Time Out
Posts: 360 
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
February 21st, 2008, 04:25 PM
God's direction to women; obey and shut up.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over man but be in silence. For Adam was the first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in trangression. Timothy 2 11-14
Wives submit yourselves unto your husband as unto the LORD. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ so the wives are be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5 22-24
God's direction to women; obey and shut up.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over man but be in silence. For Adam was the first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in trangression. Timothy 2 11-14
Wives submit yourselves unto your husband as unto the LORD. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ so the wives are be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5 22-24
Super Genius
Posts: 1,133 
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
February 21st, 2008, 04:40 PM
Quoting Unforgiven
I absolutely disagree. Are you blaming all Canadian politicians for the sponsership scandal? There is such a thing as an honest politician and I don't believe at all they are to blame for the faults of their peers.
Until it is prevented from happening by diligent and effective policy, then the responsibility for it falls to each and every member of the faith to make that so. Until that is a reality, blame fall upon all members. Like the police who stand behind the blue line and the politicians who take care of their own, it's a blemish that tarnishes each and everyone.
Time Out
Posts: 360
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
February 21st, 2008, 04:55 PM
Praxius - you ask really good questions!...and certainly I can't pretend to answer them but in terms of understanding man's psychological need to believe in supreme beings and explain a mysterious natural world I would refer you to a wonderful book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I've lent my copy and don't recall the author's name but it was published about 20 years ago and gives great insights into the evolution of the human mind and how it helped explain nature in terms of beings controlling forces that were then mysterios and which we now understand in terms of geology, weather, chemistry, biology and other sciences.
Is there life after death? My personal opinion is that there is not; we are biological entities subject to natural laws and while it is attractive to wish for immortality, there really is no evidence whatsoever that our memories, personality or character survive the death of the brain. Christian wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Praxius - you ask really good questions!...and certainly I can't pretend to answer them but in terms of understanding man's psychological need to believe in supreme beings and explain a mysterious natural world I would refer you to a wonderful book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I've lent my copy and don't recall the author's name but it was published about 20 years ago and gives great insights into the evolution of the human mind and how it helped explain nature in terms of beings controlling forces that were then mysterios and which we now understand in terms of geology, weather, chemistry, biology and other sciences.
Is there life after death? My personal opinion is that there is not; we are biological entities subject to natural laws and while it is attractive to wish for immortality, there really is no evidence whatsoever that our memories, personality or character survive the death of the brain. Christian wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,632
Location: china
Location: china
February 21st, 2008, 06:34 PM
MickeyDB
Any how ,there is more capitalism and private enterprises in the smallest city in China then there in the "democratic", socialistic
Canada , the second biggest country in the world .
MickeyDB
Quote:
So is a religion , isn't it ?
Surely socialism and Chinese communism are artifacts of thought as well aren't they?
Any how ,there is more capitalism and private enterprises in the smallest city in China then there in the "democratic", socialistic
Canada , the second biggest country in the world .
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,632
Location: china
Location: china
February 21st, 2008, 06:46 PM
DukaDurka ,
All I can say DurkaDurka ....you are wrong with your assumptions .
DukaDurka ,
Quote:
Thought for a while how to answer your post but gave up.
China, thought also invented the horrible system of government you live under in China, where people are routinely tossed into jail for daring to practice their beliefs or speak their mind
All I can say DurkaDurka ....you are wrong with your assumptions .
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,766 
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
February 21st, 2008, 08:39 PM
Quoting s_lone
No I'm not blaming all politicians for the sponsorship scandal, I think there are many more to go around and most are never found out about. But the honest politician ideal has left the building. We'll have to disagree there.
I absolutely disagree. Are you blaming all Canadian politicians for the sponsership scandal? There is such a thing as an honest politician and I don't believe at all they are to blame for the faults of their peers.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
February 21st, 2008, 08:50 PM
How many men would qualify as being the ones addressed in this verse?
Lu:6:46:
And why call ye me,
Lord,
Lord,
and do not the things which I say?
