Total posts: 1,044
-->
@Juice
I didn't actually state that you look down on the religious, I stated that you feel superior. Is that wrong?No.
You don't look down on the religious, but just feel superior?
And what are religious people like that you're so happy you're not like?Deluded.
I appreciate you answering the question, but it wasn't by any means meant to be a replacement for this one
"You're happy you're not like poor people? What are poor like?"
RD does not mention Muslims (or at least does not use them as a case against religious folks) in his book. He uses facts and simple logic. The fact that you believe it is warped shows that you are clearly no very comfortable with accepting that you might be wrong.
Did you think I meant the book was warped? If so, like I said, I never read it.
This is what I consider warped.
My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.
It's actually quite creepy.
He's no doubt an intelligent, perhaps brilliant man in the science field he thrives in. He just needs to stay out of the subject of religion. He needs to stay in his lane. And that article makes it quite clear.
that you are clearly no very comfortable with accepting that you might be wrong.
Do you accept you might be wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well what is the purpose of his hypothesis being disavowed and other scientists dismissing it as racist drivel? Is the purpose only to hurt the man or is it an attempt to limit the damage his hypothesis could potentially do to minorities?
Good question.
I would suggest ultimately neither.
This is the ultimate reason for the ostracizing.
Public outcry over these remarks prompted Cold Spring to ask for his resignation.
I think it's easy to assume the science community is akin to the hyper-humanitarian scientists we see in those old 50's sci-fi movies. They never have any self-interest, arguing over which one will get to be the movie's hero and risk their lives in a rescue attempt, etc.
This is a fantasy. The science community is not any different, except in topic/subject, than any other vocational community. They're subject to public approval.
The truth seems to be that the majority will never change racist circumstances without a public outcry, starting/especially with the minority victim. During the U.S. racial segregation period, white majority America still considered ourselves humanitarians. The segregation was evidently considered normal by the majority. It didn't impede our view as saviors of the world. It's very possible that had their not been a Civil Rights Movement, segregation might still exist today (to the magnitude of pre-CRM segregation). If minorities were content with lower status and treatment, the white majority would remain satisfied as well.
More recently, while the black stereo-types in movies have been removed (although replaced with exploitation stereo-types), America fully accepted the stereo-typing of Asians. There's been recent improvement of Asian depictions in movies. Why? Because of Asian empowerment groups challengeing our media.
What doesn't seem to happen is White majority in western nations volunteering to remove racist manifestations on our own. Do you think that without the public outcry, the science community is so humanitarian-focused as to demand justice for peoples who accept injustice upon themselves?
Basically, what we see here is "jumping on the bandwagon".
Created:
-->
@Juice
You seem to feel superior to religious folk, right? And I think your reference to the authors of the bible being peasants is just a general pejorative. I don't think you actually think they were all occupational, or status oriented peasants. I think (or I hope) that you understand they represent various walks of life.I do not look down on religious people the same way I do not look down on poor people, but I am damn happy that I am not like them.
You're happy you're not like poor people? What are poor like?
I didn't actually state that you look down on the religious, I stated that you feel superior. Is that wrong?
And what are religious people like that you're so happy you're not like?
Have you ever read the God Delusion? Please read it. It is honestly a good book which goes through all the aspects on religion.
I've never read it, but am familiar with his views on religion, and view it as warped.
An example,
After 9/11, RD expressed disappointment that Abrahamic religion as a whole isn't included in the Muslim terrorist condemnation. It's bad enough that he didn't just target the actual terrorists (preferable), or even just the particular Islamic faction involved, but wanted to include all Muslims. And of course if that's not bad enough, he wants to include Christianity and Judaism.
I don't think RD even has a reasonable definition of religion. People tend to use the term to their convenience.
Does his book imply anything different from what I sated?
Created:
-->
@Juice
How is believing that I am an insignificant organism on a spinning ball in an empty void easy? Religion is what is easy. Believe you can pray to redeem yourself is easy. Believing you will have eternal bliss is easy. Believing that all your good deeds are approved and noted by god. But religion is also untrue. It is the lazy way out.
The problem is you included some negatives as far as religion goes.
From memory, they went something like this. You're happy that you're not concerned about an eternal punishment. And, happy that your life isn't dictated by a superior or supreme being.
An example,
if I were vacationing on an island with thousands of beautiful flirtatious women, who immediately respond to the pick-up line "hi", it would be a lot more convenient for me to toss away my Christian belief......I assure you. I would say most males in that position wouldn't give any thought to being an insignificant organism. Who would care?
Plus, as a Christian, I have to acknowledge that I truly am nothing special, and never will be. A non-believer can entertain ideas of grandeur. I would take great pride I think in believing that I'm a superior human than others due to achieving greatness beyond other mere insignificant organisms. You seem to feel superior to religious folk, right? And I think your reference to the authors of the bible being peasants is just a general pejorative. I don't think you actually think they were all occupational, or status oriented peasants. I think (or I hope) that you understand they represent various walks of life.
As far as eternal punishment, most if not all the bible's laws that result in punishment are the same as our own laws. The differences are generally a result of severity. For instance, lying can result in punishment. We don't punish people for white lies, or even blatant lies. However, lying in court will land someone in hot water. So, why would we assume that God would hold the same standards of severity? Why assume God would overlook a white lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How have you determined that any god(s) actually exist or what if anything any god(s) love or what loving someone(thing) should do to inform our actions and moral judgements?
As far as your question how I determined that any god exists, I'm guessing you haven't seem my testimony (which is likely considering the numerous posts and threads). And the Bible actually informs us on how to make that determination.
You have a lot of ground to cover before we get from your claim about "god's love" and a working moral theory even if I were to grant your preferred god's existence for the sake of argument.
I think we're at least on the same page that love exists, right?
If you granted for the sake of argument that God exists, this would imply that the ability for us humans to love was given by God. This means that if you wanted to do someone you love good, big or small, then God would be the ultimate reason you're throwing a surprise birthday party for a loved one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Irrelevant to the situation if he is doing harm. The most basic goal of a punishment is to change behavior. If his behavior (or hypothesis) causes harm and being ostracized prevents or works against that harm then it is hard to argue against the punishment.
You threw in a couple of ifs in there. Apparently you're not sure if there was any harm. What harm would you possibly be referring to? Since most public proclamations of any kind produce offenses, are you differentiating the terms harm and offense?
You mingled behavior and (in parenthesis) hypothesis in the same sentence. Are you implying they are one and the same?
This is at least partly what I mean by compromise. Something being hard to argue against is no excuse. It's a special plea for emotional reaction.
In an earlier post you acknowledged that his hypothesis wouldn't necessitate him being a racist. Are you saying that his action justifies a potential false accusation?
