Bible Translation

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Bible Translation

Here is an example of how important it is to compare Bible translations, especially when strting from the KJV or other older Bibles.

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (KJV)

My that David sounds like a monster, doesn't he?! Sawing, chopping and burning his captives. But lets look at some newer translations.

"And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NKJV)

"and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking. He did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NIV)

"David made the people of Rabbah tear down the city walls [a] with iron picks and axes, and then he put them to work making bricks. He did the same thing with all the other Ammonite cities. David went back to Jerusalem, and the people of Israel returned to their homes." 2 Samuel 12:31 (CEV)

Regarding 2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chronicles 20:3 consider The Anchor Bible, which says: "David is setting up work crews of captives for the economic exploitation of the conquered territory, evidently standard practice for victorious kings.” Adam Clarke says: “He made people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining . . . . And in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chipping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Here is

David Henson wrote:

Here is an example of how important it is to compare Bible translations, especially when strting from the KJV or other older Bibles.

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (KJV)

My that David sounds like a monster, doesn't he?! Sawing, chopping and burning his captives. But lets look at some newer translations.

"And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NKJV)

"and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking. He did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NIV)

"David made the people of Rabbah tear down the city walls [a] with iron picks and axes, and then he put them to work making bricks. He did the same thing with all the other Ammonite cities. David went back to Jerusalem, and the people of Israel returned to their homes." 2 Samuel 12:31 (CEV)

Regarding 2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chronicles 20:3 consider The Anchor Bible, which says: "David is setting up work crews of captives for the economic exploitation of the conquered territory, evidently standard practice for victorious kings.” Adam Clarke says: “He made people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining . . . . And in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chipping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites."

 

Is that actually a mistranslation, or just an old English usage of 'put under' which means put to work?  The KJV is rather old.  Since I've never heard any atheists lamenting the cruelty of this particular verse, I imagine it is the latter.  Could be wrong though!

 

Anyway, bad example.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
mellestad wrote:David Henson

mellestad wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Here is an example of how important it is to compare Bible translations, especially when strting from the KJV or other older Bibles.

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (KJV)

My that David sounds like a monster, doesn't he?! Sawing, chopping and burning his captives. But lets look at some newer translations.

"And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NKJV)

"and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking. He did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem." 2 Samuel 12:31 (NIV)

"David made the people of Rabbah tear down the city walls [a] with iron picks and axes, and then he put them to work making bricks. He did the same thing with all the other Ammonite cities. David went back to Jerusalem, and the people of Israel returned to their homes." 2 Samuel 12:31 (CEV)

Regarding 2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chronicles 20:3 consider The Anchor Bible, which says: "David is setting up work crews of captives for the economic exploitation of the conquered territory, evidently standard practice for victorious kings.” Adam Clarke says: “He made people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining . . . . And in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chipping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites."

 

Is that actually a mistranslation, or just an old English usage of 'put under' which means put to work?  The KJV is rather old.  Since I've never heard any atheists lamenting the cruelty of this particular verse, I imagine it is the latter.  Could be wrong though!

 

Anyway, bad example.

Arguing bible translations is as as silly as arguing over Thot vs Set and Hieroglyphics and the existence of the sun being a thinking being, Sure the sun is real but how many sane people think it gives a crap about our species?

The bible is nothing but a reflection, that all holy superstitions were OF ALL CULTURES, prior and current, are nothing more than the wishful thinking of the fans who market such absurdities

"Translation" of any myth misses the point that it cannot be replicated or falsified which leaves the credulous to masturbate over the emotional appeal of having a super hero.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
As others pointed out, this

As others pointed out, this really isn't a verse that has been used to prove much of anything. However, it does seem to show one thing: God is okay with slave work.

 

PS: Don't try and argue that it was "standard practice" back then; I will remind you that polytheism was also "standard practice" back then and the Israelites certainly did hear a lot from God on THAT issue.

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm currently reading

I'm currently reading "Asimov's Guide to the Bible." He basically pulls together research on the secular history of the Bible, and writes about it fairly lucidly and clearly. (It's kinda hard, when the Bible itself jumps all over the place.)

I recommend it, though it's a long slog.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Is that

mellestad wrote:

Is that actually a mistranslation, or just an old English usage of 'put under' which means put to work?  The KJV is rather old.  Since I've never heard any atheists lamenting the cruelty of this particular verse, I imagine it is the latter.  Could be wrong though!

 

Anyway, bad example.

It is primarily a case of an older translation, though one that is a favorite and has a rather strictly devoted following of fanatics, being too old to be clear at times. And it wasn't a good version from the start, it was just the only or primary one for some time. Many people don't realize the difference between "translations" and "versions." A translation is supposed to lean towards a literal translation whereas a version is allowed certain creative liberties. 

This point was actually brought to my attention through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It was included in their article What The Bible Says About Torture, which I respond to here. (The link the the SAB original is linked to at the top of my page.) When Steve Wells, the owner of the SAB read my response regarding that portion of David's alleged torture he removed it, I advised him, on his Dwindling In Unbelief blog, not to remove it because he had such a good point and had made no error in doing so, but I don't think he heeded that advice and it remains . . . removed. 

I disagree that it is a bad example, I think it is an excellent example.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
D33PPURPLE wrote:As others

D33PPURPLE wrote:

As others pointed out, this really isn't a verse that has been used to prove much of anything. However, it does seem to show one thing: God is okay with slave work.

 

PS: Don't try and argue that it was "standard practice" back then; I will remind you that polytheism was also "standard practice" back then and the Israelites certainly did hear a lot from God on THAT issue.

As I responded to those it was used to "prove" David's torturing captives of war. This was "standard practice" at the time and it was done very humanely.

 

What The Bible Says About Slavery


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Is that actually a mistranslation, or just an old English usage of 'put under' which means put to work?  The KJV is rather old.  Since I've never heard any atheists lamenting the cruelty of this particular verse, I imagine it is the latter.  Could be wrong though!

 

Anyway, bad example.

It is primarily a case of an older translation, though one that is a favorite and has a rather strictly devoted following of fanatics, being too old to be clear at times. And it wasn't a good version from the start, it was just the only or primary one for some time. Many people don't realize the difference between "translations" and "versions." A translation is supposed to lean towards a literal translation whereas a version is allowed certain creative liberties. 