Do you know any man who would argue Scripture with Christ? Or would it be best to remain silent and learn?
The times that women are mentioned in Scripture have either escaped you or you have blinders on about the importance of just men. Are the children mentioned in this verse natural children or people who have been brought to Christ because of this woman?
2Jo:1:1:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth;
and not I only,
but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo:1:4:
I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth,
as we have received a commandment from the Father.
2Jo:1:13:
The children of thy elect sister greet thee.
Amen.
How about this woman, was she in a station of (being more than somebody who should be silent)?
Lu:2:36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Lu:2:37:
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years,
which departed not from the temple,
but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
How many women are named in these verses, Ro:16:1-15?
If a husband doesn't treat his wife according to Scripture who is he going to answer to?
Last but not least, how do you know the 'beloved disciple' wasn't a woman, and no it wasn't Mary Magdalene, it was a different Mary.
Quoting mrgrumpy
LOL Women got to vote for the first time in Canada in 1916 (Provincial), as late as 1940 for Federal elections. Was this mandated (that they could not vote) by politics or religion?
God's direction to women; obey and shut up.
How many men would qualify as being the ones addressed in this verse?
Lu:6:46:
And why call ye me,
Lord,
Lord,
and do not the things which I say?
Do you know any man who would argue Scripture with Christ? Or would it be best to remain silent and learn?
Quoting mrgrumpy
It seems like Adam was lacking some teaching skills when he taught Eve about the tree. There is no Scripture that says Eve ever 'met' God, quite the contrary, if she had met God and received instruction about the tree it should have been the same instruction Adam got. It wasn't, God never said anything about touching, Adam added that little part all on his own (with the best intentions). Apparently when God tells somebody something it has more meaning than one person (even if it is a husband) telling somebody else not to do something. Why on earth do you think Satan approached Eve instead of Adam, he got to Adam through Eve, Adam had to eat because he and Eve were one flesh.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over man but be in silence. For Adam was the first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in trangression. Timothy 2 11-14
The times that women are mentioned in Scripture have either escaped you or you have blinders on about the importance of just men. Are the children mentioned in this verse natural children or people who have been brought to Christ because of this woman?
2Jo:1:1:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth;
and not I only,
but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo:1:4:
I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth,
as we have received a commandment from the Father.
2Jo:1:13:
The children of thy elect sister greet thee.
Amen.
How about this woman, was she in a station of (being more than somebody who should be silent)?
Lu:2:36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Lu:2:37:
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years,
which departed not from the temple,
but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
How many women are named in these verses, Ro:16:1-15?
Quoting mrgrumpy
Man is subject to Christ in every way that a woman is to her husband, so how do men have 'it better'?
Wives submit yourselves unto your husband as unto the LORD. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ so the wives are be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5 22-24
If a husband doesn't treat his wife according to Scripture who is he going to answer to?
Last but not least, how do you know the 'beloved disciple' wasn't a woman, and no it wasn't Mary Magdalene, it was a different Mary.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,399
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
February 21st, 2008, 10:39 PM
But I probably won't get the chance, because I'm pretty sure he's not coming back and I doubt he was ever here in the first place, at least not in the form and manner Christianity claims, though there are pretty reasonable odds there was a rabble-rousing preacher in the Middle East 2000 years ago that his story is based on. Nor do I have any expectation of seeing him in any next life. And if I'm wrong, I'll plead Bertrand Russell's argument--"you didn't give us enough evidence"--and take my chances.
Quoting MHz
Yes. I would. I'd give him a list of absurdities, false promises, exaggerated claims, failed prophecies, contradictions, inconsistencies, injustices, cruelties, and plain old errors of fact, some of them out of his own mouth according to the reports, and ask for an accounting.
Do you know any man who would argue Scripture with Christ?
But I probably won't get the chance, because I'm pretty sure he's not coming back and I doubt he was ever here in the first place, at least not in the form and manner Christianity claims, though there are pretty reasonable odds there was a rabble-rousing preacher in the Middle East 2000 years ago that his story is based on. Nor do I have any expectation of seeing him in any next life. And if I'm wrong, I'll plead Bertrand Russell's argument--"you didn't give us enough evidence"--and take my chances.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
February 22nd, 2008, 01:21 AM
I would be careful about not letting Him speak though.