Created:
-->
@Juice
Perhaps this is because atheists are more practical and are not blinded by the false hope of a next life in eternal bliss. Being depressed because you are sane and in touch with reality is better than being happy while misled, deluded and clouded from the truth. As to how I am a happy atheist, despite knowing that I am just a small particle in an infinite space with no meaning, I am happy with truth, even though it may not be favourable.It is like the book 1984 by George Orwell. Would you rather be a happy mindless drone who is blinded from truth, or Winston (protagonist), who understands himself and the errors of his society? Though Winston bears the burden of truth, he is enlightened by it.I am happy that my happiness does not come from a book written out by peasants centuries ago. I am happy because my happiness does not rely on eternal bliss. I am happy that I do not fear eternal burning. I am happy that I am not morally commanded by a superior being. I am happy that I have the freedom of thought.I am happy that I am an atheist.
The question is whether or not your position is really unfavorable.
Are you sure your position isn't based on convenience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What's moral isn't that difficult to begin with. God's morality is based on love, not a set of random insignificant rules.
Whatever action you took in regards to another, was it done in love?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure what the "obvious compromise" is the real issue is not so much any error or even this one scientist's opinion or racism but rather the possibility that some racist(s) might take these flawed conclusions and use them to justify some unjust prejudice. Beliefs inform actions.
The compromise is the conclusion that Watson's hypothesis is based on personal racism.
How do you/they know he wasn't sincere, no matter how off he was, about his hypothesis?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
First, there will never be ultimate proof of whether God exists or not. The argument for God is powered on faith, and even then, you could not say that your god is the right one. Now we have a couple of religions, each one saying that their god is the correct one, so to speak: Whatever I believe, it becomes the correct one? How to prove it?If we are believing in the wrong God, then we are just making him madder and madder each day.I want the religious to prove why their god is correct.
If you're referring to considering gods from the different major religions, one strong thing to consider is they don't all make the same claim about God. One major religion makes no reference to a god at all (Buddhism). Islam makes no claim of any personal relationship with God (Allah). Unlike Christianity, It's basically believing the words (or revelation) from a specific prophet, unlike Christianity where the revelation comes directly from God. So if what the specific teaching of each religion should be considered, then the god(s) of most major religions can be eliminated, if we're to base this on personal encounter with the creator. And this is probably why you won't get many supporters of Vishna in this thread.
If you're talking about random (or unknown) gods like Zyzx1138 (fictitious), then we would might question why Zysz1138 is so unknown. Zyzx1138 wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of being angry about being rejected as the one true god.
How does a Christian know Jesus is the right God?
I would say it's a simple as you knowing who your parents are.
How do you know your parents aren't actually your best friend in school's parents? How do you know you didn't get the identity of your parents wrong?
Created:
Or are there any?
Would they depend on whether or not the creator is associated with a religion.?
For instance, would Yahweh's responsibility to mankind (whatever that may be) be the same for the god of deism?
Created:
-->
@Castin
It really begs the question, does God, mono, poly, or otherwise actually exist, and revealing his identity to individuals?
If so, then we can probably make a fair assumption that God is who he claims to be. The trick I guess is to try and get God to answer that question personally.
If one doesn't do that, they're left with pondering the claims of others.
Another question would be, are their claims of God claiming to be a combo of multiple gods, or that God claims there are numerous gods that can play the role as a mediator? I'm not claiming it never happens, but generally polytheistic religion does not focus on an intimate relationship with a god(s).
It may be as simple as this. When you came to this forum, you revealed to all that you are Castin. I don't think you ever claimed that you were a combo of Castin, Ludo, and Brother D. Or that there are numerous Castins on this site.
Then again since you don't recall posting this thread, maybe there are 2 Castins?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The reality is, if a scientist presents a theory that causes racial offense, whoever the voice for the scientific community has to take political action. The accusers are not basingtheir accusation on science, but on political correctness.YES. AND "THE LAW" IS CODIFIED MOB RULE.What is your prescription?(IFF) it is "illegal" to fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) it should also be "illegal" to fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.But this DOUBLE-EDGED-SWORD cuts both ways.(IFF) you CAN fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) you CAN fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
These are conflicting scenarios (I would think anyway), but what relationship do they have with the incident in question concerning James Watson's claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that at the very least he is misunderstanding why IQ tests are on average higher for some demographics than others (social disadvantage due to systemic racism and the resulting gap in education resources seems at least as likely an explanation as genetics) and also that he is placing too much importance on the tests in general. I am still not prepared to personally call him racist just incorrect.
Okay. I'm glad that you take a more stable view (in the context of science-opinion).
Of course we're not under pressure to comply to public demands.
The Gene's which control melatonin levels are unconnected with those that control intelligence and in America at least there has been interbreeding between all demographics such that the genetics that effect one demographic would effect all demographics.
But to be more clear, whatever error the doctor was in is not relevant to the issue of political pressure, and it's obvious compromise.
My focus is on the fact that the voice of the scientific community seems to have an honesty issue. That being the case, I think it's just too easily/readily being overlooked. Written off as unimportant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Whoa!
I felt like I was going to tip over. The weight distribution between your answer to the theory/hypothesis question outweighing your answer to the James Watson question seems to create an imbalance in your post.
Seriously though, I appreciate your clarification.
As far as your needing to be more familiar with the case, sorry, can't buy that one. What else do you need to know? It's all clear in that brief article (which I'm kind of thinking you didn't look at). And if not, I could explain it sufficiently. Is there something specific you don't understand?
Basically though, I take your statement to mean you will look further into it in the year 2051. Or, in laymen's terms, let's drop the subject?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It sounds like you're not following your own advice. I gave you scriptures that are very clearly against oppression of any kind. You keep running back to "it doesn't say this or that". I'm going to do something similar. Those scriptures that are clearly against oppression do not say "except for foreigners", or "foreign slaves".
Do you have an interpretation of "oppressed" in these verses that differ from the normal Websterian definition?
Can a Christian misinterpret scripture (including myself)? Absolutely!!!
So what exactly is the controversy?
I mentioned to you that you have the freedom to interpret as you wish. If you want to interpret the ascensions of Enoch and Elijah as alien abductions......feel free!
What more could you ask for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You are using theory incorrectly in this context.
How so?
Also if a HYPOTHETIS is incorrect and racist then perhaps those who presuppose it are racist and if they are racist maybe it is a natural consequence to be ostracized by those who valueequality (such as ot is).
When you use the word perhaps, is it equivalent to maybe?
The accusers were not making this issue a question mark.
Do you think they were justified, from a purely scientific/objective stance, of making a definite charge of racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I could Google him but the name is unimportant. All arguments stand or fall on their own without regard to who formulated them or who is presenting them so why don't you just present the argument.