This point was actually brought to my attention through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It was included in their article What The Bible Says About Torture, which I respond to here. (The link the the SAB original is linked to at the top of my page.) When Steve Wells, the owner of the SAB read my response regarding that portion of David's alleged torture he removed it, I advised him, on his Dwindling In Unbelief blog, not to remove it because he had such a good point and had made no error in doing so, but I don't think he heeded that advice and it remains . . . removed. 

I disagree that it is a bad example, I think it is an excellent example.  

 

But it isn't a translation issue, it is an issue with an old book using old language.  It wouldn't be confusing if we were reading the KJV when it was still newish.

But maybe that was the point you were getting at.

To me, a better issue about translation might be the thou shalt not kill/murder stuff, because that *is* a translation issue and it has direct implications about Christian morality.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Quoted from that

Quoted from that link:

“Atheists don’t like the concept of discipline,”

Interesting comment but not always true. Just because an Atheist is not disciplined in your concept of morality doesn’t mean they don’t show discipline in their professional career or other aspects of their life. I also found Christians to lack this very discipline you claim the bible teaches.

I think the idea of slavery is disgusting btw. Spin it how ever you want. “It was not uncommon for slaves to hold a position of great trust and honor in a household”. Comments like these you made really are disturbing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:Quoted

everlastingxxx wrote:

Quoted from that link:

“Atheists don’t like the concept of discipline,”

Interesting comment but not always true. Just because an Atheist is not disciplined in your concept of morality doesn’t mean they don’t show discipline in their professional career or other aspects of their life. I also found Christians to lack this very discipline you claim the bible teaches.

True, but I meant that as corrective discipline. It was, more than anything, a sarcastic commentary which from time to time does creep into The Pathway Machine.

everlastingxxx wrote:
I think the idea of slavery is disgusting btw. Spin it how ever you want. “It was not uncommon for slaves to hold a position of great trust and honor in a household”. Comments like these you made really are disturbing.

Why would you find that comment disturbing if it is true? You and I were born in a time and place where slavery, fortunately, is thought of as morally disgusting but that hasn't always been the case. The point of my response to what the Bible says about slavery is that God didn't inspire slavery, but he instituted laws regarding slavery which was commonly practiced. He took a people and formed a nation of laws on a planet that he had given man as stewards of, and made sure as much as was possible, that the slave was treated fairly and humanely.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:But it isn't

mellestad wrote:

But it isn't a translation issue, it is an issue with an old book using old language.  It wouldn't be confusing if we were reading the KJV when it was still newish.

But maybe that was the point you were getting at.

It was the point I was getting at. It isn't a translational issue in that it is a way that something was translated, but regarding a specific translation as an example of the importance of comparing translations. Especially older ones like the KJV.

mellestad wrote:
To me, a better issue about translation might be the thou shalt not kill/murder stuff, because that *is* a translation issue and it has direct implications about Christian morality.

Lets discuss that, then.   


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

But it isn't a translation issue, it is an issue with an old book using old language.  It wouldn't be confusing if we were reading the KJV when it was still newish.

But maybe that was the point you were getting at.

It was the point I was getting at. It isn't a translational issue in that it is a way that something was translated, but regarding a specific translation as an example of the importance of comparing translations. Especially older ones like the KJV.

mellestad wrote:
To me, a better issue about translation might be the thou shalt not kill/murder stuff, because that *is* a translation issue and it has direct implications about Christian morality.

Lets discuss that, then.   

 

Ok, I just misunderstood what you were going for.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

everlastingxxx wrote:

Quoted from that link:

“Atheists don’t like the concept of discipline,”

Interesting comment but not always true. Just because an Atheist is not disciplined in your concept of morality doesn’t mean they don’t show discipline in their professional career or other aspects of their life. I also found Christians to lack this very discipline you claim the bible teaches.

True, but I meant that as corrective discipline. It was, more than anything, a sarcastic commentary which from time to time does creep into The Pathway Machine.

everlastingxxx wrote:
I think the idea of slavery is disgusting btw. Spin it how ever you want. “It was not uncommon for slaves to hold a position of great trust and honor in a household”. Comments like these you made really are disturbing.

Why would you find that comment disturbing if it is true? You and I were born in a time and place where slavery, fortunately, is thought of as morally disgusting but that hasn't always been the case. The point of my response to what the Bible says about slavery is that God didn't inspire slavery, but he instituted laws regarding slavery which was commonly practiced. He took a people and formed a nation of laws on a planet that he had given man as stewards of, and made sure as much as was possible, that the slave was treated fairly and humanely.

 

The difference between your deity's "corrective discipline" and the real morality outside myth, is that atheists don't see living within the confines of common law as having to be done out of fear or or bribery but merely common consent and voluntary self regulation. Your concept on the other hand is arbitrary and it's main goal is to get you to worship a dictator out of fear.

"that the slave was treated fairly and humanly"

LISTEN TO YOURSELF. Ok, as long as you give a slave a bed and food and don't beat them it is ok to own another human? You do realize that by that line alone you are admitting that your god condoned ownership of other humans.

GOD, "I don't like the fact that you own other people, but if you are going to do it, be nice to your property".

Do you ever read what you write, or do you merely like being a fan "just because". It is easy to be a fan, it is much harder to think without a hand up your back.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Why would

David Henson wrote:
Why would you find that comment disturbing if it is true? You and I were born in a time and place where slavery, fortunately, is thought of as morally disgusting but that hasn't always been the case. The point of my response to what the Bible says about slavery is that God didn't inspire slavery, but he instituted laws regarding slavery which was commonly practiced. He took a people and formed a nation of laws on a planet that he had given man as stewards of, and made sure as much as was possible, that the slave was treated fairly and humanely.

Does that mean slavery is OK today, as long as we follow the laws god put forth?

Or does it mean that morality is dependent upon social norms?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

D33PPURPLE wrote:

As others pointed out, this really isn't a verse that has been used to prove much of anything. However, it does seem to show one thing: God is okay with slave work.

 

PS: Don't try and argue that it was "standard practice" back then; I will remind you that polytheism was also "standard practice" back then and the Israelites certainly did hear a lot from God on THAT issue.

As I responded to those it was used to "prove" David's torturing captives of war. This was "standard practice" at the time and it was done very humanely.