Heb:12:24:
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling,
that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb:12:25:
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.
For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,
much more shall not we escape,
if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Heb:12:5:
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children,
My son,
despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb:12:6:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb:12:7:
If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb:12:8:
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards,
and not sons.
Heb:12:9:
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:
shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits,
and live?
Heb:12:10:
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure;
but he for our profit,
that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb:12:11:
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous,
but grievous:
nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Heb:12:12:
Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down,
and the feeble knees;
Heb:12:13:
And make straight paths for your feet,
lest that which is lame be turned out of the way;
but let it rather be healed.
I don't claim to know everything but I'm more than satisfied with the answers I've found to questions that cover most of the words you have written (whether or not they were the very same issues). Got any examples (esp the failed prophecies and plain old errors from His mouth)?
Do you think He would reject you because you didn't believe the words written in a Book? As this verse points out you have to deny Him after you see Him. Disbelief in Scripture will probably keep you out of the 1000 years between His return and Judgment Day, but that is a far cry from being where Satan and the other fallen angels are headed. That might just be a blessing in disguise, if lack of faith keeps you out of being alive for those first 1,000 years you are spared seeing Satan (and the fallen angels that make up the 'sands of the sea') at his most powerful moment. The thousand years are there so Satan comes against a land that is according to the way Christ wants it (Israel is back to 'a small Eden') and the only people alive (the whole house of Israel and the remnant from the Nations) have been faithful for the full thousand years (who 'just happen' to be there for a yearly feast when Satan is unchained).
Did Jesus reject Thomas when he said he would have to touch Christ's wounds before he would believe that Jesus had been resurrected? All He said on the matter was "Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." and then "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Joh:6:40:
And this is the will of him that sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son,
and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day.
Taking 'your chances' means the difference between being a permanent 'resident' of the 1500 sq. mi. city and being out in the new earth. Isaiah:65:17-25 is what will be going on for those people, while not quite the honor of being in the city full time they will get to visit that city on occasion, (much like Israel will 'play the host' for those that come to the yearly feast of the Tabernacles during the thousand years). All in all, a far cry from being in any fiery lake wouldn't you say? Oh, did I forget to mention the Scripture that says how many Gentiles survive Christ's arrival?
Zec:13:8:
And it shall come to pass,
that in all the land,
saith the LORD,
two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
but the third shall be left therein.
Zec:13:9:
And I will bring the third part through the fire,
and will refine them as silver is refined,
and will try them as gold is tried:
they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them:
I will say,
It is my people:
and they shall say,
The LORD is my God.
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Assuming you don't find any answers to those 'questions' in Scripture yourself before His return, why do you think He would leave you with anything 'unanswered'?
Yes. I would. I'd give him a list of absurdities, false promises, exaggerated claims, failed prophecies, contradictions, inconsistencies, injustices, cruelties, and plain old errors of fact, some of them out of his own mouth according to the reports, and ask for an accounting.
I would be careful about not letting Him speak though.
Heb:12:24:
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling,
that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb:12:25:
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.
For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,
much more shall not we escape,
if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Heb:12:5:
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children,
My son,
despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb:12:6:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb:12:7:
If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb:12:8:
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards,
and not sons.
Heb:12:9:
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:
shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits,
and live?
Heb:12:10:
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure;
but he for our profit,
that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb:12:11:
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous,
but grievous:
nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Heb:12:12:
Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down,
and the feeble knees;
Heb:12:13:
And make straight paths for your feet,
lest that which is lame be turned out of the way;
but let it rather be healed.
I don't claim to know everything but I'm more than satisfied with the answers I've found to questions that cover most of the words you have written (whether or not they were the very same issues). Got any examples (esp the failed prophecies and plain old errors from His mouth)?