Yes. Sorry about that. At the time I posted this I couldn't post links.
After new racist comments by Watson surfaced in the recent PBS documentary American Masters: Decoding Watson, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) – the pioneering research lab Watson led for decades – had finally had enough.
"Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions," CSHL said in statement.
"Dr. Watson's statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL… The Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice."
"Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions," CSHL said in statement.
"Dr. Watson's statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL… The Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice."
If you read the article, you will see he was a Nobel prize winner.
But for clarification, I'm not in any way suggesting he's not racist. I can formulate a personal opinion on that, but not qualified to proclaim his theory is based on prejudice. And neither are the accusers.
The reality is, if a scientist presents a theory that causes racial offense, whoever the voice for the scientific community has to take political action. The accusers are not basing
their accusation on science, but on political correctness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Human justice demands equality, not acceptance of social status based on race/ethnicity.Well, the Hindus have been operating on acceptance of social status based on skin color for roughly 5000 years.
Sure. And thus the violent protests and uprisings amongst the lower caste who are crying out for justice/equality.
It's the resistance against equality that raises demands for equality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You could always just show me the verse.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him
as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am theLord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:15
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.
Deuteronomy 24:14-15 ESV / 11 helpful votes
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to theLord, and you be guilty of sin.
Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to see who doesn't want to see something in the bible that is actually there, as you accuse people who don't share your interpretation of the verses, that it's possible a Christian could suffer just as an atheist could from the same issue?
Before I go any further, what in the world does the underlined portion mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Certainly. No argument there.
Would you agree that the very same standard should be held for bringing up historic references to early European theocracy atrocities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
First off, I'm not claiming one way or another whether or not any scientist is a racist.
Are you familiar with Dr. James Watson?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem is not giving racists an explanation to show they're wrong. The problem is the politics that force the scientific community to have to accuse scientists of being racist "because" their theories are faulty.
Just because a scientist is wrong about anything including "racial equality issues" shouldn't render them a racist if all they're doing is giving a theory. But the scientific community has to abide by social politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Scientific racism is not an misinterpretation. It's a phenomenon that happened around the turn of the 19th/20th century. This lead to some horrible events like placing aboriginal tribe members in zoos and on display as animals at exhibitions. These events were apparently influenced by Darwin's book.
Scientific racism still exists today, but far more subtle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you can't see where the bible prohibits abuse of anyone including those in servitude, then you're not going to. It's an unending pattern. Fortunately, there are a few atheists here that are fairly objective, and not subject to prejudice. Not too many unfortunately.
And it's no surprise. We're discussing an historical account 2,000 plus years ago. We face the same issue
a mere 200 plus years ago concerning American history. The history of the American founding fathers was long enough ago to where people can interpret religious influence as they wish. I had a discussion with an atheist at DDO once that convinced me that people will interpret religious influence in history as they want. That person chose to believe, like apparently many, that George Washington was not a Christian because he never quoted using the name Jesus. I showed him a quotation where he did use the name of Jesus in an evangelical fashion. He decided to tell me that since the quotation came from a third party (which is usually how it is), that he believed the quotation was fabricated by a cohort who wanted to falsely accuse Washington of being a Christian.
The point?
People are going to believe what they want. Nothing can be done about it (and I wouldn't want to try).
Here's the wonderful thing Ludo. You have the right to believe what you want. People choose to fantasize about dividing the founding father good guys (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) into some imaginary deist camp, and all the bad guys like Benedict Arnold into a Christian camp. It's a comic book mentality, but it appeases the minds of those who are set in their way of thinking. I'm going to step out on a limb by suggesting no Christians are knocking on your door trying to get you to convert, or even go to their church. Maybe that's the problem. Not enough Christian aggression.
What would be beyond the realm of absolute absurdity would be if you expect us to buy whatever it is you're trying to sell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
This passage strikes me
I'm assuming no pun intended.
as protecting intent to punish but not intent to kill. That is, if your slave survives for a day or two and then dies, you probably didn't mean to kill him; you probably just went too far punishing him. So you shouldn't be penalized in that case - you have merely accidentally destroyed a piece of your property.
There isn't any passage that states the act of administering non-governed punishment is okay. I can understand why you might think that due to the oppressive nature from
that time period. But the Israelites were instructed to pretty much defy the norm. The passages that make clear that random punishing is not okay might be hard to swallow, and as a result usually get ignored.
Any moral document that is not allowed to learn and grow as we learn and grow is only going to become increasingly offensive with time, and this passage is a fine example.
I'm not clear on the meaning of this statement. Could you clarify for me please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Then how, exactly, would this slave be protected if the bible DEFINITELY says it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die?
The bible doesn't definitely say it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die.
Have you ever seen those road signs that say "If in a minor crash, pull over to the side of the road"? The sign is not meant to legalize fender benders.
The texts, the representation of the message given to the Israelites, was made clear to them. They didn't need it explained to them to pacify some forum poster/debator reading this in the 21st century.
You know it's wrong to assault someone. Do you need further instruction stating that if you go to the mall, don't assault anyone there? Of course not. The law against assaulting someone in a shopping mall is covered in the general law prohibiting the act of assault.
I mean I'm glad we agree, but WTF, why are you holding this up as ome sort of moral victory for Jesus? The verse, we agree, says if you beat your slave to death, you'll getpunished. It definitely doesn't say "don't beat your slave at all," which means it's legal to do so, regardless. It's biblically legal to beat the slave, what exactly is the slave protected FROM? I have to say man, in a sea of weird and senseless arguments you've made, this is among the weirdest. If you want to protect a slave from being beaten, say don't beat your slave. Not "don't beat them so badly they don't die within 24 - 48 hours.
As far as weird and senseless, I'm not sure if anything covers those grounds as much as the insistence that the bible should have been worded a certain way to appease someone 2,000 plus years later. Truthfully, I don't think how the texts are stated would make any difference with you. It could have been written in a New Joisey accent, and you'd still complain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
A quick note --the verse is not saying "a day OR two" according to Jewish understanding. If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong. The verse is clarifying what it means by "day" as in other cases, "day" means until the end of a given day. This text, therefore, means "a day that goes beyond the day, into a second" -- meaning a 24 hour period even if it straddles 2 calendar days. One commentator explains that the term for the second day is listed so as to eliminate any consideration of a third day even though elsewhere, textually, the reference is made to the third day being most painful so one would assume that the death on the third day would be directly because of the injury caused.
Thanks for clarification on that. I've never seen that particular commentary.
As far as I can tell, This doesn't conflict with my view. My references to specific 24 hour periods was aimed at skeptics who may seem to view the text as the one or two days being a legalized time period, similar to the law that states a criminal is technically freed after 7 years if they can avoid capture until then.