 

What The Bible Says About Slavery

I know what the Bible says about Slavery (ex-Christian). Yeah, okay, you aren't kidnapping people off the coast of Africa, yet you are still subjecting them to forced labor. So the atrocity of kidnapping is gone...but not the atrocity of slavery. Standard practice at the time is a bad argument (which your link made). Why? Because as I pointed out, Polytheism was also a standard practice, yet God complained about that. Yet he barely complains about slavery. Just proof that your morals don't come from the Bible, but a combination of society, culture, etc.

On a final note, the link claimed that slaves/servants had some protections, but some Old Testament laws actually trivialize the death or injury of slaves/servants, such as a Law in Exodus which states that if an ox gores a man to death, and the owner knows the ox was violent, the man must be stoned. However, if the ox gores a SLAVE/SERVANT, he only has to pay some money. The Bible never condemns that, yet modern day Christians do. Interesting. Morals derived from elsewhere in the Bible?

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Diarrhea Of A Madman

Brian37 wrote:

The difference between your deity's "corrective discipline" and the real morality outside myth, is that atheists don't see living within the confines of common law as having to be done out of fear or or bribery but merely common consent and voluntary self regulation. Your concept on the other hand is arbitrary and it's main goal is to get you to worship a dictator out of fear.

Since you are apparently completely incapable of providing any scriptural support for your idiotic sermons and opinions, why not at least ignore my simple request that you provide any examples of each rather than your usual ignorant bullshit preaching? 

Brain wrote:
"that the slave was treated fairly and humanly"

LISTEN TO YOURSELF. Ok, as long as you give a slave a bed and food and don't beat them it is ok to own another human? You do realize that by that line alone you are admitting that your god condoned ownership of other humans.

GOD, "I don't like the fact that you own other people, but if you are going to do it, be nice to your property".

Do you ever read what you write, or do you merely like being a fan "just because". It is easy to be a fan, it is much harder to think without a hand up your back.

What exactly is the point in your starting off on a rant on the common consent and voluntary self regulation and ending with a comparison of God's position on slavery when your common consent and voluntary self regulation fucked up slavery a great deal more than God's law would ever have allowed? We don't need to get rid of the Bible we need to get rid of democracy.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Does that

nigelTheBold wrote:

Does that mean slavery is OK today, as long as we follow the laws god put forth?

It means that at one time slavery, in one form or another, was acceptable.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Or does it mean that morality is dependent upon social norms?

Morality . . . [sighs] . . . it means that at one time it was moral to possess slaves.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
D33PPURPLE wrote:Polytheism

D33PPURPLE wrote:

Polytheism was also a standard practice, yet God complained about that. Yet he barely complains about slavery. Just proof that your morals don't come from the Bible, but a combination of society, culture, etc.

My morals come from the same place your morals do and that has nothing to do with this discussion. What we are talking about is that at one time there was slavery and God set laws in place to protect the slave.

D33PPURPLE wrote:
On a final note, the link claimed that slaves/servants had some protections, but some Old Testament laws actually trivialize the death or injury of slaves/servants, such as a Law in Exodus which states that if an ox gores a man to death, and the owner knows the ox was violent, the man must be stoned. However, if the ox gores a SLAVE/SERVANT, he only has to pay some money. The Bible never condemns that, yet modern day Christians do. Interesting. Morals derived from elsewhere in the Bible?

I'm not going to argue with you about petty morals . . . give me scriptural reference to what you suggest regarding the ox goring the slave/servant so that we can examine that specific case.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The difference between your deity's "corrective discipline" and the real morality outside myth, is that atheists don't see living within the confines of common law as having to be done out of fear or or bribery but merely common consent and voluntary self regulation. Your concept on the other hand is arbitrary and it's main goal is to get you to worship a dictator out of fear.

Since you are apparently completely incapable of providing any scriptural support for your idiotic sermons and opinions, why not at least ignore my simple request that you provide any examples of each rather than your usual ignorant bullshit preaching? 

Brain wrote:
"that the slave was treated fairly and humanly"

LISTEN TO YOURSELF. Ok, as long as you give a slave a bed and food and don't beat them it is ok to own another human? You do realize that by that line alone you are admitting that your god condoned ownership of other humans.

GOD, "I don't like the fact that you own other people, but if you are going to do it, be nice to your property".

Do you ever read what you write, or do you merely like being a fan "just because". It is easy to be a fan, it is much harder to think without a hand up your back.

What exactly is the point in your starting off on a rant on the common consent and voluntary self regulation and ending with a comparison of God's position on slavery when your common consent and voluntary self regulation fucked up slavery a great deal more than God's law would ever have allowed? We don't need to get rid of the Bible we need to get rid of democracy.

Quote:
We don't need to get rid of the Bible we need to get rid of democracy.

 Ok guys, lets give up, the jig is up, the man with the master plan is here and god has tapped him to save us all.  Screw voting and checks and balances and oversight and the consent of the governed. All we need is the bible.

Nice idea for you I guess but kinda screws all those outside your club. Reminds me of the Shiite attitude of Iranians towards non Shiites and non Muslims. I am sure Muslims in Iran love their god as much as you love yours.

And what is your plan if people don't like your plan? What if people like voting and pluralism and the ability to dissent and disagree?

Or is it you don't want to get violent with those who don't share your views, which may be the case, but you are simply frustrated that those outside your club aren't buying your tripe and simply want your sect to be the alpha male where all others sit at the back of the bus. Luckily for me I can blaspheme your god claims and even vote and am a constitutional equal to you. Unlucky for you though, I guess. Too bad,

I agree with one aspect of what you said. I don't think we need to get rid of the bible. I think we need to keep it and everyone read it so they can see what a horrible book it is and place it in the graveyard of myth on the dusty shelf of human history like the antiquated junk it is. I wouldn't mind in the future if we had a Museum of the history of Christianity much like Tut's treasures are paraded around when people simply look at it as part of an ancient myth on display.

The ancient Egyptian culture is pretty to look at and I am sure there were lots of nice people, but it didn't make their gods real and however well intended you think you might be doesn't make your god any more real than any other claimed in human history.

But I value the protections of secular government because it allows for change and doesn't stagnate like theocracy.

 


 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Does that mean slavery is OK today, as long as we follow the laws god put forth?

It means that at one time slavery, in one form or another, was acceptable.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Or does it mean that morality is dependent upon social norms?

Morality . . . [sighs] . . . it means that at one time it was moral to possess slaves.

Okay! Dude, I think I like you. It's not like we have a Carpenters' bond or anything, but I do think I like you.

So. I've been away for a while. Love your avatar. What do you think about same-sex marriage?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I liked this one...