Quoting Dexter Sinister
When you are God you don't have to leave 'lots of proof'? I doubt very many who heard Jesus speak ever got the full jest of what He was actually talking about, you have to discount the signs He showed that God had actually sent Him to make Him just a 'rabble-rousing preacher'. What percentage of those who believed in Him were convinced by seeing how easily He healed people (whether they were healed themselves or a witness to that kind of event)?
But I probably won't get the chance, because I'm pretty sure he's not coming back and I doubt he was ever here in the first place, at least not in the form and manner Christianity claims, though there are pretty reasonable odds there was a rabble-rousing preacher in the Middle East 2000 years ago that his story is based on. Nor do I have any expectation of seeing him in any next life. And if I'm wrong, I'll plead Bertrand Russell's argument--"you didn't give us enough evidence"--and take my chances.
Do you think He would reject you because you didn't believe the words written in a Book? As this verse points out you have to deny Him after you see Him. Disbelief in Scripture will probably keep you out of the 1000 years between His return and Judgment Day, but that is a far cry from being where Satan and the other fallen angels are headed. That might just be a blessing in disguise, if lack of faith keeps you out of being alive for those first 1,000 years you are spared seeing Satan (and the fallen angels that make up the 'sands of the sea') at his most powerful moment. The thousand years are there so Satan comes against a land that is according to the way Christ wants it (Israel is back to 'a small Eden') and the only people alive (the whole house of Israel and the remnant from the Nations) have been faithful for the full thousand years (who 'just happen' to be there for a yearly feast when Satan is unchained).
Did Jesus reject Thomas when he said he would have to touch Christ's wounds before he would believe that Jesus had been resurrected? All He said on the matter was "Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." and then "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Joh:6:40:
And this is the will of him that sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son,
and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day.
Taking 'your chances' means the difference between being a permanent 'resident' of the 1500 sq. mi. city and being out in the new earth. Isaiah:65:17-25 is what will be going on for those people, while not quite the honor of being in the city full time they will get to visit that city on occasion, (much like Israel will 'play the host' for those that come to the yearly feast of the Tabernacles during the thousand years). All in all, a far cry from being in any fiery lake wouldn't you say? Oh, did I forget to mention the Scripture that says how many Gentiles survive Christ's arrival?
Zec:13:8:
And it shall come to pass,
that in all the land,
saith the LORD,
two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
but the third shall be left therein.
Zec:13:9:
And I will bring the third part through the fire,
and will refine them as silver is refined,
and will try them as gold is tried:
they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them:
I will say,
It is my people:
and they shall say,
The LORD is my God.
Genius
Posts: 969
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 22nd, 2008, 01:36 AM
As for each individual member of a religion being judged on their own merit: this may seem on the outside like a perfectly reasonable request, however, one needs to bear in mind that each of these people, no matter how nice they are, is a plague barer and potential source for further infection.
At all costs keep them from your children! They are like the cigarette companies and prey on our most vulnerable citizens!
Quoting s_lone
I think it is perfectly reasonable to condemn faith in the face of what it has really brought to humanity and all the horror it has caused. Perhaps you can decide which small pox virus is better then another but I don't want any infection period.
Don't get me wrong... I definitely get your point that religion IS a central issue in a lot of horrible stuff that happened and that still happen today. But you can't condemn an entire faith for the actions of individuals. At least, each faith should be judged with lucidity for their own flaws and merits.
As for each individual member of a religion being judged on their own merit: this may seem on the outside like a perfectly reasonable request, however, one needs to bear in mind that each of these people, no matter how nice they are, is a plague barer and potential source for further infection.
At all costs keep them from your children! They are like the cigarette companies and prey on our most vulnerable citizens!
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,399
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
February 22nd, 2008, 01:41 AM
Well MHz, you're obviously a Biblical literalist of some sort. I'm an atheist, which in my case means I don't believe there's a god, not that I believe there isn't one (do you see the difference?) and frankly I think you're deluding yourself. I will trust my own powers of understanding, my capacity for reason and logic, which I'm sure you would say are god-given, before I'll trust any argument from authority.
