness, understanding and knowledge. So if an entity were omniscient it would not be able to also be omnipotent for one attribute necessarily restricts the other and this is refuting to the notion that god is both omnipotent and omniscient, it is contradictory.
wormwood wrote: You only think that marriage to an eleven year old is wrong, because you have been told that, and people agreed with the sentiment and backed it up with some nod to science, or some other pseudo factual proof. The truth is that people have married young girls since the beginning of recorded history, and humanity has miraculously survived.
I’m not going to justify this garbage with a response, other than what I am writing right now. :wink: You are operate with one of the most profane moral compasses that I have ever been witness to. If I really have to give you a lesson in morality I will begin a new thread on the subject, just for you. :wink:
wormwood wrote: I can't believe you don't see how fallacious this sounds. Who says our current version of morality is correct? Just because it says things that you want to hear? What if in 10 years morality 3.0 is invented, and new morality dictates that murder is ok if someone pisses you off, because that is just your natural emotional response, and emotions can't be wrong.
This is the fallacious argument. You are arguing that there is, essentially, no such thing as a correct moral position and then claiming that because of this we should not take any moral positions because they could be wrong. :lol: I find even more amusement in this argument because just a bit ago you were trying to tell me that “divine inspiration” has been wrong in the past but we should believe that it is right now, apparently you have a double standard in favor of the occult and in opposition to morality. Priceless! :lol:
wormwood wrote: To me this sounds like complete BS, but if enough people felt this way, it would be the accepted morality. Does that mean morality 3.0 is correct? Yes and no. In it's cultural context it is correct, but when viewed from this point in time, and perhaps later points in time, this morality will look severely stunted. Therefore there is no one set standard of morality, and claiming that we are right and they are wrong, is just self centered speculation.
You are wrong. A moral position is not made right by a majority consensus, it is made correct in its implications and consequences.
wormwood wrote: You can call a bird a swing set, but it is still a bird.
Your arguments continue to increase in their transience, this is simply lame.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: Did Christianity have a violent pass? Of course. Was it justified? Depends on your interpretation and understanding of God and the social attitudes of the time. Draw your own conclusion from there.
That is my point, that religion is and can be the arbiter for violence directly. The author of this thread claimed that, essentially, there was no possible way for religion to induce violence and conflict and I disagreed providing a plethora of citations from three religions which contained incitements to violence and conflict and a few examples of their adherents behaving in such a manner.
toddytodd wrote: To take parts of the Bible to show how 'violent' it can be, but leaving out the peaceful parts of the same bible is, to me, looking only for the bad. Of which you will find
There certainly are both violent and passive passages within the bible, as I told wormwood I’m positive that I could be more thorough in the citation of the peaceful passages than many “believers.” The problem is, however, that many of the violent passages are not repudiated within the bible; meaning that while there are commandments for peace and tolerance there remain the commandments for violence and they are to both be followed as laid out in the bible, the peaceful does not definitively negate the violent. If one believes the bible is the infallible word of god to be followed rigorously such a literalist does not write off the commandments to violence as does a moderate, such as you, that is the problem and that is the reason that I am presenting my argument. Religion, especially as spelled out within the bible and qua’ran, can condone and promote violence and intolerance, contrary to the threads authors erroneous assertions.

I only believe people are inherently violent creatures by natural design. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. I know of violent people who consider themselves 'christians', just like I know peaceful people who consider themselves 'christians' (and vice versa). Personally, I take everything in the bible, with a small exception to the four gospels, with a grain of salt.
To say, Christianity is an entirely evil and/or violent religion is a mistake in judgment and very one-sided, but each one basically finds what they are looking for in every religion. If you look for violence, you can find it. If you look for love, you can find it. If you look for sex, you can find it.

It is what you make of it that makes a religion 'anything'.

It is what religion makes of YOU that makes everything.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: Did Christianity have a violent pass? Of course. Was it justified? Depends on your interpretation and understanding of God and the social attitudes of the time. Draw your own conclusion from there.
That is my point, that religion is and can be the arbiter for violence directly. The author of this thread claimed that, essentially, there was no possible way for religion to induce violence and conflict and I disagreed providing a plethora of citations from three religions which contained incitements to violence and conflict and a few examples of their adherents behaving in such a manner.
toddytodd wrote: To take parts of the Bible to show how 'violent' it can be, but leaving out the peaceful parts of the same bible is, to me, looking only for the bad. Of which you will find
There certainly are both violent and passive passages within the bible, as I told wormwood I’m positive that I could be more thorough in the citation of the peaceful passages than many “believers.” The problem is, however, that many of the violent passages are not repudiated within the bible; meaning that while there are commandments for peace and tolerance there remain the commandments for violence and they are to both be followed as laid out in the bible, the peaceful does not definitively negate the violent. If one believes the bible is the infallible word of god to be followed rigorously such a literalist does not write off the commandments to violence as does a moderate, such as you, that is the problem and that is the reason that I am presenting my argument. Religion, especially as spelled out within the bible and qua’ran, can condone and promote violence and intolerance, contrary to the threads authors erroneous assertions.

I only believe people are inherently violent creatures by natural design. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. I know of violent people who consider themselves 'christians', just like I know peaceful people who consider themselves 'christians' (and vice versa). Personally, I take everything in the bible, with a small exception to the four gospels, with a grain of salt.
To say, Christianity is an entirely evil and/or violent religion is a mistake in judgment and very one-sided, but each one basically finds what they are looking for in every religion. If you look for violence, you can find it. If you look for love, you can find it. If you look for sex, you can find it.

It is what you make of it that makes a religion 'anything'.

It is what religion makes of YOU that makes everything.
No offense, but that seems to be wishy-washy word twist... :?
Religion only makes a person better if they believe (therefore want to be better). Without belief, religion is almost useless to the person on a personal level.

[wormwood]

Quote: You said that it went against the “covenant," that was your precise wording and I then asked you to justify this and you never did and you are now distancing yourself from having ever made such claims to begin with. What are you babbling about? I said, and read closely because I will not rephrase the same argument again, that for the Jews, homosexuality goes against their covenant with God, I have no idea why Christians, who were not bound by the same covenant, chose to obey this rule. Even you can't misread it this time....right?