 

David Henson wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about petty morals...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Okay!

nigelTheBold wrote:

Okay! Dude, I think I like you. It's not like we have a Carpenters' bond or anything, but I do think I like you.

Really? Wow, that has never happened before . . . is this a trick of some kind? Lets give this some time and see how maybe your like for me might diminish somewhat, 'cause I don't know how to deal with it.

nigelTheBold wrote:
So. I've been away for a while. Love your avatar. What do you think about same-sex marriage?

Same sex marriage? It has become a sort of political issue, hasn't it. I'm apolitical. My faith is in the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ Jesus, so I don't have an opinion on same-sex marriage which amounts to anything other than my opinion. Having said that, I don't understand why there would be any objections to it. It seems only fair in a political system that same sex partners would be allowed the same privilege of marriage as well as the rights that come with it.

On a personal level I am a non-practicing homosexual, in other words because of my beliefs I don't indulge my sexual preference, but if I were to abandon my beliefs and become an active homosexual I would most likely not be any more politically outspoken on the subject. Before I discovered the Bible I wasn't the type to parade my sexuality nor one who saw marriage as what it makes itself out to be, or what, I suppose, it should be. In other words I don't harshly judge the same sex union as much as I do the facade of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, Dave.

David Henson wrote:

On a personal level I am a non-practicing homosexual, in other words because of my beliefs I don't indulge my sexual preference, but if I were to abandon my beliefs and become an active homosexual I would most likely not be any more politically outspoken on the subject. Before I discovered the Bible I wasn't the type to parade my sexuality nor one who saw marriage as what it makes itself out to be, or what, I suppose, it should be. In other words I don't harshly judge the same sex union as much as I do the facade of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

 

I'm a non-practicing heterosexual so I guess that makes us even. Considered further, it's a bit sad, for you, this. Does the bible really and specifically repudiate the natural range of human sexuality?

If it's not too personal, from your perspective, do you think your true sexuality is a moral flaw, or do you think the hand of the potter shook?

 

P.S. Just say so if I'm coming between you two boys...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
I liked this one...

David Henson wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about petty morals...

WARNING: Strong language. Reader discretion is advised.

I liked it as well, if I do say so myself. I have actually been going over some of my posts and there are so many mistakes that no one calls me on I am beginning to think no one is paying much attention. I don't know if that is good or bad, but I'm trying to do better. That just came out and I thought about it and did like it, the way I meant it, which is easily misunderstood I would imagine, but I kept it to see what the response might be. 

I happen to think the entire argument about Christian morality, from the perspective of the Christian and the Atheist (obviously) is just a silly waste of time. 

Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it. I think that the founders of this country (the USA) were a bunch of cock suckers, but they set forth a fairly good idea. Corruptible as anything else and, so, fucked in this day and age but there is some life left in it yet. [looks at watch] The point is that morality changes over time and according to location. The Christian morality is separate from the morality of the state, ideally, but of course Christendom is a whore and her pimps, the modern day apostate Christians, are as well organized as they are almost completely stupid fucked up hypocrites. I don't know if it is like that down under but up over it is.

In other words, true Christians are no part of the world just as Jesus told them to be no part of the world just as he was no part of the world. Separation of church and state should include morality. The Christian congregation and the state of affairs are separate. Political bullshit. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Okay! Dude, I think I like you. It's not like we have a Carpenters' bond or anything, but I do think I like you.

Really? Wow, that has never happened before . . . is this a trick of some kind? Lets give this some time and see how maybe your like for me might diminish somewhat, 'cause I don't know how to deal with it.

nigelTheBold wrote:
So. I've been away for a while. Love your avatar. What do you think about same-sex marriage?

Same sex marriage? It has become a sort of political issue, hasn't it. I'm apolitical. My faith is in the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ Jesus, so I don't have an opinion on same-sex marriage which amounts to anything other than my opinion. Having said that, I don't understand why there would be any objections to it. It seems only fair in a political system that same sex partners would be allowed the same privilege of marriage as well as the rights that come with it.

On a personal level I am a non-practicing homosexual, in other words because of my beliefs I don't indulge my sexual preference, but if I were to abandon my beliefs and become an active homosexual I would most likely not be any more politically outspoken on the subject. Before I discovered the Bible I wasn't the type to parade my sexuality nor one who saw marriage as what it makes itself out to be, or what, I suppose, it should be. In other words I don't harshly judge the same sex union as much as I do the facade of the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

 

"Because of my beliefs"

No, because someone sold you the idea you were bad because of your sexuality, that is why you don't act on your homosexuality. And they falsely sold you that horrible book to convince you you were bad.

You don't have to be a "flamer" nor do you have to be into orgies. Plenty of heterosexual people have affairs on their partners. Homosexuals are just as capable of monogamy and having affairs as heterosexuals. Your beliefs have nothing to do with your sexuality, your sexuality is biological.

There are plenty of reasons for ANYONE to not act out sexually. Unwanted pregnancy and disease to name the most important, and to a lesser extent emotional rejection if a relationship doesn't go well or the partner lies to you.

I don't know why you want to be part of a club that treats you as second class or expects you to suppress your natural biology.

You really want to be part of a religion, who treats your sexuality as bad and lie and say they don't judge you?

Thats like gang minions hiding behind the gang leader saying, "I didn't say it, he did".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Morality is something

Quote:
Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it.

BINGO, so why do you think an ancient book written by goat herders over 1,000 year period with books left out is relevant now?

Which makes it all the more important for you being gay to ditch that old book and the people who try to repackage it to make their own phobic insecurities justified. The growing morality in modern society is that being gay is not a crime and that gays should have the same rights. The bible treats sexuality as a sin and places women in the position of being nothing but baby factories.

No one here is suggesting that you become lawless or a sex addict, just ditch that old book, it is merely a social norm you bought into and I think you do yourself and other gays a disservice buying into that old claptrap.

You don't have to be "in your face" with your sexuality, you don't have to flaunt it, you don't even have to act on it. But you most certainly owe it to yourself to give up on old myths that demonize you for something that is merely your biology.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:In other words, true

Quote:
In other words, true Christians

You either are a Christian or you are not, period.

You have the same core belief as a Catholic, Baptist, Rush Limbaugh or Jessy Jackson. All of you believe that Jesus was the son of god and died on the cross to save humanity.

HOW we want others to behave does not change what they believe in their heads.

Bin Laden has the same core belief that Allah is the one true god as Muslim and Congressman Keith Ellison has.