Well MHz, you're obviously a Biblical literalist of some sort. I'm an atheist, which in my case means I don't believe there's a god, not that I believe there isn't one (do you see the difference?) and frankly I think you're deluding yourself. I will trust my own powers of understanding, my capacity for reason and logic, which I'm sure you would say are god-given, before I'll trust any argument from authority.
Time Out
Posts: 360
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
February 22nd, 2008, 02:22 AM
" If we go back to the beginings of things we shall always find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that imagination, rapture and deception embellished them;that weakness worships them; that custom spares them, and that tyranny favors them in order to profit from the blindness of men. "
" If we go back to the beginings of things we shall always find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that imagination, rapture and deception embellished them;that weakness worships them; that custom spares them, and that tyranny favors them in order to profit from the blindness of men. "
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,766
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
February 22nd, 2008, 07:09 AM
I wonder? Could there be some correlation to the Christ now and the things we say about Jack Bower/Chuck Norris?
I wonder? Could there be some correlation to the Christ now and the things we say about Jack Bower/Chuck Norris?
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,444
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 22nd, 2008, 08:32 AM
Atheism is not a belief system it is considered normal human relations built upon truth and the laws of nature. While you personally have not called for the elimination of the others or nonbelievers how can you claim innocense for the institutions that have for hundreds of years burdend mankind with the worst of crimes for its own extension and survival.
My feelings are based on study of religion from it's beginnings and all of it's acts, my understanding is not based on faith but fact and I will not grant the religious equality with secular human activitys and I will not bend to agree to tolerate the intolerable abuse of humanity by the religious.
Finally it (religion) is a bane to mankind and I do not feel even the slightest hesitation in advocating it's end in human affairs and it's denegration whereever and whenever I have oportunity to do so. To not do so is exactly the same as allowing a disease to spread and not warn others of it's danger. Eradication of religion and religious thinking is absolutly necessary for the continued survival of mankind, it cannot be allowed to continue unchecked precisely because it's history has determined it's cost, and that cost is no longer bearable by humanity.
Those of us who advocate for it's abolition far from being unreasonable are entirely correct in our knowledge and direction. For those who insist on condemning others to revisit the crimes of the dark ages in perpetuity, specifically those crimes against women, I would advise that they spend some time studying history instead of spouting meaningless dogma.
Quoting karrie
"You have to understand" no we don't have to understand the unfathomable nonesence the religious use to justify thier acts and thoughts, such understanding is called faith or belief neither term is acceptable or carries any gravity whatever against observable truth from emphicle evidence and historical evidence of what the cost of religion has been to mankind and what a devisive dangerous practice it acctually is. You characterize the crimes of the religious as the acts of a few and this is demonstratably wrong especially when the documentation of edicts from the governing bodys of the churches are extant and proves conclusivly that these crimes were a matter of designed and promulgated policy by way of doctrinal instruction.Acts such as the witch hunts and the inquisition and an endless number of other crimes against humanity for in excess of three-thousands years were and are a policy of chuch bodys as a whole and not the mere acts of indivuiduals. The body of documentation exists and has been well studied, church policy demands exclusivity and intolerance as a matter of long standing policy.
a swipe? since when is a counter point a swipe?
You have to understand that, as a Christian, I've never called to have someone killed or imprisoned or 'reprogrammed' for their religious views. But I have had people on here say such ignorant things about religion, based on the abuses of the few, people call for the deaths of Christians/Muslims/Jews based on our religion, people call for the removal of our children from our homes, the eradication of 'thinking like ours'. So I get a bit annoyed, when hearing someone of an agnostic or atheist belief system, make blanket statements based on generalization, while ignoring the hate and calls for genocide, coming from their own camp.
You have to understand that, as a Christian, I've never called to have someone killed or imprisoned or 'reprogrammed' for their religious views. But I have had people on here say such ignorant things about religion, based on the abuses of the few, people call for the deaths of Christians/Muslims/Jews based on our religion, people call for the removal of our children from our homes, the eradication of 'thinking like ours'. So I get a bit annoyed, when hearing someone of an agnostic or atheist belief system, make blanket statements based on generalization, while ignoring the hate and calls for genocide, coming from their own camp.