Quote: No, and I have no idea where you get such an idea. I said that not every area of the world has to be tolerant of everything; that is not parallel to agreeing with everything in any way. :lol: Arguing with yourself again eh? You said:
Quote: Furthermore I do not claim that “every area in the world has to be completely tolerant of everything." So I amended the stipulation to Quote: Everything you agree with then Meaning other countries, regions, people should obey morality as you see it. They should be tolerant of everything YOU believe people should be tolerant of.

Quote: It doesn’t negate my point in the least bit. The reason for civilization is to protect the human race from natures elements and malign members of the species, False. The reason for SHELTER is to protect you from natures elements. Civilization is about stability and comfort. Routines are calming for human beings because it helps them maintain a mental homeostasis.

Quote: When you negate the rights of civil and productive members of the society on a bigoted basis you are necessarily denigrating the “mental and social homeostasis This is either a lie, or a simple mistake. Rome was one of the most successful civilizations to ever exist, and they, like Sumeria and the US used slavery. All successful, and all alienated otherwise productive members of society. At these points of forced assimilation and slavery were the greatest spikes in homeostasis. (I predict you will try to pretend I'm advocating slavery now :lol: )

Quote: In that case I will take this as your concession Whatever helps you sleep at night. You have a strange habit of jumping to conclusions repeatedly, as if the first few times taught you nothing.

Quote: Seems you are a bit dense and unnecessarily vitriolic. I have been discussing the contradictory nature of these two attributes in another thread. And I answered you on that thread. Ability does not necessitate action. Just because you can't understand that, doesn't mean a being with infinite intelligence couldn't.

Quote: I’m not going to justify this garbage with a response, other than what I am writing right now. You are operate with one of the most profane moral compasses that I have ever been witness to I love this tactic. Since you have no intelligent argument, you say you refuse to respond, then make attacks on me in an attempt to discredit the issue even further. I said I won't force my morality on everyone else in the world. If this is the most profane moral compass you encounter you are a lucky guy. I just don't consider myself intelligent enough or important enough to force my version of morality on the world, and I find that people who do force their morality on other people piss me off. If you believe in freedom, or free will, or whatever then there comes a point when you have to let go of your own view and be free of that as well. If 100 people get together and want to start a town where they can kill each other at will, but only inside the bounds of their town, why should I care? That is their choice, and since it does not effect me, I don't really care; I'm selfish like that.

Quote: If I really have to give you a lesson in morality I will begin a new thread on the subject, just for you. I would love to hear this compilation of borrowed ideas. :wink:

Quote: You are arguing that there is, essentially, no such thing as a correct moral position and then claiming that because of this we should not take any moral positions because they could be wrong. This doesn't even make sense. If there is no correct position, then how exactly could you be wrong? Just tell me this: who defines morality? What is the correct morality?

Quote: I find even more amusement in this argument because just a bit ago you were trying to tell me that “divine inspiration" has been wrong in the past but we should believe that it is right now, apparently you have a double standard in favor of the occult and in opposition to morality. Priceless More senseless babble. I never said divine inspiration was wrong, I said that there were other books that were supposedly divinely inspired, but that did not make the final draft of the bible. I also said that the Jewish laws evolved over the years. You're reaching now.

Quote: You are wrong. A moral position is not made right by a majority consensus, it is made correct in its implications and consequences. With all of those 101 anecdotes you're always lobbing around I figured surely you would have taken sociology 101.
morality
noun [C or U]
Quote: descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for their own behavior But then again, descriptivist internalists would agree with you. This is a whole new debate that will further hijack the thread. Tell me this, if a boy was born in the jungle and lived 20 years raised by wolves, would he know the correct morality?

Quote: Your arguments continue to increase in their transience, this is simply lame Like dodging the point entirely lame? Speaking of dodging, I notice you are no longer touting your bible verses from NT...

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: Meaning other countries, regions, people should obey morality as you see it. They should be tolerant of everything YOU believe people should be tolerant of.
No, people should only be tolerant inasmuch as to behave otherwise would necessarily cause undue harm to innocent, civil and productive members of the society. If you do not agree that society should promote and work towards a citadel of peace and tranquility then it is not that I unjustly wish people to abide by “my wishes” but it is that you have your priorities mixed up.
wormwood wrote: False. The reason for SHELTER is to protect you from natures elements. Civilization is about stability and comfort. Routines are calming for human beings because it helps them maintain a mental homeostasis.
Shelter is clearly the basis for the protection of human beings from natures elements but if you are to have others believe that society is not also a means to this end then you are misguided. Civilization certainly should promote and work towards stability and comfort, we at least agree with that, but it also is a great means the human species uses to protect themselves from natures elements. Think about it this way, the majority of modern shelter is a direct product of civilization.
wormwood wrote: This is either a lie, or a simple mistake. Rome was one of the most successful civilizations to ever exist, and they, like Sumeria and the US used slavery. All successful, and all alienated otherwise productive members of society. At these points of forced assimilation and slavery were the greatest spikes in homeostasis. (I predict you will try to pretend I'm advocating slavery now
This is clear evidence that you are using a highly profane and inaccurate moral calculus. One must take into the equation all members of the society, even the slaves, and if the slaves lives are terrible and torturous then through their unjustified suffering the homeostasis is unbalanced. Whether or not the society subjecting other human beings to slavery and torture is effective is irrelevant, what is relevant is the state of every member of that society.
wormwood wrote: And I answered you on that thread. Ability does not necessitate action. Just because you can't understand that, doesn't mean a being with infinite intelligence couldn't.
Again you have ignored my point. I agree that ability does not necessitate action but if an entity that is allegedly both omnipotent and omniscient does not have the ability to begin with then clearly there is a contradiction. I’m not claiming that to be both omnipotent and omniscient that the entity must act in a manner that it would not understand, know or expect, only that it is no longer an omnipotent entity if it doesn’t retain the ability to act in such a manner, yet if it is able to act in such a manner it is no longer omniscient hence the contradiction.
wormwood wrote: This doesn't even make sense. If there is no correct position, then how exactly could you be wrong? Just tell me this: who defines morality? What is the correct morality?
I do not believe that there isn’t a correct moral position, clearly I think there are correct moral positions but that is what your argument implies. That nobody else’s morality can ever be more legitimate than anyone else’s hence there really can never be grounds for a correct moral position. The correct moral position should be determined on the basis of what the social promotions or prohibitions consequences and effects are.
wormwood wrote: More senseless babble. I never said divine inspiration was wrong, I said that there were other books that were supposedly divinely inspired, but that did not make the final draft of the bible. I also said that the Jewish laws evolved over the years. You're reaching now.
Right. You were claiming that the books that made the cut had been divinely inspired but that they needed to “evolve” over the years to correct themselves which clearly begs the question that I posed much earlier: “how are we to believe anything “divinely inspired” if past works that were allegedly inspired as such were so grossly wrong? It seems that the “divine” is severely lacking in its power to “inspire” the author or believer with the correct message.
If you believe the OT books to have been divinely inspired in conjunction with the statement that you just made, “I never said divine inspiration was wrong,” am I to believe that you believe the OT books to be accurate? If not then divine inspiration was wrong with regards to much of the OT.
wormwood wrote: Like dodging the point entirely lame? Speaking of dodging, I notice you are no longer touting your bible verses from NT...
That is because you have effectively derailed my argument to the point that it has virtually nothing to do with my original argument.