I hold the same position that god claims are absurd as any other atheist, even the ones I disagree with or don't like. My label "atheist" only talks about my position, it doesn't mean I speak for all atheists.

What you are committing is the "true Scotsman fallacy".

I think a better way of saying what you want to say is, "I wish other Christians wouldn't do this or that" but that doesn't mean they aren't Christians.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Here's some bible translation for you folks.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Can't find much here I disagree with, Dave.

David Henson wrote:

WARNING: Strong language. Reader discretion is advised.

I liked it as well, if I do say so myself. I have actually been going over some of my posts and there are so many mistakes that no one calls me on I am beginning to think no one is paying much attention. I don't know if that is good or bad, but I'm trying to do better. That just came out and I thought about it and did like it, the way I meant it, which is easily misunderstood I would imagine, but I kept it to see what the response might be. 

I happen to think the entire argument about Christian morality, from the perspective of the Christian and the Atheist (obviously) is just a silly waste of time. 

Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it. I think that the founders of this country (the USA) were a bunch of cock suckers, but they set forth a fairly good idea. Corruptible as anything else and, so, fucked in this day and age but there is some life left in it yet. [looks at watch] The point is that morality changes over time and according to location. The Christian morality is separate from the morality of the state, ideally, but of course Christendom is a whore and her pimps, the modern day apostate Christians, are as well organized as they are almost completely stupid fucked up hypocrites. I don't know if it is like that down under but up over it is.

In other words, true Christians are no part of the world just as Jesus told them to be no part of the world just as he was no part of the world. Separation of church and state should include morality. The Christian congregation and the state of affairs are separate. Political bullshit. 

Tho' I think you could have used more harsh language...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
I liked this one...

David Henson wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about petty morals...

WARNING: Strong language. Reader discretion is advised.

I liked it as well, if I do say so myself. I have actually been going over some of my posts and there are so many mistakes that no one calls me on I am beginning to think no one is paying much attention. I don't know if that is good or bad, but I'm trying to do better. That just came out and I thought about it and did like it, the way I meant it, which is easily misunderstood I would imagine, but I kept it to see what the response might be. 

I happen to think the entire argument about Christian morality, from the perspective of the Christian and the Atheist (obviously) is just a silly waste of time. 

Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it. I think that the founders of this country (the USA) were a bunch of cock suckers, but they set forth a fairly good idea. Corruptible as anything else and, so, fucked in this day and age but there is some life left in it yet. [looks at watch] The point is that morality changes over time and according to location. The Christian morality is separate from the morality of the state, ideally, but of course Christendom is a whore and her pimps, the modern day apostate Christians, are as well organized as they are almost completely stupid fucked up hypocrites. I don't know if it is like that down under but up over it is.

In other words, true Christians are no part of the world just as Jesus told them to be no part of the world just as he was no part of the world. Separation of church and state should include morality. The Christian congregation and the state of affairs are separate. Political bullshit. 

Your stance on morality matches with the stance of most atheists on this board.  One of the biggest gripes many of us have with organized religion is the idea that a believers system of morality is based on the Bible, rather than local culture.  Atheists usually point out that even if a theist thinks they are basing their morality on the Bible, they are full of bs unless they live like an ultra-orthodox Jew.  Hypocrits.  Most atheists would rather see morality arguments stay political...there is a greater chance of genuine discourse that way.  Which is pretty pathetic, since political debate isn't much more reasonable that theistic debate Sticking out tongue

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Because of my

Brian37 wrote:

"Because of my beliefs"

No, because someone sold you the idea you were bad because of your sexuality, that is why you don't act on your homosexuality. And they falsely sold you that horrible book to convince you you were bad.

The only people who have ever come close to doing that are my atheist friends and family. The Jehovah's Witnesses were very respectful and understanding.

Brian wrote:
You don't have to be a "flamer" nor do you have to be into orgies. Plenty of heterosexual people have affairs on their partners. Homosexuals are just as capable of monogamy and having affairs as heterosexuals. Your beliefs have nothing to do with your sexuality, your sexuality is biological.

I don't believe it is biological, or genetic, I don't think there is any evidence to support it being genetic. I believe it is a learned behavior.

Brian wrote:
There are plenty of reasons for ANYONE to not act out sexually. Unwanted pregnancy and disease to name the most important, and to a lesser extent emotional rejection if a relationship doesn't go well or the partner lies to you.

I don't know why you want to be part of a club that treats you as second class or expects you to suppress your natural biology.

Club? I'm no part of any club.

Brian wrote:
You really want to be part of a religion, who treats your sexuality as bad and lie and say they don't judge you?

Thats like gang minions hiding behind the gang leader saying, "I didn't say it, he did".

I wouldn't want to be a part of any organized religion if that is what you mean by club, but I wouldn't want to be a part of any Christianity that distorted homosexuality as something acceptable to the Christian congregation.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:David Henson

Brian37 wrote:

David Henson wrote:
Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it.

BINGO, so why do you think an ancient book written by goat herders over 1,000 year period with books left out is relevant now?

The goat herders reference only demonstrates either ignorance or a need to criticize something you don't understand. The Bible was written by Kings, laborers, priests, shepherds, a doctor, among others.

Brian wrote:
Which makes it all the more important for you being gay to ditch that old book and the people who try to repackage it to make their own phobic insecurities justified. The growing morality in modern society is that being gay is not a crime and that gays should have the same rights. The bible treats sexuality as a sin and places women in the position of being nothing but baby factories.

No one here is suggesting that you become lawless or a sex addict, just ditch that old book, it is merely a social norm you bought into and I think you do yourself and other gays a disservice buying into that old claptrap.

You don't have to be "in your face" with your sexuality, you don't have to flaunt it, you don't even have to act on it. But you most certainly owe it to yourself to give up on old myths that demonize you for something that is merely your biology.

You make many incorrect assumptions regarding the Bible. Usually when people do that they were formerly Christian, is that the case with you?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I don't

David Henson wrote:

I don't believe it is biological, or genetic, I don't think there is any evidence to support it being genetic. I believe it is a learned behavior.

I would say not.  According to this article on pubmed, homosexual men respond to the male pheromone, testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND).  Heterosexual men respond to the female pheromone, estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST).  They determined this by measuring the subject's hypothalamus response to the exposure of the pheromones.  As a control, they also measured brain response to other non-sexual odors.  There was no hypothalamic response to the non-sexual odors.  There is other evidence that demonstrates a relationship between hypothalamus activity and sexual response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883379  (I know you have said you don't take time to read the articles, but other people might be interested.)