Atheism is not a belief system it is considered normal human relations built upon truth and the laws of nature. While you personally have not called for the elimination of the others or nonbelievers how can you claim innocense for the institutions that have for hundreds of years burdend mankind with the worst of crimes for its own extension and survival.
My feelings are based on study of religion from it's beginnings and all of it's acts, my understanding is not based on faith but fact and I will not grant the religious equality with secular human activitys and I will not bend to agree to tolerate the intolerable abuse of humanity by the religious.
Finally it (religion) is a bane to mankind and I do not feel even the slightest hesitation in advocating it's end in human affairs and it's denegration whereever and whenever I have oportunity to do so. To not do so is exactly the same as allowing a disease to spread and not warn others of it's danger. Eradication of religion and religious thinking is absolutly necessary for the continued survival of mankind, it cannot be allowed to continue unchecked precisely because it's history has determined it's cost, and that cost is no longer bearable by humanity.
Those of us who advocate for it's abolition far from being unreasonable are entirely correct in our knowledge and direction. For those who insist on condemning others to revisit the crimes of the dark ages in perpetuity, specifically those crimes against women, I would advise that they spend some time studying history instead of spouting meaningless dogma.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
February 22nd, 2008, 08:38 AM
Sorry I can't let that line about (paraphrase) "Not all politicians are bad (evil/corrupt/dishonest etc.)"...
Think about a choir. 99 voices tuned pitched and trained to reproduce the music and lyrics of oh say..the national anthem....
Then think Rosanne.....
When a political (or any system...doctors, police etc.) make it easier for a dishonest and culpable person to escape scrutiny and consequences for their actions, the whole system is untrustworthy. Granting the "innocent until proven guilty" rationale hasn't served the best (or better) interests of Canadians, Americans British or any other political system touting themselve's as "democratic"..... When Paul Martin hides his CSL ship registries in off-shore locations to avoid taxes, then stands up in the House of Commons and points a finger at Canadian corporations which don't pay their "fair share" of taxes....we are all made victim to legalese and our laws are a mockery. As long as we're prepared to tolerate fraud theft and injustice in our social institutions, we're prepared to give the criminal and the abuser power over our existence.
Sorry I can't let that line about (paraphrase) "Not all politicians are bad (evil/corrupt/dishonest etc.)"...
Think about a choir. 99 voices tuned pitched and trained to reproduce the music and lyrics of oh say..the national anthem....
Then think Rosanne.....
When a political (or any system...doctors, police etc.) make it easier for a dishonest and culpable person to escape scrutiny and consequences for their actions, the whole system is untrustworthy. Granting the "innocent until proven guilty" rationale hasn't served the best (or better) interests of Canadians, Americans British or any other political system touting themselve's as "democratic"..... When Paul Martin hides his CSL ship registries in off-shore locations to avoid taxes, then stands up in the House of Commons and points a finger at Canadian corporations which don't pay their "fair share" of taxes....we are all made victim to legalese and our laws are a mockery. As long as we're prepared to tolerate fraud theft and injustice in our social institutions, we're prepared to give the criminal and the abuser power over our existence.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,444
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 22nd, 2008, 09:33 AM
Exactly Mickey. Why do we have to tolerate the criminal power structures of the wealthy and powerful? If you adhere to a criminal organization you're quilty by association, your faith in that institution in the face of overwhelming and uncontrovertable proof is not admissable in a court of law as defence nor should it be admissable in any humane consideration.
We can readily see what a monumentally inhumane crime christianity has supported and inflamed to perpatrate on those innocent men women and children and the agony they endure at the hands of selfstyled men of god. Both Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly stressed thier christian religious reasoning as god given permission to rape burn and pillage at will the defenceless. This period of war we now live in has been given christian sanction and they revel in murder and unspeakable crimes all bolstered by thier faith and belief. How many millions more have to die at the hands of the judeo/christian disease before the practise is once and for all banned from all decision and governance so that it never again is used to commit or promote crime.