And this part here is exactly what I would stress to any skeptic who held that view.
"If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes language changes and evolves. I'm not talking about the term gay I'm talking about homosexuality and the attitude expressed in the bible. Did you have a larger point?
Yes. Not understanding the contextual meaning of the term "gay" in the title is the same as not understanding what is being sstated in the bible.
Homeless =/= unhappy. It is not necessarily a preferable situation in every case but if it is preferred to being owned as property then it is immoral to try to force someone to be your property in an attempt to prevent their homelessness.
Sure.
I have a suspicion that you're not really taking into consideration the severity of life's condition at that time.
Yeah, here in the west we have homeless shelters, cars we can sleep in etc. I hope you're not equating modern western conditions with ancient middle eastern.
The conditions were severe enough that if a servant flees their master, someone else has to take care of them. I think they realized that simply not turning the servant over to their abusive master was not enough. A possible death sentence.
Any idea why we would have to vote on such a thing rather than just letting people do as they like? Because if you value freedom it is in keeping with the stated goal of promoting freedom to make all things permissible and then begin limiting freedoms only if the consequences are worse than the loss of liberty. For example killing people and abusing children are worse than losing the freedom to murder people and abuse children. What about homosexuality is worse than the loss of liberty to the homosexual community?
No, I don't know why they would place it on a ballot. I just know that if it's on a ballot, it's not for religious reasons. I haven't seen a ballot lately, is it even on one anywhere?
Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.
Off hand I don't see how this conflicts with anything I've said. Was this meant to challenge anything I've said?
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?I'm not familiar with the work.
Deborah was one of the judges, and a prophetess in the Old Testament.
According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic.
Israel was meant to be a messenger to bring God's salvation to all nations. Just like one person (a messenger) is sent to bring God's salvation to other individuals. The bible is so painfully clear about this, and that God is no respecter of nations or individuals, this has has to fall into one of those extreme over-the-top accusations.
We should all be able to read a book about a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic capricious and vengeful deity, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a book. But....every once in awhile....Honestly the book is a touch worse though since it is widely held as nonfiction and the movie is not.
Are you saying the Batman franchise movies are a bad thing? Should we consider banning them?
What do you think should be done about the bible since you're under distress that people are reading it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh definitely!
I'm guessing that because the text doesn't specifically say it would be illegal to slap around a 15 year old kitchen servant, that it must not of been?
Or........they would have to fall in the sexist category since that was the norm back then in that region?
Or......?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You mean in Israel? I'm sure it is against the law. I would hope that it's against the law anywhere. Including Muslim nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry, not sure what you mean.
What does "Is it against the law you state her for a slave holder" mean?
Just the sound of stating someone for a slave holder (even though I have no idea what you're talking about) sounds terrible.
Created:
Posted in:
Exodus 21:20-21
King James Version
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
The Bible refers to a number of laws meant to resolve issues where someone takes an action that puts them into certain predicaments. These references often started out using the term "if".
If a man commits A, then he should do B. And the only reason for the suggestion to do B is because he committed A. Had he not committed A, then he wouldn't have need to do B. But sometimes these verses get taken to imply that the act of committing A is justified.
Two parents allow their kid to stay home alone for the first time. They tell him "If you make a mess, clean it up". The having to clean up is conditional. The parents are not advocating making a mess. I'm sure they prefer he doesn't. But they are providing the solution, or the next step IF he should make a mess.
Many read this passage as an assumption that the law is trying to make it easy on the Israelites to beat their slaves by suggesting a very weak reference to a death penalty for killing a servant, and a quick out by suggesting the servant only need survive one or two days. And after 3 days if they die, the master would supposedly be free. So all the master need do is count the minutes to the 24th (or 48th) hour, and he is free!!!!
So the one or two days (24 or 48 hours) would be similar to the seven year law where if a criminal remains uncaught for seven years, right at midnight of the seventh year they are free.
But, this is not the case.
One question needed to be addressed, is why weren't they specific about the length of time before their freedom? Remember, if the servant dies, it's a death penalty for the master. Wouldn't you think something as important as one's life they should make it crystal clear how long they have to wait before they are safe from a death penalty? This law was meant to prevent abuse. Somehow it's being read as an encouragement.
They had judges back then. They also had methods for punishment designed to prevent death. Typically the head was to be avoided. So if the servant's head is bashed in, this would be taken into consideration. What they were trying to do was avoid wrongfully sentencing the master if the servant died from another cause. This would mean that there wouldn't be any visible evidence that the servant died from beating wounds. A bashed in head would make it fairly obvious that the servant was abused, and may have died directly from the blows.
So basically, again, the intent was to punish the master if the servant died as a result of the beating, and to avoid a false sentencing if not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think anyone should embrace it. Thay does not change what the book says.
There's a term used in the US for the 1890s decade called the Gay 90's. The strange thing is there's very little if any reference to homosexuality attached to this nostalgic time period. But....the term flat out says "Gay".
That is his prerogative.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Yes. The biblical text in question says owning people as property, buying and selling humans from other nations and in deuteronomy says that you can beat them so long as they don'tdie too quickly. That is what we are discussing. Not whatever community outreach program you are proposing in an attempt to excuse the bible for condoning owning people as property.
Wow. It's amazing how messy things get when texts are interpreted through 21st century sun glasses.
I'll do a separate thread on this one.
Torquemada the grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition claimed to believe in and be acting on behalf of god. I am inclined to take him at his word unless there is some way of reading the minds of long dead spaniards.
But you also confessed that he may not really believe in God at all. Or is Torquemada an exception for some reason?
After softening my claim yes.
My. It looks like we're both quoteless.
Many southern baptists claim that anyone who is not specifically southern baptist will be going to hell. Why should I believe you rather than them? What differentiates their faith based claim that we are both going to hell from your faith based claim that of the two of us only I am going to hell?
Do you have any references for this? I'm not claiming you're wrong, but it seems odd to me. Do they think a Baptist has to move to the South to be saved?
As far as who you would hypothetically choose to believe, that would be up to you.
So a candidate that was openly in support of gay marriage? I regard that as moral and you do not. Should you be able to prevent homosexuals from finding love and starting families indeed stop them from living their lives by their standards being true to their identities just because you read a book that poo poos on the idea?
I'm not sure why you're asking. This would be something you'd have to take up with those who place propositions on ballots. If such a prop is not on the ballot, then it's not an issue. If it were on a ballot, we'd have to figure out why.
What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Well stated. It is not that the bible makes men racist or sexist however it is that it was clearly written by racist and sexist men.
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?
Can you give me some examples of racism?