If a person is truly homosexual, I fail to see how they are consciously controlling their hypothalamus response.  I also can not conceive of any way to learn how to control the hypothalamus response.  Nor can I conceive of anything a parent or guardian could do to condition the hypothalamus response.  But then, maybe you know of tortures I can not conceive.  There has also been some studies that show structural differences between the hypothalamus' of homosexual and heterosexual people.  I just don't see homosexuality as a learned response.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm a

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm a non-practicing heterosexual so I guess that makes us even. Considered further, it's a bit sad, for you, this. Does the bible really and specifically repudiate the natural range of human sexuality?

If it's not too personal, from your perspective, do you think your true sexuality is a moral flaw, or do you think the hand of the potter shook?

The Bible teaches that sex is a pleasurable act between two loving people. A bond which was permanent. So it isn't just homosexuality, its bestiality, adultery, fornication, prostitution and unnatural sex. 

Is homosexuality a moral flaw? That is an interesting way of putting it, I have never thought of it that way. I have already pointed out that morals come from a time and place. When I was born, in 1966, people were being arrested for being homosexual and for homosexual acts. Here in the USA. People thought of it as a disgusting and unnatural perversion. So, it depends upon the society and the time you live in.  Also whether it is a state morality or Christian morality. Of course when I was practicing I didn't see it as a moral flaw, even though I did see a higher propensity for gross perversion and long term relationships were rare. I don't think that I would see it as a moral flaw as such, because it isn't something that can be helped. Of course, if you think about it pedophilia is something that can't be helped but I would have no trouble thinking of that as a moral flaw. Moral flaws are dictated to us by society. In the Bible times the people of the nations around Israel thought that homosexuality and pedophilia were moral and some of that influenced people of Israel. People tend to think of the Bible as being a product of a people that were, in this regard, somewhat primitive in their views of sexuality but that isn't actually the case. It wasn't the people who insisted upon natural and healthy sexual relations as a special and permanent bond between two people which was constructive to the family structure and therefore society.  

Atheistextremist wrote:
P.S. Just say so if I'm coming between you two boys...

Who, me and Brian? Oh, he is just venting and trying to convert . . . surely you have seen religious people do that before.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Your stance

mellestad wrote:

Your stance on morality matches with the stance of most atheists on this board.  One of the biggest gripes many of us have with organized religion is the idea that a believers system of morality is based on the Bible, rather than local culture.  Atheists usually point out that even if a theist thinks they are basing their morality on the Bible, they are full of bs unless they live like an ultra-orthodox Jew.  Hypocrits.  Most atheists would rather see morality arguments stay political...there is a greater chance of genuine discourse that way.  Which is pretty pathetic, since political debate isn't much more reasonable that theistic debate Sticking out tongue

Hmmm . . . I don't know, mellestad. Well, you have read my stance on morality and you say it is similar to the atheist stance, and from what you have told me it would seem that way, but when you put it like there is some disagreement on theists basing their morality on the Bible I wonder.

My societies moral position on homosexuality right now is changing gradually. Most people profess an acceptance of it but, of course, that is most likely a trend to some extent, because the public consensus is still openly against gay marriage by majority. Of course, they have some way to go and still, it is improving. On the other hand, remember, what I'm really advocating is the separation of morality of the church and the state. I don't believe that one should instruct or demand or criticize the other. So you have a difference of morality there between the two. The Christian congregation is a sort of society in and of itself. The difficulty comes from the fact that the average apostate Christian doesn't see God's kingdom as something separate from Satan's system of things, that is, the world, they see themselves as a sort of moral police of the globe.

Here, though, is an interesting true story related to this subject. I posted for a while on Sam Harris' Reason Project forum because Steve Wells, the owner of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible donated his entire site to them in what is called The Scripture Project. Anyway, there was a pretty hostile crowd of angry fanatic atheists posting there and one of them attacked me posting big bold subject headings saying that I (posting as Daystar) was a typical narrow minded bigoted homophobic Christian, not knowing I was homosexual, so . . . I told everyone there that I was and the same guy started making all sorts of narrow minded bigoted insults at my homosexuality.

By the way, did anyone know that James Randi has publicly announced that he is homosexual? Read Here.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I would say not. 

cj wrote:

I would say not.  According to this article on pubmed, homosexual men respond to the male pheromone, testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND).  Heterosexual men respond to the female pheromone, estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST).  They determined this by measuring the subject's hypothalamus response to the exposure of the pheromones.  As a control, they also measured brain response to other non-sexual odors.  There was no hypothalamic response to the non-sexual odors.  There is other evidence that demonstrates a relationship between hypothalamus activity and sexual response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883379  (I know you have said you don't take time to read the articles, but other people might be interested.)

If a person is truly homosexual, I fail to see how they are consciously controlling their hypothalamus response.  I also can not conceive of any way to learn how to control the hypothalamus response.  Nor can I conceive of anything a parent or guardian could do to condition the hypothalamus response.  But then, maybe you know of tortures I can not conceive.  There has also been some studies that show structural differences between the hypothalamus' of homosexual and heterosexual people.  I just don't see homosexuality as a learned response.

Interesting, CJ, and thanks for the info. I don't mind references by link of material that you give within a post, and like you said maybe someone would be interested.

I don't think that the brain responding to a same sex pheromone is an indication of biological cause, rather than result, but I am not a biologist. It really doesn't matter, though, if it is biological or learned it still isn't a choice one makes nor is it revers able. Homosexuality isn't the only thing restricted by the Bible that people have no choice over in the sense that they can't change the desire for but can change the practice of.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I don't

David Henson wrote:

I don't think that the brain responding to a same sex pheromone is an indication of biological cause, rather than result, but I am not a biologist. It really doesn't matter, though, if it is biological or learned it still isn't a choice one makes nor is it revers able. Homosexuality isn't the only thing restricted by the Bible that people have no choice over in the sense that they can't change the desire for but can change the practice of.

I know just what you mean.  I haven't drunk the blood of a sacrifice in months because the bible says not to.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Same here, cj.