Exactly Mickey. Why do we have to tolerate the criminal power structures of the wealthy and powerful? If you adhere to a criminal organization you're quilty by association, your faith in that institution in the face of overwhelming and uncontrovertable proof is not admissable in a court of law as defence nor should it be admissable in any humane consideration.
We can readily see what a monumentally inhumane crime christianity has supported and inflamed to perpatrate on those innocent men women and children and the agony they endure at the hands of selfstyled men of god. Both Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly stressed thier christian religious reasoning as god given permission to rape burn and pillage at will the defenceless. This period of war we now live in has been given christian sanction and they revel in murder and unspeakable crimes all bolstered by thier faith and belief. How many millions more have to die at the hands of the judeo/christian disease before the practise is once and for all banned from all decision and governance so that it never again is used to commit or promote crime.
February 22nd, 2008, 09:36 AM
You're fooling yourself if you think the eradication of religion will stop bad people from doing bad things. There's no basis in human behavior to believe that one excuse won't simply be traded for another. Atheists aren't better people than the religious, and vice versa. Belief that one group or the other is any better, or morally superior on an individual basis, is nothing but ludicrous.
You're fooling yourself if you think the eradication of religion will stop bad people from doing bad things. There's no basis in human behavior to believe that one excuse won't simply be traded for another. Atheists aren't better people than the religious, and vice versa. Belief that one group or the other is any better, or morally superior on an individual basis, is nothing but ludicrous.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
February 22nd, 2008, 09:38 AM
Which doesn't make it a fact, does it? I'm fairly careful to check out everything Scripture says (in that a verse will be supported by at least two other verses), I certainly haven't swallowed any of the current popular doctrines floating around today for the same reason as already given. One verse might hint at something being so but there is either no other verses that support that thought or there are verses that directly contradict a proposed doctrine. I'm sure you would agree that knowledge is the best protection from believing a lie. The lie I am referencing is what 'mainstream religion' promotes (ie who ends up in the lake, how the final years before His arrival actually unfolds, in that there are so many verses in both the OT and NT that are directly about those times God certainly didn't want us to be ignorant of just what events would unfold).
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Maybe I'm just patient enough to read as much as i can on what the Bible actually says on any certain subject before I conclude what it has to say.
Well MHz, you're obviously a Biblical literalist of some sort.
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Not really, I assume your view was arrived at in one of three ways. You have never read anything in the Bible (I don't think this applies to you), you have read some but found it to be too complicated (in that not all the info on a subject is in one single place but scattered about in all the books and finding all those precepts was an insurmountable task, that might be you), or that you have studied those Scriptures in depth and just don't believe.
I'm an atheist, which in my case means I don't believe there's a god, not that I believe there isn't one (do you see the difference?)
Quoting Dexter Sinister
So are you going to give me any examples?
and frankly I think you're deluding yourself.
Which doesn't make it a fact, does it? I'm fairly careful to check out everything Scripture says (in that a verse will be supported by at least two other verses), I certainly haven't swallowed any of the current popular doctrines floating around today for the same reason as already given. One verse might hint at something being so but there is either no other verses that support that thought or there are verses that directly contradict a proposed doctrine. I'm sure you would agree that knowledge is the best protection from believing a lie. The lie I am referencing is what 'mainstream religion' promotes (ie who ends up in the lake, how the final years before His arrival actually unfolds, in that there are so many verses in both the OT and NT that are directly about those times God certainly didn't want us to be ignorant of just what events would unfold).
Quoting Dexter Sinister
I'm not sure what 'authority' means in this conversation. I would say breath is God-given, logic and reason are shaped by the information we have which can be clouded if any of that information is not 100% accurate. Since learning is a life-long process what we believe today is not written in stone, new information could come which would alter any current perception.
I will trust my own powers of understanding, my capacity for reason and logic, which I'm sure you would say are god-given, before I'll trust any argument from authority.