[wormwood]

Quote: No, people should only be tolerant inasmuch as to behave otherwise would necessarily cause undue harm to innocent, civil and productive members of the society. Like adultery for example?

Quote: If you do not agree that society should promote and work towards a citadel of peace and tranquility then it is not that I unjustly wish people to abide by “my wishes" but it is that you have your priorities mixed up. And the truth comes out...if I don't agree with your vision of morality, then I must have my priorities mixed up. :lol: I knew your opinion was the only valid one...I'm not sure what it was, but I knew. Again this is a whole different debate, but no I do not believe any one society should work to be a completely peaceful place, which would be impossible anyway.

Quote: Shelter is clearly the basis for the protection of human beings from natures elements but if you are to have others believe that society is not also a means to this end then you are misguided. Yes, I forgot that living in clusters protects you from the rain. :lol:

Quote: Civilization certainly should promote and work towards stability and comfort, we at least agree with that, but it also is a great means the human species uses to protect themselves from natures elements. Think about it this way, the majority of modern shelter is a direct product of civilization. Byproduct. People were living in shelters before civilization. Change in style or construction methods are incidental effects of civilization and in no way better prepare you for a hurricane or earthquake. If anything, living close to throngs of other people could make it worse. This is peripheral anyway.

Quote: This is clear evidence that you are using a highly profane and inaccurate moral calculus. One must take into the equation all members of the society, even the slaves, and if the slaves lives are terrible and torturous then through their unjustified suffering the homeostasis is unbalanced. According to modern morality. According to ancient morality, slavery was ok and part of practically every society. Pretty strange for beings with an innate sense of morality eh? :wink: Anyhow, according to ancient morality, as long as the society itself, a.k.a. the people paying taxes to support the society, are happy and stable, all is well in the empire.

Quote: The correct moral position should be determined on the basis of what the social promotions or prohibitions consequences and effects are. Well, maybe that is how it should be, but this is how it is; morality is decided by whomever wields the power. In most social contexts, that means the society at large, and on a grander scale the ruling class.

Quote: Right. You were claiming that the books that made the cut had been divinely inspired but that they needed to “evolve" over the years to correct themselves which clearly begs the question that I posed much earlier I never said to "correct themselves". I never said that complete and utter peace is correct either. I simply said that the laws evolved over the years.

Quote: If you believe the OT books to have been divinely inspired in conjunction with the statement that you just made, “I never said divine inspiration was wrong," am I to believe that you believe the OT books to be accurate? If not then divine inspiration was wrong with regards to much of the OT So full of assumptions :lol: . I will not bother to discuss my personal beliefs on the subject with you, as I am sure you will simple read something that isn't written, then "quote" me incorrectly and repeatedly. Assuming is fun :lol:

Quote: That is because you have effectively derailed my argument to the point that it has virtually nothing to do with my original argument. You did that to yourself by quoting passages with no clue about the context, while touting your biblical knowledge :lol: Must be something you read in Leviticus 29 :wink:

[Eternal]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: It appears that many people have argued that religion is a major cause of war and aggression. This is a common impression of many people, and it is dangerous for two reasons:

1) belief in that religion causes war is a mixing up of cause and effect.
2) belief in that religion causes war ultimately leads to shunning and persecuting of religion itself.

Human nature causes war, not religion. we're all selfish to some extent. Pride is healthy up until it reaches a certain threshhold, and at that point it morphs into egotism. Those who combine egotism, wickedness, and charisma may rise to positions and wage war through aggression and deceit. I emphasize DECEIT because it will tie in with religion as an aegis greatly, for it is evildoers who purposely twist religion into fitting into their agendas. They use the cloak of religion to fool people, especially those who have a limited understanding of religion. I doubt that anybody who has read through the Holy Bible and grasped its content would condone of the Crusades. FOr at the time of the crusades, a person can be arrested for reading the Bible, because the catholic churhc , being a corrupt institution then, tried to prevent people from reading the bible for the very reason of more easily deceiving them.

think about it this way. You look at how many people have died supposedly "because of religion." But if we didn't have religion, do you think we'd have a world of peace? Most likely there would be more war and more killing under some other name- survival, honor, etc. If religion didn't exist, evildoers would just find some other excuse, whatever excuse may help them most. In the case of religion, people such as the popes of the MIddle Ages used it because they knew that devout people would be easily fooled due to their lack of knowledge in the Bible at the time.

Arguing about something based on what someone did in the "name of" is useless, because you then wouldn't be taking into account the sincerety of the claim.

If i walkd on the street and killed somebody, and claimed that "my dad intended it" when he actually did not, does that necessarily stain my dear ol'dad's grave? absolutely not. It wouldn't stain the father even if a million people did the same thing i did.

But ask this: How many murders have been caused by Hate, Egotism, or Apathy? Things that Religion strictly oppose- The answer : every single murder since the beginning of human history.