 

I had planned to beat and rob travellers in backlanes around my home but now because the bible says not to I'm stuck on my lounge playing CoD, eating Cobbers and drinking Tang. Bloody ripped off.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

everlastingxxx wrote:

Quoted from that link:

“Atheists don’t like the concept of discipline,”

Interesting comment but not always true. Just because an Atheist is not disciplined in your concept of morality doesn’t mean they don’t show discipline in their professional career or other aspects of their life. I also found Christians to lack this very discipline you claim the bible teaches.

True, but I meant that as corrective discipline.

 

As an atheist... if I'm going to learn "corrective discipline", it's going to be in the form a vicious woman well learned in the ways of manipulating, punishing, and humiliating the guys in her life.

A 'Snake Goddess' in the flesh, if you will. Or perhaps even a Lillith of sorts.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

David Henson wrote:
Morality is something that is prescribed by the society in which we live at the time in which we live it.

BINGO, so why do you think an ancient book written by goat herders over 1,000 year period with books left out is relevant now?

The goat herders reference only demonstrates either ignorance or a need to criticize something you don't understand. The Bible was written by Kings, laborers, priests, shepherds, a doctor, among others.

Brian wrote:
Which makes it all the more important for you being gay to ditch that old book and the people who try to repackage it to make their own phobic insecurities justified. The growing morality in modern society is that being gay is not a crime and that gays should have the same rights. The bible treats sexuality as a sin and places women in the position of being nothing but baby factories.

No one here is suggesting that you become lawless or a sex addict, just ditch that old book, it is merely a social norm you bought into and I think you do yourself and other gays a disservice buying into that old claptrap.

You don't have to be "in your face" with your sexuality, you don't have to flaunt it, you don't even have to act on it. But you most certainly owe it to yourself to give up on old myths that demonize you for something that is merely your biology.

You make many incorrect assumptions regarding the Bible. Usually when people do that they were formerly Christian, is that the case with you?

Again, this has nothing to do with me being a former anything. This has to do with YOU. You said yourself that you don't act on your homosexuality because of your beliefs. Unless I am assuming wrong, you mean your Christianity, which would infer that your religion teaches you it is wrong.

If that is not the case, then tell me what your "beliefs" are on the issue of homosexuality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Because of my beliefs"

No, because someone sold you the idea you were bad because of your sexuality, that is why you don't act on your homosexuality. And they falsely sold you that horrible book to convince you you were bad.

The only people who have ever come close to doing that are my atheist friends and family. The Jehovah's Witnesses were very respectful and understanding.

Brian wrote:
You don't have to be a "flamer" nor do you have to be into orgies. Plenty of heterosexual people have affairs on their partners. Homosexuals are just as capable of monogamy and having affairs as heterosexuals. Your beliefs have nothing to do with your sexuality, your sexuality is biological.

I don't believe it is biological, or genetic, I don't think there is any evidence to support it being genetic. I believe it is a learned behavior.

Brian wrote:
There are plenty of reasons for ANYONE to not act out sexually. Unwanted pregnancy and disease to name the most important, and to a lesser extent emotional rejection if a relationship doesn't go well or the partner lies to you.

I don't know why you want to be part of a club that treats you as second class or expects you to suppress your natural biology.

Club? I'm no part of any club.

Brian wrote:
You really want to be part of a religion, who treats your sexuality as bad and lie and say they don't judge you?

Thats like gang minions hiding behind the gang leader saying, "I didn't say it, he did".

I wouldn't want to be a part of any organized religion if that is what you mean by club, but I wouldn't want to be a part of any Christianity that distorted homosexuality as something acceptable to the Christian congregation.

You are still part of the club even if you don't attend the meetings dippy.

You call yourself a Christian. Other people call themselves Christians.

I am a Redskins fan, who votes democratic. I am quite sure you can find OTHER Redskins fans who vote republican. WE, despite our differences still root for the same team. WE can also disagree with how the team can improve or play the game while still rooting for the same team. I haven't been to a Redskins game live in decades, nor do I keep up with the draft pics, and I miss many games on tv but watch the ones I can and keep up with their win/loss ratio over the season. Other Redskins fans watch the draft, and even if outside the market, pay for an NFL package so they don't miss a game, and keep up with every player and all the game stats. BUT WE BOTH ROOT FOR THE SAME TEAM.

Now, answer the question, not that complicated.

ACCORDING TO YOU, what does your bible tell you about homosexuality?


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Your stance on morality matches with the stance of most atheists on this board.  One of the biggest gripes many of us have with organized religion is the idea that a believers system of morality is based on the Bible, rather than local culture.  Atheists usually point out that even if a theist thinks they are basing their morality on the Bible, they are full of bs unless they live like an ultra-orthodox Jew.  Hypocrits.  Most atheists would rather see morality arguments stay political...there is a greater chance of genuine discourse that way.  Which is pretty pathetic, since political debate isn't much more reasonable that theistic debate Sticking out tongue

Hmmm . . . I don't know, mellestad. Well, you have read my stance on morality and you say it is similar to the atheist stance, and from what you have told me it would seem that way, but when you put it like there is some disagreement on theists basing their morality on the Bible I wonder.

My societies moral position on homosexuality right now is changing gradually. Most people profess an acceptance of it but, of course, that is most likely a trend to some extent, because the public consensus is still openly against gay marriage by majority. Of course, they have some way to go and still, it is improving. On the other hand, remember, what I'm really advocating is the separation of morality of the church and the state. I don't believe that one should instruct or demand or criticize the other. So you have a difference of morality there between the two. The Christian congregation is a sort of society in and of itself. The difficulty comes from the fact that the average apostate Christian doesn't see God's kingdom as something separate from Satan's system of things, that is, the world, they see themselves as a sort of moral police of the globe.

Here, though, is an interesting true story related to this subject. I posted for a while on Sam Harris' Reason Project forum because Steve Wells, the owner of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible donated his entire site to them in what is called The Scripture Project. Anyway, there was a pretty hostile crowd of angry fanatic atheists posting there and one of them attacked me posting big bold subject headings saying that I (posting as Daystar) was a typical narrow minded bigoted homophobic Christian, not knowing I was homosexual, so . . . I told everyone there that I was and the same guy started making all sorts of narrow minded bigoted insults at my homosexuality.

By the way, did anyone know that James Randi has publicly announced that he is homosexual? Read Here.

 

My point is just that theists say they base their morality on the Bible, but in reality it is more complex.  For most theists, when church law conflicts with cultural norms, cultural norms win even if the process takes a while.  This is a simple fact to demonstrate, because if it did not happen church morality would not change.  They cling to the idea that their specific morality is exactly what God intended it to be, even though their morality is unique to the individual.  Lots of ego.