You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person. You are far from my greatest concern.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I do worry about the ignorant, the stupid and the uneducated. An otherwise moral person who is gullible and convinced that the bible is the inerrant word of god might get up to all sorts of mischief and I am really not trying to single Christians out either. Do you believe that muslim belief might lead otherwise moral people to immoral behavior? And while we are on the subject I also am not trying to single out theists. I have the same problem with any secular belief system which endorses racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
It's certainly possible.
There are people who commit crimes after watching certain movies, read certain novels, listen to certain songs, etc.
Are you concerned about Batman or Joker movies?
It's a shame that someone would want to emulate a psychopathic clown in a movie, but it happens. I think Hollywood feels it's worth the risk.
We should all be able to watch a movie about a psychopathic clown, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a movie. But....every once in awhile....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes because adultery is a separate issue. Two homosexuals engaged in a monogamous relationship are not guilty of adultery so even if you can say what they are guilty of you are falsely conflating something which does not cause harm with something that can (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory).
I'm not conflating the two.
I'm asking the question based on your challenge of not practicing, or thinking should be practiced still, the penalties for violations listed in the O.T. You think that since there was a death penalty for homosexuality in the OT, I should embrace that for today. Adultery had the same sentence.
So what's the difference?Adultery is like murder it is defenitionally wrong in that it involves betraying a partner who has trust in you. Unless you wish to include other activities under the umbrella of "adultery" (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory) then no I do not.
I'm sure you're aware that numerous married male Hollywood celebrities practiced homosexuality on the side. Like Rock Hudson. If a married man (to a woman) has sexual relations with another man, is that adultery?
In other words, if someone is bi-sexual, shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy a love/marriage relationship, and have a same sex friend with benefits? Can they help it if they're bi?
I would say that the servants situation being preferable to some alternative aside they should free their servant and if he decides to remain on his own recognizance then he should be paid a living wage. On a separate note I do not mind questions but I am very careful how I answer them and also to be transparent about my ignorance if it is a question I do not have an answer to.
In the scenario we're assuming being set free would mean homelessness.
Do you think this scenario is different than the biblical text in question?
I have read something that appeared to me to be immoral (multiple genocides). Is your claim that I must by necessity be mistaken in regarding multiple genocides as immoral because god is morally correct by definition and by extension any genocide he committed must also be morally correct?
Are you aware that the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroy were set on wiping the Israelites off the face of the earth?
If Guernsey Island attacked the UK, and it was evident that everyone on the island was bent on the destruction of the UK, what should No.10 do? They can either attack Guernsey Island which unfortunately would require it's mass destruction and save the lives of everyone in Britain, or spare GI saving their lives and sacrificing the lives of everyone in the UK.
How about just some events that would seem to fit the bill? Like the inquisition or the crusades or the genocide of the amalekites? Do you feel that these were not performed "in the name of god"? Or at the very least that this was not considered justification enough by the common members of the society in each example? If you disagree I welcome further discussion of exactly what you think the most common justification given actually was.
Until you provide a quote, you're just speculating.
And your quote:
"although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)."
Yes. And this is no different than committing atrocities for the benefit of the State, just like the communists. If they didn't believe, they couldn't
be acting on behalf of a god.
I suppose I can't be 100% certain in the same way I cannot be 100% certain that my senses reflect reality and not just some grand illusion or complicated simulation but I strongly suspect and I will tell you why. Because humans tend to do things for a reason not because some particular reason doesn't seem to be in evidence. I also doubt anyone said "there is no big foot so we may as well camp here". If however youcan find some event quote or evidence to the contrary I will be happy to admit my fault I'm this regard.
I'm sorry, I may need clarification here. Are you asking me to provide quotes now?
Perhaps many is the wrong word but some. Also I think that some denominations consider all other denominations to be false and you disagree with them by default.
Denominations who think all other denominations are wrong I would disagree with on that particular note.
Are you saying you do not regard the rejection of jesus christ as a personal savior is immoral? Because otherwise you have drawn yourself quite a loophole.
Maybe I should clarify.
What they do outside of their job I don't care about. They can be as immoral as they like on their own time. What I meant by them having no related agenda that I would consider immoral, simply means they don't interject their immorality into their work. Like if they tried to close all churches down. I know that's very unlikely, but just using that as an example as extreme as it is.
I don't care if it is s religios issue if your vote is being informed by your religios beliefs.
Whatever reason that person has is their business. It doesn't matter if they vote for religious reasons or not.
Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in a pluralistic society?
Do you know what that made them? Wrong about what the science was actually claiming and could support. For one thing superior is a nonsensical term unless it applies to some goal and evolution guided by the process of natural selection doesn't actually have any specific goal. Even self replicating/survival is a consequence of the process not a goal.
I assure you, you don't have to defend Darwin/natural evolution.
I'll give you an explanation on my view, and then see how it compares with yours.
When Darwin's Origin Of Species came out, men who were already racist attempted to exploit the theory by claiming white superiority. (Yes, the term is nonsensical as the proponents of white supremacy). Evolution (the theory of) doesn't support racism. Atheism doesn't lead to communism. Men who have racism in their heart, will use whatever means to support their racist sentiment.
Same holds true with the Bible, Christians, religious, etc. They don't support racism, but people who were naturally racist tried to use the bible/Christianity/religion to support
their view. Same exact thing.
I think you'll agree with the first part. The second one....I have my doubts.
From what it sounds like, you feel the bible could make an otherwise moral person immoral. That I might one day, after an evening's reading of scripture, just snap and become racist, a witch hunter, homophobe, etc.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree 100% with the Bible, but don't believe a homosexual should be put to death.These two statements are in fundamental conflict.
Do you think a homosexual would be any different than the woman caught in adultery? Do you think I would qualify to cast the first stone?
Why should I care what you consider a sin? I'm not talking about sin I'm talking about morality and I don't see any moral issues in and of itself with consenting adults engaging in sexual activity.
I know. I just mentioned it for clarification if necessary.
Do you feel that 2 consenting adults committing adultery is moral?
I'm sorry is it the holy spirit or the concordance that you are using to interpret the bible? I'm not necessarily saying you are moving the goal posts rather than simply not having thought of the concordance when I initially asked the question but it does bring up an important point. What if a well meaning Christian who is not a biblical scholar reads this passage and takes it that the "holy spirit", which you still have not demonstrated and do could be imaginary, wants them to take it at face value? would that not result in terrible consequences? It seems like an all powerful god (if he were more than a fiction) would be more careful about how his book ends up being translated?
The concordance is a tool, just like the printed bible. What's the discrepancy?
As far as your question about someone taking the bible at face value resulting in terrible consequences, I've never felt once that at face value the bible commands us to carry out judgment. Even in my most earliest, immature, knowledge limited years.