To argue that the atrocities committed in the name of religion were simply nothing more than “evil” leaders leading their flock astray forgets that some of mans greatest acts of inhumanity were not done for the purposes of power or hate, but from a belief that what one was doing was right. Much of the mistreatment of Australia’s indigenous population was not guided by misanthropy, but by a dogged belief that what we were doing was actually in their best interests. Indeed the belief that what one is doing is right despite evidence to the contrary is nicely summed up in the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Religion is often blamed for these atrocities because the worst of these events usually occur when the beliefs they are based upon are dogmatic, and dogmatic beliefs are the cornerstone of religion. Whilst it is true that early civilisation may have had a misogynistic attitude towards women, when religion picked up on that vibe and incorporated it into its dogma it perpetuated that belief. As such future generations viewed women as inferior not because of any rational reason, they did so purely because their religious doctrines said that it was in the woman’s best interest to do so.

This occurs in religion more than say science because unlike science, evidence has no effect on its process. The attitudes of the scientific community towards the benefits of breast feeding may have caused harm in the past, but these attitudes changed based on the evidence. Can any religion say that it has changed its dogma because there was strong evidence to suggest that its dogma was causing more harm than good? I think not. Indeed this will never occur so long as one of the founding principles of religion is faith.

You see whilst faith can be an uplifting experience for many people, it is ultimately blind and can allow one to believe any absurdity. Like love and fear it needs to be balanced and that balance is best brought about by science. Western society has progressed to where it is today not because it abolished faith, but because the enlightenment forced society to question faith with reason and evidence - science.

So in conclusion you can talk all you want about how religion is not to blame, but history tells us that it wasn’t secular humanists that were mostly against emancipation, women’s suffrage and homosexual rights.


Cheers, Eternal

[mojo]

Eternal wrote: You see whilst faith can be an uplifting experience for many people, it is ultimately blind and can allow one to believe any absurdity. Like love and fear it needs to be balanced and that balance is best brought about by science. Western society has progressed to where it is today not because it abolished faith, but because the enlightenment forced society to question faith with reason and evidence - science.

Do you really think society has balanced religion? Religion has balanced society. Mankind is the thing that sins, not God.

[Eternal]

mojo wrote: Do you really think society has balanced religion? Religion has balanced society. Mankind is the thing that sins, not God.

Firstly not all religions believe in a single god nor do they believe in the Christian concept of orginal sin. That being said what then do you believe resulted in the curtailing of religious excess in the western world if it wasn't the enlightenment?


Cheers, Eternal

[mojo]

Eternal wrote: mojo wrote: Do you really think society has balanced religion? Religion has balanced society. Mankind is the thing that sins, not God.

Firstly not all religions believe in a single god nor do they believe in the Christian concept of orginal sin. That being said what then do you believe resulted in the curtailing of religious excess in the western world if it wasn't the enlightenment?


Cheers, Eternal

Society has seen more progress since Christianities inception then before it was initiated.

If anything curtailed spiritualism it would be material success brought about by a people with religious values. The People assumed the place of God. Really spiritulism has not been curtailed. There will always be a vocal minority of atheists but people are by and large mystical by nature.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: And the truth comes out...if I don't agree with your vision of morality, then I must have my priorities mixed up. Laughing I knew your opinion was the only valid one...I'm not sure what it was, but I knew. Again this is a whole different debate, but no I do not believe any one society should work to be a completely peaceful place, which would be impossible anyway.
Not the case. There are a slew of moral positions which I do not even attempt to claim that I am necessarily right about, the only aspect of morality that I believe is foundationally true and should be acknowledge by the human species is that of encouraging and promoting peace and tranquility throughout the world-state. You still have yet to tell me if you agree with this.
wormwood wrote: Yes, I forgot that living in clusters protects you from the rain.
When was the last time you built a hurricane wind proof shelter by yourself without any tools created through human industry? Civilization has created all sorts of shelters for the human race as a collective that would otherwise be impossible. Civilization, through industry, has also created the tools necessary to create these shelters.
You’re just not thinking clearly here.
wormwood wrote: Byproduct. People were living in shelters before civilization. Change in style or construction methods are incidental effects of civilization and in no way better prepare you for a hurricane or earthquake. If anything, living close to throngs of other people could make it worse. This is peripheral anyway.
Of course people were living in shelters before civilization but the shelters were clearly far more rudimentary and unsafe as compared to the shelters built after the advent of modern civilization: bomb shelters, hurricane proof shelters, levee’s (that resist flooding),etc. Civilization surely does help better prepare for a hurricane and actually an earthquake also, at least through civilization you might be warned of a pending earthquake.
wormwood wrote: According to modern morality. According to ancient morality, slavery was ok and part of practically every society. Pretty strange for beings with an innate sense of morality eh? Anyhow, according to ancient morality, as long as the society itself, a.k.a. the people paying taxes to support the society, are happy and stable, all is well in the empire.
As I have already said it doesn’t matter if everyone agrees that slavery is okay and that torture and rape is ethical, they are still not and no consensus repudiates this. It doesn’t matter that there are members of the society which are doing just great and prospering and it doesn’t matter if their unethical practices are beneficial in some way because the overall, as you put it, homeostasis is still unbalanced.
wormwood wrote: Well, maybe that is how it should be, but this is how it is; morality is decided by whomever wields the power. In most social contexts, that means the society at large, and on a grander scale the ruling class.
Agreed.
wormwood wrote: I never said to "correct themselves". I never said that complete and utter peace is correct either. I simply said that the laws evolved over the years.
So you do not believe the OT books to have been correct or divinely inspired?
If something such as a book can even be described as having evolved has it not adapted to better suit the environment in which it exists based on its inadequacy?
wormwood wrote: So full of assumptions. I will not bother to discuss my personal beliefs on the subject with you, as I am sure you will simple read something that isn't written, then "quote" me incorrectly and repeatedly. Assuming is fun
They are assumptions and not presented as factual but as questions. I don’t see any legitimate reason for you to abstain from describing your views and beliefs, that seems unnecessarily evasive and escapist.
wormwood wrote: You did that to yourself by quoting passages with no clue about the context, while touting your biblical knowledge Must be something you read in Leviticus 29
I have read and reread Leviticus 19:1-48 and I am not able to find this “context” that you claim opposes the idea that the Parable of Ten Pounds is about the ministry of Jesus, quite the contrary, I find more evidence that it is.

BTW – no amount of emoticons strengthens your argument, to me, it makes it look even more silly and trite.

[wormwood]

Quote: Not the case. There are a slew of moral positions which I do not even attempt to claim that I am necessarily right about, the only aspect of morality that I believe is foundationally true and should be acknowledge by the human species is that of encouraging and promoting peace and tranquility throughout the world-state. You still have yet to tell me if you agree with this. That depends entirely on context. Do I believe that people should make personal efforts to help fellow human beings and make the world a better place? Sure, who wouldn't? Do I believe that we should force peace and morality on people until the world is a subdued fascist super-state? No. Violence is part of human nature. Some people, like myself, actually enjoy it on some levels. When you start protecting people from themselves then there is no free will. Before you create a meaning for this let me add, if all the people in a region agree to one certain code of conduct, that is their business...putting a stop to that is what I mean by "protecting people from themselves". Take the UFC for example. These people agree to step in the ring and fight, because they love it. Many states will not sanction UFC fights because they are too rough. If two men want to fight, and people want to pay to see it, how can it be wrong? If someone gets hurt, they knew the risks when they stepped in the ring, and both parties still consented. When my morality takes away someone else's freedom, then I am no longer being moral according to your definition. :wink:

Quote: When was the last time you built a hurricane wind proof shelter by yourself without any tools created through human industry? Civilization has created all sorts of shelters for the human race as a collective that would otherwise be impossible. Civilization, through industry, has also created the tools necessary to create these shelters. I was talking about in original context. So you believe people formed civilizations so that 5000 years later they would benefit? :lol:

Quote: As I have already said it doesn’t matter if everyone agrees that slavery is okay and that torture and rape is ethical, they are still not and no consensus repudiates this. And how did you come to this conclusion? Could it have been cultural popular opinion perhaps?

Quote: It doesn’t matter that there are members of the society which are doing just great and prospering and it doesn’t matter if their unethical practices are beneficial in some way because the overall, as you put it, homeostasis is still unbalanced. I can't understand what you are not getting here... the homeostasis only applies to the people making up the society. Human beings have society so that THEY will have a social and mental homeostasis, not so that EVERY human being will. Slaves were not citizens in any of the aforementioned nations. By your reasoning, America was formed so that every person on the north American continent would be protected and made safe, which was CLEARLY not the case.

Quote: So you do not believe the OT books to have been correct or divinely inspired? This is a gray area. Without starting a whole new discussion, for the sake of this conversation, I believe they are correct.

Quote: If something such as a book can even be described as having evolved has it not adapted to better suit the environment in which it exists based on its inadequacy The inadequacy, according to the text, belongs to human beings. They were given the law slowly, because they were unable to follow even simple rules. It should be noted that in many cases one simply had to ask for mercy to receive it (the story of Abraham and Lot for example).

Quote: They are assumptions and not presented as factual but as questions. I don’t see any legitimate reason for you to abstain from describing your views and beliefs, that seems unnecessarily evasive and escapist There are a plethora of reasons. First it will cause more questions than it answers, it would take too long to explain, it is irrelevant to this discussion, I don't share personal information with opportunistic conversationalists, etc etc :wink:

Quote: I have read and reread Leviticus 19:1-48 and I am not able to find this “context" that you claim opposes the idea that the Parable of Ten Pounds is about the ministry of Jesus, quite the contrary, I find more evidence that it is. This must be some sort of miscommunication, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote: BTW – no amount of emoticons strengthens your argument, to me, it makes it look even more silly and trite. Well since I am here just to impress you and all I promise to stop using them :-| :-| :-| :roll: 8:) 8:) :lol: :wink: Those slipped...

[Eternal]

mojo wrote: Society has seen more progress since Christianities inception then before it was initiated.

If you look at how the Middle East functions today, you'll see a snapshot of what Western Society was like 500-600 years ago. It was a society dominated by religious dogma and had scant regard for human life. The enlightenment changed that for the better because it put the needs of humanity before the needs of any god/s (note the word needs, not wants).

mojo wrote: If anything curtailed spiritualism it would be material success brought about by a people with religious values. The People assumed the place of God. Really spiritulism has not been curtailed. There will always be a vocal minority of atheists but people are by and large mystical by nature.

Read up about the enlightenment, you obviously need to do more research.


Cheers, Eternal

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: That depends entirely on context. Do I believe that people should make personal efforts to help fellow human beings and make the world a better place? Sure, who wouldn't?
That was really all you needed to say, the following irrelevant verbosity could have been omitted.
wormwood wrote: Do I believe that we should force peace and morality on people until the world is a subdued fascist super-state? No.
Of course I agree with that. Extrapolating your answer from my simple question to include responses such as this is clearly unnecessary.
wormwood wrote: Violence is part of human nature. Some people, like myself, actually enjoy it on some levels. When you start protecting people from themselves then there is no free will.
Red herring. I am not advocating paternalism.
wormwood wrote: Before you create a meaning for this let me add, if all the people in a region agree to one certain code of conduct, that is their business...putting a stop to that is what I mean by "protecting people from themselves". Take the UFC for example. These people agree to step in the ring and fight, because they love it. Many states will not sanction UFC fights because they are too rough. If two men want to fight, and people want to pay to see it, how can it be wrong? If someone gets hurt, they knew the risks when they stepped in the ring, and both parties still consented. When my morality takes away someone else's freedom, then I am no longer being moral according to your definition.
False. My definition of morality is only working towards creating peace and tranquility amongst the world-states and is based on consequences and effects produced by social promotions and prohibitions, to extrapolate this to “saving everyone from themselves” is fallacious. I have written blog entries in favor of the legalization of “illicit” drugs, in favor of gun ownership, etc. I believe that instating overt paternalism and revoking civil liberties and freedoms is immoral and I strongly object. However there is a clear difference between two consenting adults that wish to fight each other as opposed to one individual enslaving another against their will or marrying children when they haven’t even developed the cognitive ability to consent with the full presence of their mind.
wormwood wrote: I was talking about in original context. So you believe people formed civilizations so that 5000 years later they would benefit?
Another red herring. My original claim was that civilization exists in order to protect members from other members that would otherwise cause them undue harm and that it also protected the human species from natural elements because you were claiming that civilization has “nothing to do with homosexuality” or their protection but has “everything to do with homeostasis,” which, as I have already pointed out, is thrown of balance when civilization does not protect its innocent, civil and productive members.
wormwood wrote: And how did you come to this conclusion? Could it have been cultural popular opinion perhaps?
Of course it could be and for many it is but I have come to this conclusion based on what the consequences and ramifications of slavery, torture and rape include.
wormwood wrote: I can't understand what you are not getting here... the homeostasis only applies to the people making up the society. Human beings have society so that THEY will have a social and mental homeostasis, not so that EVERY human being will. Slaves were not citizens in any of the aforementioned nations.
No you continue to in your line of severe unreason, which is also immoral. The “homeostasis” applies to every human being residing in the society which necessarily includes those being subject to slavery and as such the homeostasis is thrown off balance because of their undue suffering. I am not claiming that “every” human being must have a homeostasis – they do but that is another line of inquiry – what I am arguing is that a society can not be said to have reached a healthy and balanced homeostasis when there are so many human beings residing in that specific society being subjected to such severe wrongs like slavery. My point is that one must include the entire society including the slaves, not just the members of the society benefiting from it. Furthermore it doesn’t matter if the “aforementioned nations” did not consider slaves citizens, what matters is that the slaves were human beings, made up a significant portion of the population and were being treated disproportionately and very wrongly which denigrates the homeostasis. The fact that such nations naturally undergo the violent revolts and revolutions of its slaves and of its citizens which oppose slavery is a daunting testament to this.
wormwood wrote: By your reasoning, America was formed so that every person on the north American continent would be protected and made safe, which was CLEARLY not the case.
How in the world did you extract that from my post?
wormwood wrote: This is a gray area. Without starting a whole new discussion, for the sake of this conversation, I believe they are correct.
So you believe that the OT books are correct but that it was necessary for them to evolve? That doesn’t make any sense, furthermore you realize that if you believe the OT books are correct then you are obligated to hold such passages within them as correct also, such passages as Duet. 21:18-21. You really believe that this passage in Duet. is correct?
wormwood wrote: The inadequacy, according to the text, belongs to human beings. They were given the law slowly, because they were unable to follow even simple rules. It should be noted that in many cases one simply had to ask for mercy to receive it (the story of Abraham and Lot for example).
Right, you claim that the inadequacy – which you just previously claimed doesn’t exist, when you said that “I believe they are correct.” – is a product of human iniquity but, again, this begs the question. If “divine inspiration” is subject to so much inadequacy, why in the world should we ever lend it credence at all?
wormwood wrote: There are a plethora of reasons. First it will cause more questions than it answers, it would take too long to explain, it is irrelevant to this discussion, I don't share personal information with opportunistic conversationalists, etc etc
*sigh* whatever.
wormwood wrote: This must be some sort of miscommunication, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I had cited as proof of the condoning and promoting of violence in the NT the passage found in Luke 19:27, which you claimed had been taken out of context and then further claimed that I had ceased referencing these citations to which I responded that I had ceased citing them because you had effectively derailed my argument and further that I had read the entirety of the nineteenth chapter of Luke and was unable to find the “context” which suggested that the Parable of the Ten Pounds was not directly related to the ministry of Jesus, quite the contrary is what I said.

[JDHURF]

Eternal wrote: To argue that the atrocities committed in the name of religion were simply nothing more than “evil” leaders leading their flock astray forgets that some of mans greatest acts of inhumanity were not done for the purposes of power or hate, but from a belief that what one was doing was right. Much of the mistreatment of Australia’s indigenous population was not guided by misanthropy, but by a dogged belief that what we were doing was actually in their best interests. Indeed the belief that what one is doing is right despite evidence to the contrary is nicely summed up in the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”....So in conclusion you can talk all you want about how religion is not to blame, but history tells us that it wasn’t secular humanists that were mostly against emancipation, women’s suffrage and homosexual rights.
Fantastic post!

[wormwood]

Quote: That was really all you needed to say, the following irrelevant verbosity could have been omitted It wasn't all I needed to say, because judging by your previous posts, you believe that not only is your morality the only correct morality, but that everyone in the world should follow it whether they want to or not.

Quote: Red herring. I am not advocating paternalism. I could have sworn that you said, even if 99% of the people in an area agreed to a certain code of conduct which was contrary to your morality, they are not right, and shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

Quote: False. My definition of morality is only working towards creating peace and tranquility amongst the world-states and is based on consequences and effects produced by social promotions and prohibitions, to extrapolate this to “saving everyone from themselves" is fallacious. You are talking about limiting an area majority's freedom based on your personal idea's of right and wrong. That is saving people who "don't know any better", or saving people from themselves.

Quote: I have written blog entries in favor of the legalization of “illicit" drugs, in favor of gun ownership, etc. I believe that instating overt paternalism and revoking civil liberties and freedoms is immoral and I strongly object. Finally we agree on something.

Quote: However there is a clear difference between two consenting adults that wish to fight each other as opposed to one individual enslaving another against their will or marrying children when they haven’t even developed the cognitive ability to consent with the full presence of their mind. First of all the slavery issue. Do you know who the slaves were in ancient Jewish societies? Second the marrying of young girls. Nature seems to think that when a girl starts having her period, she is ready to have children, which in ancient society meant being married. The fact that you live in a country that sets an arbitrary age of 18 doesn't mean that this is the correct age to start having children. You don't seem to understand any setting that differs from your own.

Quote: Another red herring. My original claim was that civilization exists in order to protect members from other members that would otherwise cause them undue harm and that it also protected the human species from natural elements This is false. Humans band together to protect them from things OUTSIDE of their community. Bears, Assyrians, and the like. It wasn't until Hammurabi that set civil statutes came into being. Your argument is false. Maybe that is how we view civilization today, but there is NO indication that this was the sentiment at the dawn of civilization.