Naturally, church culture is an influence on morality, but it is not as strong as the broader influence of culture over time for most people.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:ACCORDING TO

Brian37 wrote:

ACCORDING TO YOU, what does your bible tell you about homosexuality?

That it is against Christian practice.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:My point is

mellestad wrote:

My point is just that theists say they base their morality on the Bible, but in reality it is more complex.  For most theists, when church law conflicts with cultural norms, cultural norms win even if the process takes a while.  This is a simple fact to demonstrate, because if it did not happen church morality would not change.  They cling to the idea that their specific morality is exactly what God intended it to be, even though their morality is unique to the individual.  Lots of ego.

Naturally, church culture is an influence on morality, but it is not as strong as the broader influence of culture over time for most people.

I pretty much agree with all of that, the thing is, in the Christian scriptures it says to obey man's laws unless they are contradictory to God's laws and then you obey God's laws. God's law for the Christian isn't the incredibly complicated and intense law of Moses, which becomes a sort of moral compass, but the Christian rules set out for the Christian congregation. So, when it is legal to own slaves in the time and place where a Christian might have lived in the past that wouldn't have gone against God's laws, but not since it is no longer legal that has changed.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

My point is just that theists say they base their morality on the Bible, but in reality it is more complex.  For most theists, when church law conflicts with cultural norms, cultural norms win even if the process takes a while.  This is a simple fact to demonstrate, because if it did not happen church morality would not change.  They cling to the idea that their specific morality is exactly what God intended it to be, even though their morality is unique to the individual.  Lots of ego.

Naturally, church culture is an influence on morality, but it is not as strong as the broader influence of culture over time for most people.

I pretty much agree with all of that, the thing is, in the Christian scriptures it says to obey man's laws unless they are contradictory to God's laws and then you obey God's laws. God's law for the Christian isn't the incredibly complicated and intense law of Moses, which becomes a sort of moral compass, but the Christian rules set out for the Christian congregation. So, when it is legal to own slaves in the time and place where a Christian might have lived in the past that wouldn't have gone against God's laws, but not since it is no longer legal that has changed.

 

What do you consider to be God's laws?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ACCORDING TO YOU, what does your bible tell you about homosexuality?

That it is against Christian practice.

You are dodging.

That "against Christian practice" And what tells YOU HOW to "practice"? The bible. So what specifically "words" in the bible says to you that acting on your homosexual desires is wrong?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's interesting watching you play biblical twister, David.

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

My point is just that theists say they base their morality on the Bible, but in reality it is more complex.  For most theists, when church law conflicts with cultural norms, cultural norms win even if the process takes a while.  This is a simple fact to demonstrate, because if it did not happen church morality would not change.  They cling to the idea that their specific morality is exactly what God intended it to be, even though their morality is unique to the individual.  Lots of ego.

Naturally, church culture is an influence on morality, but it is not as strong as the broader influence of culture over time for most people.

I pretty much agree with all of that, the thing is, in the Christian scriptures it says to obey man's laws unless they are contradictory to God's laws and then you obey God's laws. God's law for the Christian isn't the incredibly complicated and intense law of Moses, which becomes a sort of moral compass, but the Christian rules set out for the Christian congregation. So, when it is legal to own slaves in the time and place where a Christian might have lived in the past that wouldn't have gone against God's laws, but not since it is no longer legal that has changed.

 

Jesus never mentions gay people and the only thing he has to say on the subject relates to the sanctity of marriage - a subject that applies to any commitment between 2 people who care for each other. In the OT there are references to gay men and women but you're not practicing Judaism - and you say here moses' laws were incredibly complicated. I wish this was your polite way of saying weird, uninformed, bigoted, immoral and seriously stupid but it's probably not and sadly, you'll seemingly excuse the ancients their misunderstanding of virtually everything

I noticed you reacted to Brian's comment about goatherders, saying, and rightly, that the bible was written by kings, an alleged doctor (he probably dabbed dandelion milk on amputated stumps), priests and so forth. While this is true, the core of Brian's point stands. None of these people, no matter how bright, knew any more than we do and in almost all cases they knew significantly less. So while they were equally intelligent, through a lack of basic knowledge, they were free to posit spiritual solutions for factual dilemmas. In giving god control over natural forces like the sirocco; earthquakes, thunder and lightning, stillbirth, bushfires caused by lightning, the groaningly obvious risks of delta living, wheat rust, acne, cancer or schizophrenia; these guys really were off half cocked. 

You wouldn't want to give them more credit than they deserved would you? We've established their morals applied to their own time. I think there's another step to take in the course of this discussion. I think most their knowledge also applied to their own time as did most the assumptions that their flawed knowledge falsely supported.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm late to this party. Very

I'm late to this party. Very late, in fact. The conversation has moved. For posterity's sake, let me add something regarding the original. "Under" meaning slave, underling, subordinate and so on is very old.

c 1250 Gen. & Ex. 4041 Of ðe sal risen‥a wond ðe sal smiten riȝt Moab kinges, and under don Al sedes kin ðis werld up-on.    a 1300 K. Horne 1420 (Camb.), To schupe we mote draȝe; Fikenhild me haþ i-don vnder.    1390 Gower Conf. I. 5 Love, which doth many a wonder And many a wys man hath put under.    Ibid. 117, I that lawe obeie Of which the kinges ben put under.    1509 Hawes Past. Pleas. vi. (Percy Soc.) 26 It is alwaye at mannes pleasaunce To take the good and caste the evyll under.    1567 J. Maplet Gr. Forest 1 Wherefore the Greekes call it Fickleforce, for that it can not be brought under.

Under in reference to position, on the other hand, came much later.

1597 Beard Theatre God's Judgem. (1612) 222 He first remoued his lodging‥to a base vnder roome.    c 1611 Chapman Iliad xix. 2 The Morne arose, and‥Gaue light to all, As well to gods, as men of th' vnder globe.    1632 Lithgow Trav. ii. 49 The Sunne had imparted his brightnesse to our vnder neighbours.    1874 Swinburne Bothwell iv. i, For look where yonder‥Comes up to usward from the under field One with a flag of message.    1897 Daily News 15 Oct. 5/2 He took to the water, disappeared, leaving it on the low under bank of the stream.

Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, with addons. Congratulations David, you've proven language changes over time. Carry on.