Maybe you can tell me what you think. What if?
Well that is something we agree on but it doesn't address that the bible seems to imply that a woman's value can be measured in silver which is a detestable idea.
If I understand you correctly, what they're talking about applies strictly to this situation, which is not rape.
These two statements are in fundamental conflict.You also seem to be implying that god could not simply put an injunction against owning people because owning people was such a popular and wide spread practice even though he was able to put injunctions on other activities that were popular and widespread that are not as clearly immoral like eating shellfish or making statues to represent some god(s).
Let me ask you then. I know you don't like questions, but here goes.
Let's say you met a very wealthy person from a third world nation who invites you into his home in his native land. He introduces you to his house servant who lives with him. He tells you that he purchased him from a slave market in a neighboring country with severe human rights issues. The servant has no family, and is settled in his position, and content. The host explains to you that if he didn't purchase this person's service, he probably would have suffered in his
homeland as slave abuse was the norm.
What would you say to this person?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.are you not arguing that the Yahweh is morally perfect by nature and if he does something that appears immoral to us there must by necessity be a good moral reason for the apparent flaw? That our understanding is the problem not the Yahweh?
You seem to be assuming that I've read something that appeared to be immoral.
I am merely explaining the difference between an "atheist regime" (which is a nonsensical term) and a regime that happens to promote atheism because you brought up atheist regimes. The fundamental difference between a regime that promotes atheism and a theocracy is that nothing is being done in the name of atheism. Atheism itself is not informing actions the political ends of the nation do and they must be justified on their own merits even in those cases where horrific injustices are committed the reasoning is never "well there's no god(s) so we may as well". In a theocracy(or even any political ideology that is strongly tied to a monarchy such as the spanish monarchy in the 1600s) bycontrast things are done "in the name of god(s)" with no further justification (although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)).
This is what I would absolutely love.
1. Some quotes from theocrats that shows what you mean.
2. Tell me how you know that out of all the communists that ever existed, none of them ever said, whether vocally or in their mind, "well there's no god(s) so we may as well".
If you can recognize the difference and if you are of the opinion that some of the world's many many religions (presumably you consider every religion but one to be false and likely consider many denominations of your own religion to be false) then we can discuss whether the holding of false religions can be harmful and if we are in agreement that false religions are harmful then you should by logical extension understand my concern about belief in christianityunless it can somehow meet some reasonable burden of proof. Especially if it would inform your behavior in ways that would limit the liberties of others. For example if someone voted against gay marriage because they considered it a "sin" or voting for an observable less moral political candidate in order to avoid voting for someone who has a different spiritual ideology (or indeed none at all).
For one, no, I don't think many denominations within Christianity are false. It's not about religion anyway. It's about aligning with the real creator of the universe. I've got nothing to do with who the real creator is. I've got absolutely no say. When we die, and should we all come face to face with the creator
(which I of course believe will happen), it's just going to be Him and us. There won't be any Christians to question, debate, pass blame, etc.
As far as voting, I would vote for who I thought to be the best candidate. The one who will do the best job. I don't care about their sexual preference as long as there's no related agenda that I would consider immoral, or a violation of freedom.
As far as voting against gay marriage. Well, if it's on the ballot, it's not a religious issue. None of our laws are based on religion. Not even the Blue Laws. Therefore, any voter has the absolute right to check whatever box they wish.....in private.
I want to be very clear I am not accusing you of anything I have mentioned above but I have observed arguments from Christians trying to justify christian beliefs informing actions. That coupled with manifest Destiny being A) observably an immoral idea and B) that it was not a true biblical command but was justified by the white Christian belief that white Christians should by divine providence own the world. The long and the short of it it almost doesn't matter what the bible says or if it is fiction or not. It has observably caused harm in reality. You could claim that this was not the will of the Yahweh but the fault of human immorality and I would agree. What we would disagree on is whether or not anything at all is the will of any god(s).
And once Darwinian evolution came on the scene, a number of white bigots saw this as scientific proofthat whites are superior to other races.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As a "true Christian", I think you can appreciate similar dilemas we might share with atheists.
Like the atheist and the extremely unlikely independent development of life, we don't know details as to how certain things came about. What we collectively (Christians and atheists) do know is that "we are here". So we all have to work it from that standpoint.
For us Christians, if we take the biblical flood as a real historical event, we have to add up the "biblical" fact that there was a massive flood that would have prevented our existence today. We wouldn't be having this discussion. But, we're here with an over abundance of animal life to fill our cable networks with multiple animal related channels.
This is of course assuming you take the event of Noah's Ark as fact.
In similar fashion to the problem of our unlikely existence for the atheist, let's try turning the tables around.
We get a news report that Noah's Ark was found on Mt. Ararat, with sufficient evidence found inside the ship that Noah's family were the pilots.
Now it's no longer a question of did it happen, but how did it happen (with the understanding that it was a real event)?
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
You're right. I do EXCLUDE the supernatural. But I don't just discount it with the God of Noah; I also discount it with the Greek god Zeus or the Norse gods Odin and Thor. I am just teasing a little. Honestly, I was merely referencing TradeSecret's OP about the "literal" possibility of adult or infant animals on the Ark. If the argument had included the "supernatural" ability of God to keep the animals from eating, then it would not have mattered if they were adults or infants.
I mentioned in a prior post, that the supernatural acts of God are at times partnered with his children (believers/Christians). For instance, God appointed Adam to name the animals, even though they had nothing to do with their creation.
He gave specific details on how to build the ship, but Noah had to still build it himself. and probably take charge in choosing at least some of the specific individual animals from each kind.
If I was Noah, I would probably choose infants.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Then why propose they were infant animals at all? Why not say "God simply took away the animals' need for food and the predators' instinct to predate, and made the ark bigger on the inside like the TARDIS so all adult animals could easily fit"? To me the suggestion that they were infant animals seems to presuppose a few natural limitations in the first place, so it seems appropriate to counter with some more natural limitations.
Very good question.
The same question could be asked about the ravens that fed Elijah. Why didn't God just make food materialize in front him? Or drop manna from heaven as with the children of Israel?
One of the apparent traits of God we see in the bible is that He partners with his children. So it puzzles people why He for instance confers with Moses. Or, why do Christians need to pray?
When the chosen disciples/apostles of Jesus were instructed to go out, God promised guidance, protection, provision, etc. These are supernatural provisions by definition, but not necessarily visible to outsiders. When God divinely instructed Jonah to go to Nineveh for
instance, to anyone it would look like only someone taking a ship there. Nothing visibly supernatural about someone embarking on a ship to Nineveh. However, when the children of Israel had there back against the wall, the only escape option was through the Red Sea. And since they had no ship, and couldn't swim that far, the only option was for the sea to open up for them to cross.