Quote: Of course it could be and for many it is but I have come to this conclusion based on what the consequences and ramifications of slavery, torture and rape include. You thought about those things because you were taught to. If you were raised in certain areas of the middle east, you would think that women should have to cover their faces. It all depends on which version of brainwashing you receive growing up. You can argue that our idealistic ways are the only true morality, and perhaps you're right, but perhaps you're not. My opinion is invalid because I was also raised in the same society.

Quote: No you continue to in your line of severe unreason, which is also immoral. The “homeostasis" applies to every human being residing in the society which necessarily includes those being subject to slavery and as such the homeostasis is thrown off balance because of their undue suffering I get it now. You are talking in idealistic terms, and I am talking reality. Regardless of how you feel about it, think about it in strictly logical and definitive terms. People who band together, form a society for the protection of the families within that community. Their primary concern is the safety and well being of their own people. Suddenly another town appears in the area and they have to compete for resources. Then this other community gets selfish and attacks. The first town defeats the invading army, but since killing was not so efficient then many of the invaders survived the war. If they release the prisoners they will just attack again, so the town enslaves them and sets them to work repairing the damage their attack caused. Do you honestly think the well being or happiness of the slaves effects how peaceful and happy the people of the first town are? Their civilization lived on because it protected it's members. The attackers are now livestock and not members of the society. The people who began the civilization can now rest easy, and their environment is homeostatic.

Quote: How in the world did you extract that from my post? Because you were implying that the purpose of civilization was the betterment of all people in a given area, that nations were forged to protect all people of a given area as their function.

Quote: So you believe that the OT books are correct but that it was necessary for them to evolve? When you go to school you have to take the 1st grade before you can make it to the 12th. Why don't students simply begin in the 12th grade? I sense a dodge coming :lol:

Quote: That doesn’t make any sense, furthermore you realize that if you believe the OT books are correct then you are obligated to hold such passages within them as correct also, such passages as Duet. 21:18-21. You really believe that this passage in Duet. is correct? Oddly enough, yes :lol: . These weren't regulations that were enforced on a whim. Sometimes there are certain people that can not be reasoned with, and there was no Montel Williams to sends these people to boot camp. Survival meant being able to depend on the members of your community, and if some kid will not obey and causes the parents so much trouble that they don't want him anymore, and they don't want him to live anymore, then yeah I would say he deserves to be stoned to death. I bet you can't find a person of any of the three religions in question that will agree with that :lol: I simply think that having that rule on the books would greatly decrease the number of times an ancient Jewish child told his mother or father to f*ck off or stole money. Being a rebellious teen is a luxury of a stable society.

Quote: Right, you claim that the inadequacy – which you just previously claimed doesn’t exist, when you said that “I believe they are correct." – is a product of human iniquity but, again, this begs the question. If “divine inspiration" is subject to so much inadequacy, why in the world should we ever lend it credence at all? You shouldn't. Inspiration does not mean the books are hand written by God. Parts of genesis are borrowed, other parts have people gaining divine inspiration through divining methods such as scrying. I believe they are correct in that they had a divine experience which contributed to their writing. The nature and validity of these experiences are a whole other matter.

Quote: *sigh* whatever. FINE...if you are that curious for some reason, send me a PM and I will answer any questions you have, but I don't want to start that discussion here and further hijack the thread.

Quote: I had cited as proof of the condoning and promoting of violence in the NT the passage found in Luke 19:27, It was a parable. Did the disciples ever bring anyone and kill them?
The man who didn't try to serve his master was punished, where the man who tried and failed was rewarded. English Lit was not your strong suit I'm guessing.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: It wasn't all I needed to say, because judging by your previous posts, you believe that not only is your morality the only correct morality, but that everyone in the world should follow it whether they want to or not.
That is the most egregious misinterpretations of my posts possible. I have already stated sentiments which contradict this, such as: “There are a slew of moral positions which I do not even attempt to claim that I am necessarily right about.” It would be to the benefit of this discussion if you read my posts and then did not, either unintentionally or willfully, misrepresent them for any reason.
wormwood wrote: I could have sworn that you said, even if 99% of the people in an area agreed to a certain code of conduct which was contrary to your morality, they are not right, and shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.
That is incorrect. I was not speaking on behalf of an entire code of ethics but rather the exclusive practice of slavery. If you are suggesting that you believe the morality of slavery is up for grabs then I probably won’t waste my time anymore, such an argument is fairly self-refuting.
wormwood wrote: You are talking about limiting an area majority's freedom based on your personal idea's of right and wrong. That is saving people who "don't know any better", or saving people from themselves.
To begin with the idea of moral utilitarianism is not exclusively mine and it is well within the bounds to revoke the unrestricted freedom of some or even many if they wish undue harm to innocent people through slavery, rape or murder. In a civil and, I would note, sane society citizens lack the freedom to murder, to rape and to posses human slaves without being subject to the consequences as state by the civilization. It is not my “personal idea of right and wrong” that slavery is inherently immoral or that rape and murder should be considered as such it is widely understood as such by the general society at large. Furthermore the only individual in this discussion that is advocating the unjustified and unethical restriction of individuals freedom is you. You claim that homosexuals should not retain the freedom to live in equal harmony within societies which hold to bigoted views of them.
wormwood wrote: First of all the slavery issue. Do you know who the slaves were in ancient Jewish societies? Second the marrying of young girls. Nature seems to think that when a girl starts having her period, she is ready to have children, which in ancient society meant being married. The fact that you live in a country that sets an arbitrary age of 18 doesn't mean that this is the correct age to start having children. You don't seem to understand any setting that differs from your own.
You continue with the ad hominems and the red herrings. It is not that I don’t understand “any setting that differs” from mine, quite the contrary in reality.
When a girl first begins her period she is anywhere between the ages of eight and fourteen, if you mean to suggest that a young girl at the age of nine is ready for marriage and sex simply because she has begun her period then you are a sociopath. Even at thirteen and fourteen the girl is hardly mature enough, especially psychologically, to be prepared for marriage and sex. The trauma and after effects that a young girl, or boy, would suffer after such a “marriage” would be devastating. It will distort the adult-child relationship affecting all other relationships the young child encounters, it would severely damage a person’s lifelong ability to establish trusting, comfortable and intimate relationships and could lead to severe depression, self mutilation and suicide.
While the general standard of eighteen may be a bit arbitrary and general – some individuals become psychologically mature sooner than others while some mature later than others and this equally applies to physical maturity – but to claim that the standard should be set based on the advent of puberty or a girls period is grossly wrong. To claim that nature says girls no older than fourteen are completely fit to bear children is absolutely insane. While this may be possible physically the girl is clearly not fit to actually raise the child and is most certainly not going to be fit to deal with her own psychological state after having gone through the ordeal of having been married, having sex, becoming pregnant and then giving birth at such a young and psychologically delicate age.
wormwood wrote: This is false. Humans band together to protect them from things OUTSIDE of their community. Bears, Assyrians, and the like. It wasn't until Hammurabi that set civil statutes came into being. Your argument is false. Maybe that is how we view civilization today, but there is NO indication that this was the sentiment at the dawn of civilization.
You are still wrong. Even our ancestors who weren’t Homo sapiens would have had proto-moral guidelines and we are justified in believing this based on the behavior and social construct of our great-ape relatives. Simply because humans didn’t have a documented set of guidelines that has survived and been found by modern archeologists, clearly, is not parallel to them having never existed.
wormwood wrote: You thought about those things because you were taught to. If you were raised in certain areas of the middle east, you would think that women should have to cover their faces. It all depends on which version of brainwashing you receive growing up. You can argue that our idealistic ways are the only true morality, and perhaps you're right, but perhaps you're not. My opinion is invalid because I was also raised in the same society.
Another fallacious argument. To claim that everyone that is raised within a given society necessarily usurps the general morality like some automaton is without merit. You should read some Erich Fromm at the very least.
wormwood wrote: I get it now. You are talking in idealistic terms, and I am talking reality.
It is reality that the homeostasis of a society which incorporates slavery is unbalanced due to the state of being of the slaves. This is not fantasy or idealism but reality, what a slave goes through in a society forcing them to be slaves is most certainly a reality by any definition of the term.
wormwood wrote: Regardless of how you feel about it, think about it in strictly logical and definitive terms. People who band together, form a society for the protection of the families within that community. Their primary concern is the safety and well being of their own people. Suddenly another town appears in the area and they have to compete for resources. Then this other community gets selfish and attacks. The first town defeats the invading army, but since killing was not so efficient then many of the invaders survived the war. If they release the prisoners they will just attack again, so the town enslaves them and sets them to work repairing the damage their attack caused. Do you honestly think the well being or happiness of the slaves effects how peaceful and happy the people of the first town are? Their civilization lived on because it protected it's members. The attackers are now livestock and not members of the society. The people who began the civilization can now rest easy, and their environment is homeostatic
That is a decent argument but what you describe was a great motivating factor for why there was such continual tribal warfare and conflict, slave uprisings, revolts and revolutions. Essentially why, in the greater sphere of human civilization, there was such an unbalanced “homeostasis.”
wormwood wrote: Because you were implying that the purpose of civilization was the betterment of all people in a given area, that nations were forged to protect all people of a given area as their function.
No, that has been your extrapolated and erroneous misinterpretation of my posts. I was only claiming that one function of civilization and society was to protect its members and clearly a new government or new nation could very easily be created to meet ends that are outside the realm of what is beneficial to humanity in general.
wormwood wrote: When you go to school you have to take the 1st grade before you can make it to the 12th. Why don't students simply begin in the 12th grade? I sense a dodge coming
Because children don’t have the pleasure of information being “divinely inspired” into them and have to incrementally learn it. It is you that continues to dodge my point. Either the OT books were correct or they were inadequate, which is it?
wormwood wrote: Oddly enough, yes. I simply think that having that rule on the books would greatly decrease the number of times an ancient Jewish child told his mother or father to f*ck off or stole money.
I am just going to disagree and leave it at that.
wormwood wrote: Inspiration does not mean the books are hand written by God.
Of course not but divine inspiration means that god inspired the books and I am saying if god inspired the books but the books still needed some correcting – illustrating that they were wrong to some degree – then god is clearly not that accurate in gods inspiration and as such we should not lend any credence to anything that has allegedly been inspired by god.
wormwood wrote: The nature and validity of these experiences are a whole other matter.
So now you question the possibility that the books were “divinely inspired”?
wormwood wrote: FINE...if you are that curious for some reason, send me a PM and I will answer any questions you have, but I don't want to start that discussion here and further hijack the thread.
Well oddly enough we are currently discussing this line of inquiry. For what I had originally posted which you first refused to answer was thus: “If you believe the OT books to have been divinely inspired in conjunction with the statement that you just made, “I never said divine inspiration was wrong,” am I to believe that you believe the OT books to be accurate? If not then divine inspiration was wrong with regards to much of the OT.”
Clearly we are currently discussing this and I have yet to receive a definitive response that directly answered the conundrum.
wormwood wrote: It was a parable. Did the disciples ever bring anyone and kill them?
The man who didn't try to serve his master was punished, where the man who tried and failed was rewarded. English Lit was not your strong suit I'm guessing.
A parable directly related to the ministry of Jesus. The man being punished for not serving or “believing” in his “master” would be anyone not believing in Jesus as lord and those rewarded are the “believers.” I actually did very well in English Lit, as well as Brit Lit, creative writing and every English and literature class that I have thus far taken; contrary to your statement English Lit is actually one of my stronger suits.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

It is what you make of it that makes a religion 'anything'.

It is what religion makes of YOU that makes everything.
No offense, but that seems to be wishy-washy word twist... :?
Religion only makes a person better if they believe (therefore want to be better). Without belief, religion is almost useless to the person on a personal level.

No offense taken.

If I am mistaken and your assertion meant that one can only get out of faith what one puts into it then I can understand why you think of my response as a word twist only.

If however I was correct and you were saying that it is the individual who defines which aspects of faith he/she may conform or believe, much like choosing items off of a menu then my response was precise.

For it is the rejection of the inconvenient truths of Christianity which causes problems.

"The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered, it is not merly the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is fullof the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientiests care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity is often untruthful." Chesterton