There could be multiple reasons why God (or Noah) would choose infant animals besides the issue of space. It could be as simple as many large animals may just be too terrifying for some of the younger crew members.
The tardis idea probably wouldn't fly because God was specific about the overall construction of the craft, including it's shape and size. So it would appear that God had a specific idea as to the quantity of it's crew members.
The very high profile visibly obvious supernatural acts seemed to occur when absolutely needed. Like the parting of the Red Sea.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
There are currently estimated to be about 8.7 million species in the world. I have no idea how many there were in Noah's time. But adult or infants, they just wouldn't fit.
If you have no idea how many species there were in Noah's time, how would you know they wouldn't fit....adults or infants?
Also, lions alone start eating meat at 3 months. Noah's Ark was at sea at least 5 months before "God remembered Noah . . . " and the waters started to recede.
One of the problems with this topic in general, when discussing it with non-Christians, we get stuck into this idea that we have to avoid the supernatural.
My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, Your Majesty."
Creation of the universe is supernatural, whether the creator is Yahweh, or an impersonal god of the deists. So there's no real reason for anyone to completely dismiss God's supernatural intervention in either taming animals, or bringing them to the ark.
3 “Leave here, turn eastward and hide in the Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan. 4 You will drink from the brook, and I have directed the ravens to supply you with food there.”
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Since the topic of the thread is not about whether or not the account of Noah really happened, weighing the pros and cons, which would you consider more likely?
Pro (in favor of infant animals) - According to your estimation, putting the biblical meaning of "kinds" aside, the ship was not large enough to house adult animals only. Therefore, the choosing of infant animal life on board the directionless voyage would have been more likely than not.
Con - The absence of animal parental care would have done the infants in.
Keeping in mind, the overloading of a ship is extremely dangerous. So we can assume that because we are given detail into the size of the ship, God would have taken overloading into consideration.
So under this premise, which would be more likely? Infant or adult animals?
Created:
I'm not sure what the issue is with the animals being infants placed on the ark.
a couple of things to consider:
1. The animal kingdom is still not totally understood. We don't know why some creatures do certain things that from our observation shouldn't do, or be able to do. There are creatures that show remarkable intelligence that from our observation, should not be that intelligent. There are creatures that have abilities that seem to defy logic. So to say something like such and such an animal would not have survived, or could not have made it's way to such and such a location doesn't phase me.
2. Go to Youtube, scroll down all the suggested videos, and one will probably see a number of videos of humans interacting, and caring for as pets, infant wild animals that would normally be uncontrollable as adults. Just about any infant animal can be somewhat domesticated at least up to a point. If we see for instance, a person playing with their pet tiger, most likely it will be an infant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Leviticus 20:13If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.So either you believe that homosexuality should be a capital offense or you disagree with the bible.
First off, I agree 100% with the Bible, but don't believe a homosexual should be put to death. A homosexual will be judged by God when they die, just like a heterosexual adulterer, or fornicator.
I mentioned to you the difference in law between military law and civilian law. During the Roman occupation, because Israel had some autonomy, they attempted to practice the same law as given to the children of Israel (like with the woman caught in adultery). Jesus threw in a wrench when challenging the accusers to throw the first stone if they were without sin. And the Romans eventually put an end to Israelite executions.
Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes! Just like heterosexual fornication.
Deuteronomy 22: 28 and 29If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.So either you agree that a rapist should in some circumstances be allowed to marry his victim rather than be institutionalized in order to protect the public and also that women's worth can be calculated in an amount of silver or you disagree with the bible.
I don't believe under any circumstances a rapist should be allowed to marry his victim. None! The Hebrew word used does not mean rape. It probably got translated that way in the NIV because the Hebrew word meant to seize (to take) which may have been assumed to refer to an
aggressive action. Taking a wife however does not generally refer to force.
If you go back and read I believe verse 25, the reference there is definitely rape, with the death penalty. And the woman of course is not guilty. The woman in 28-29 was apparently guilty, so forceful rape was not the issue as both were discovered.
Yes, there are some words in some bible versions that don't fit. That's why we have hermeneutics......and the concordance. Anyone studying the bible should have a concordance.
Leviticus 25: 44-46Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.So either you agree that some people should be available for sale resulting in ownership of the individual as property in perpetuity including being passed down to ones children as inheritance or you disagree with the bible.
No disagreement with the bible here. And I don't believe anyone should be bought or sold. I don't think there should have been a slave market back then. But there was, and the purchasing of a slave to work as a household servant was a means of escape from being purchased by slave driver. We might say, why didn't they just buy there freedom? That's
fine, but where would they go?
I could keep going and point out that the bible states that women cannot teach men, divorced women should be executed and that people who fail to believe in the Yahweh should be executed but I trust you get the point. Also I am perfectly willing to take these passages at face value so I am mostly uninterested in apologetics in this regard unless you can demonstrate a stronger reason to look into the matter than "but god is good though so he couldn't have meant that".
If I can't refer to apologetics, then we may not have much of a discussion here. And I don't ever recall saying anything like "but god is good though so he couldn't have done that".
I am willing to abandon my argument concerning manifest destiny however, though it was argued for at the time as a Christian prerogative, and not because some native Americans are Christians but because the American west was not specifically mentioned in the bible and do it is not necessarily a biblical law. I am also prepared at least at this time to forgo any discussion of biblical scientific inaccuracies as it is immaterial to a discussion of moral principles unless the conversation takes that turn. The point is that most modern Christians disagree with or try to explainaway many biblical laws (it is to he hoped.
I would say that many of them are successful in explaining many biblical laws.
Whether communism necessitated atheism or not (and some forms of communism certainly do) atheism does not necessitate communism. The regimes you are referring to are regimes that are atheistic not atheist regimes in the same way that manifest Destiny was an belief commonly held by Christians at one time not a Christian belief.
I don't think I was implying that atheism necessitates communism. Why do you think that (assuming you do)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know what you.mean by problem at this point. Could you clarify?
That's a good question. I was actually tempted to ask you that since, well, there's obviously a problem you have of some form anyway.
From my standpoint, you don't have any tangible problem, unless someone is demanding that you believe in Yahweh. I'm certainly not doing that, and I doubt anyone here is. And (as you're obviously an adult), I doubt anyone is demanding you believe in your circle of human contact/influence.
Ok well I would consider it a terrible thing regardless of which country we are discussing and historically speaking this has been the case throughout history. Eleven today many Christians would like to criminalize gay (secular) marriage and the idea of manifest destiny that was used to justify nearly wiping out the native americans and which resulted in their still being relegated to small reservations was a primarily Christian belief which even if it is not popularly held today (hard to say since we have not given back the land) has modern and far reaching consequences.
What do you mean by criminalize? Many Christians wish to see marriage relegated to a man and woman union. But it's telling how little aggression there is. There are pastors concerned about being forced to perform gay weddings. There's also concern that churches may very well be forced to hire gay employees. As of yet, there hasn't been any clear cut assurance this won't happen.
For the most part, so far, in terms of gay marriage, Christians are on the defensive. Not the offensive. As of right now, it's not about reacting against gay marriage, but defending the religious freedom of small businesses and church marriage services relegated to a man and woman.
From my experience, having known many Christians from all over, we don't want to get into anyone's business. We don't want to offend. We prefer to be liked than disliked. What's interesting, and this is why I asked if you were American (I'll just assume you can relate to my American references), the founding fathers were obviously not tolerant of homosexuality. We don't even ever see it discussed amongst the founding fathers. They would have never legalized gay marriage. And there were more than enough Christian
founding fathers to have outlawed deism or any other religion. We could have easily become a religious State like the Muslim world. So the fact that gay marriage is legal now, is actually very telling. What has happened is we've become more and more tolerant as time moved on. Yeah, we're probably more tolerant of homosexuality than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was. The stance we took was whatever people do in their bedroom is their business.
Before gay marriage was legalized, the worry amongst Christians wasn't the existence of gay marriage, but exactly what had happened with some small businesses being penalized for not catering to gay marriage ceremonies, and the potential of churches receiving the same verdict.
As far as wiping out Native Americans, one problem is our most heroic founding fathers were a part of wanting them to convert. Like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Are you now anti-GW/TJ?
I don't think too many Native Americans are impressed with White atheists. Interestingly enough, a good number of Native American activists are Christians. There are Christian Native Americans who hold the same issue with European domination as any other Native American.
You can't simply gloss over the attitudes of Christians that are observable throughout history and the injunctions in the bible against homosexuality and women and nonbelievers (including believers of other religions) contained in the bible by saying that you personally disagree. Although it is admirable of you to realize that such biblicalcommands and Christian attitudes are monstrous and should be disagreed with.
There's nothing in the Bible I disagree with. As far as attitudes about homosexuality, that's going to depend on an individual, and possibly region. There are some Christians who look down on homosexuals for the same reason a non-Christian looks down on them. I've spent a couple of months in Central America, where homophobia is strong. And it has nothing to do with the Catholic church. I was told by someone there that homosexuals are often killed. This is due to the Hispanic machismo attitude that believes a homosexual is an insult to their ethnicity. It's the same with many Africans.
There are some places like in the southern U.S., where there is an attitude about homosexuality similar to Latin America and Africa. Where I live, it's quite a bit different. The temptation is to not say anything about our beliefs concerning homosexuality. It's easier just to not say anything (in casual conversation), get along, and enjoy the colorful
cultural aspect of the gay community. But, ironically, not saying anything about our beliefs equals not caring.
This is a non starter. Atheists do not have a dogma or a creed and figures like Stalin and Mao did not persecute religious people in the name of atheism but rather in the name of the political systems they endorsed which are not shared by all atheists and are not "atheist commandments".
That's absolutely irrelevant. Just because communists don't do a terrorist act in the name of atheism doesn't mean a thing to the Christian who was imprisoned, tortured, or executed because they wouldn't proclaim non-belief in God. Believe me.....it doesn't fly. Organizational atheism (atheist activism) seems to have originated mostly in the U.S. Communist nations may not have embraced an atheist activist concept, but it really doesn't matter.
Besides, you're theory if it had any validity would be in danger because if we found just one communist who said "we do this in the name of atheism", it would be demolished.
There are no "atheist regimes" only regimes that incidentally happen to promote atheism.
There are no regimes that give themselves the title of atheist regime. No communist regime flies the "A" or "atom" flag. But they're an atheist regime by virtue of being atheist.
Marxist–Leninist atheism, also known as Marxist–Leninist scientific atheism, is the irreligious and anti-clerical element of Marxism–Leninism, the official state ideology of the Soviet Union.[1] Based upon a dialectical-materialist understanding of humanity's place in nature, Marxist–Leninist atheism proposes that religion is the opium of the people; thus, Marxism–Leninism advocates atheism, rather than religious belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know why there being no sufficient evidence would be a problem. I don't believe in aliens from other planets. Many people do. But I don't consider it by any means a problem.
And I actually agree with you that if homosexuals were being killed in the name of Christianity in the U.S., I would consider that terrible. Or if native people were marginalized, the same.
I would also consider it terrible if an atheist regime took powerful, and imprisoned and executed religious folk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then what's the problem (if there is one)?
Isn't it wonderful that we both have the freedom to believe what we believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And I have no trouble thinking that you don't believe. None at all.
And your reference to Yahweh is exactly what I'm talking about. If Yahweh is someone you prefer not to exist, then it wouldn't be likely that you would seek Him per biblical instruction. I don't personally think you would want Him to be proven. Is that not a fair assumption?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think I was claiming I know what you believe. I don't know you at all, so I wouldn't even try to make such a claim.
I can't help having suspicions. Don't you have suspicions that I'm deluded to some degree? After all, I'm claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. Are you completely opinionless about my belief?
There are some things that are very common. One of them is the criminal allegation towards Yahweh theme.
There are also different types of non-belief. There's the non-believer who pursues in spite of their disbelief to see if it's true.
There are also many non-believers who are interested in a humanistic society, want to see traditional religious beliefs removed (if not religion in general). These folks have no interest in pursuing the potential reality of God. So self interest does play a part.
One of the problems with becoming a believer of God for some would be that it doesn't stop there. There is speculation as to whether or not Robin Hood was a real character, or probably more likely, someone similar who influenced a more fictional character. But if I proved to you that Robin Hood was a real person, it would just be a trivial matter. It wouldn't have any real additional effect on your life.
With God, that's not the case. Believing means following. You stated the idea of an all powerful being knowing your thoughts is creepy. Can you blame me for being a bit inquisitive with you?
I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
As I stated, you have the freedom to believe or not.
There are a number of believers who were atheists. They didn't believe either. So I don't really by the "I have no choice" thing.
Are you going to claim that your view of Yahweh as a criminal has no bearing on your non-belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is there a claim that Voldemort is real?
Just so there's no confusion, you have the freedom to choose whether or not Jesus is real. It seems a number of atheists in religion discussion forums choose to hold to Jesus as fictional. But what exactly is your conflict then?
Other religions make claims, but I'm not aware of any others that stress having a personal relationship with a creator, or deity. The Muslims don't make that claim. Polytheistic religions don't seem to do that. Pantheistic religions don't. Buddhism most definitely doesn't.
Created: