Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


A Devout Christian
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-25
User is offlineOffline
 The civil and priestly

 The civil and priestly components of Mosaic Law may have been fulfilled, but the moral code still stands - this is why homosexuality is still a sin as Leviticus says.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
A Devout Christian  Hey, 

A Devout Christian

  Hey,  How would you know? Fuck you. Ever eat pussy dumb ass?  You suck flesh too, as we all lovingly do.  I hate your gay prejudice ... you really piss me off .... you blind ignorant fool .... as if lovers are to be scorned. Fuck your rules.

  I despise christian idol worshiping ..... I AM JESUS, just as You ... fuck your blindness, you xains .... as story jesus called peter satan, and yelled at the temple church of idol worship!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
A Devout Christian wrote:The

A Devout Christian wrote:
The civil and priestly components of Mosaic Law may have been fulfilled, but the moral code still stands - this is why homosexuality is still a sin as Leviticus says.

Can you point to a verse in that Bible that shows this?

Also, which laws in the OT are part of the "moral code," and what laws are not?

-eating shrimp?

-working on Sunday?

-cooking a goat in its mother's milk?

etc...

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


A Devout Christian
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-25
User is offlineOffline

BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Except, of course, for that

Except, of course, for that whole bit about 'not one jot or tittle' of The Law passing away until the Judgement. I continue to find it very ironic that wherever Paul contradicts Christ (which he does often, as Paul was all about Paul's convenience), Christianity in general follows Paul, and claims to adhere to Christ.

Give away all that you own and follow Him, remember?

Christ preached faith and spirituality. Paul preached religion and control. Small wonder which one's prefered.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


JesusSavedMyLif...
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-11-04
User is offlineOffline
i can answer your question..

the Reason we "Christians" get offended is because this nation was built on a Christian Background and instead of leaving the Historical proof of it people like yourselves want nothing to do with God so you want as much of it out of this country as possible..so we Stand up for ourselves..now why does it bother you that we do such a thing?

let me ask you this..if you Athiest choose not to believe in God why is it that you guys get so offended when we speak about Him..? you speak freely that you supposibly there is no God, let us speak freely proclaiming that really is one, and try atleast listening to our facts instead of attacking us..

 

Jesus Christ is God and He has Risen!! there's Proof! God aint got no skeleton's in His Closet!! 6,000 year old book thats still around?!? Every Single bit of Prophecy Fulfilled, had that happen!?! God Bless yall..Peace...


JesusSavedMyLif...
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-11-04
User is offlineOffline
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

BMcD wrote:

Except, of course, for that whole bit about 'not one jot or tittle' of The Law passing away until the Judgement. I continue to find it very ironic that wherever Paul contradicts Christ (which he does often, as Paul was all about Paul's convenience), Christianity in general follows Paul, and claims to adhere to Christ.

Give away all that you own and follow Him, remember?

Christ preached faith and spirituality. Paul preached religion and control. Small wonder which one's prefered.

 

woooooooooooooooooooooooooow...i cant believe you jsut said that.. now when and where in the Bible did Paul the Apostle EVER! EVER ! EVER!! contradict Jesus the Christ??!

let me ask you a question... do you consider yourself to be a good Person?

Jesus Christ is God and He has Risen!! there's Proof! God aint got no skeleton's in His Closet!! 6,000 year old book thats still around?!? Every Single bit of Prophecy Fulfilled, had that happen!?! God Bless yall..Peace...


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:woooooooooooooooooooooo

Quote:
woooooooooooooooooooooooooow...i cant believe you jsut said that.. now when and where in the Bible did Paul the Apostle EVER! EVER ! EVER!! contradict Jesus the Christ??!

let me ask you a question... do you consider yourself to be a good Person?

 

Jesus Christ is God and He has Risen!! there's Proof! God aint got no skeleton's in His Closet!! 6,000 year old book thats still around?!? Every Single bit of Prophecy Fulfilled, had that happen!?! God Bless yall..Peace...

I am compelled to suspect that JesusSavedMyLifeAndItsNotGonnaChange is in that Atheist Challenge. 

edit: So, I hope you're purposely using poor grammar?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 That link does not work.

 That link does not work.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
JesusSavedMyLifeAndItsNotGonn

JesusSavedMyLifeAndItsNotGonnaChange wrote:


woooooooooooooooooooooooooow...i cant believe you jsut said that.. now when and where in the Bible did Paul the Apostle EVER! EVER ! EVER!! contradict Jesus the Christ??!

let me ask you a question... do you consider yourself to be a good Person?

Oh, that's a simple one:

Paul stated that it is by faith alone that man is saved, and explicitly said it is not through works.

Jesus stated (parable of the sheep and the goats) that the criteria for salvation will be caring for others (ie: works), and that those who pray without works (the goats in the parable) are doomed.

Direct contradiction.

I consider myself a person. I try to be a good person, but in the end, I am flawed and fallible, and so claim for myself no special virtue. What about you? Do you claim virtue?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


cams card shark
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-11-07
User is offlineOffline
10 commandments

Why can't we have the ten commandments in public places? Do we not have freedom of religion is the U.S.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Do your homework. Read this

Do your homework. Read this entire thread for lots of answers. Separation of Church and State, thank goodness.


cams card shark
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-11-07
User is offlineOffline
separation of Church and state

Hey, maybe you should run for office; because unless you do it's never gonna happen!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
cams card shark wrote:Why

cams card shark wrote:
Why can't we have the ten commandments in public places? Do we not have freedom of religion is the U.S.

Oh my...............FSM.

How does your right to exercise your religion include forcing it upon me? Obviously, you don't remember the details of the first amendment, so here's a refresher.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What if the government heralded a chapter from the Quran in all public places? Oh, you don't like that? Why not?

cams card shark wrote:
Hey, maybe you should run for office; because unless you do it's never gonna happen!

Not only is this a pointless assertion, it is simply factually incorrect. Many of the Founding Fathers may have been moderate Christians, but they were also, more than anything else, secularists.

Here's a nice source.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html#jefferson

www.wikiquote.org is also good. And, of course, you can just search on google.

Thomas Paine was an agnostic deist. He's my favorite.

"The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon." Thomas Paine

"The belief of the redemption of Jesus Christ is altogether an invention of the Church of Rome, not the doctrine of the New Testament. What the writers of the New Testament attempted to prove by the story of Jesus is the resurrection of the same body from the grave, which was the belief of the Pharisees, in opposition to the Sadducees (a sect of Jews) who denied it." Thomas Paine

"But there are times when men have serious thoughts, and it is at such times, when they begin to think, that they begin to doubt the truth of the Christian religion; and well they may, for it is too fanciful and too full of conjecture, inconsistency, improbability and irrationality, to afford consolation to the thoughtful man. His reason revolts against his creed. He sees that none of its articles are proved, or can be proved." Thomas Paine

"When an article in a creed does not admit of proof nor of probability, the salvo is to call it revelation; but this is only putting one difficulty in the place of another, for it is as impossible to prove a thing to be revelation as it is to prove that Mary was gotten with child by the Holy Ghost." Thomas Paine

See Todangst's article.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/people_in_hell_according_to_the_tenets_of_christianity 

By the way, Barack Obama supports the separation of church and state, so hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


cams card shark
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-11-07
User is offlineOffline
atheism and separation of church n' state

Barrack Obama supports separation of church and state? Maybe he's the anti-christ?

Let's be honest Atheists: The real reason you deny the possibility of the existence of God is because you don't want to be held accountable.

I challenge the rational response squad anywhere, anyplace and anytime!


cams card shark
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-11-07
User is offlineOffline
atheism and separation of church n' state

Barrack Obama supports separation of church and state? Maybe he's the anti-christ?

Let's be honest Atheists: The real reason you deny the possibility of the existence of God is because you don't want to be held accountable.

I challenge the rational response squad anywhere, anyplace and anytime!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
cams card shark

cams card shark wrote:
Barrack Obama supports separation of church and state? Maybe he's the anti-christ?

Lol, maybe. 

Quote:
Let's be honest Atheists: The real reason you deny the possibility of the existence of God is because you don't want to be held accountable.

I challenge the rational response squad anywhere, anyplace and anytime!

I think you're an atheist.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
cams card shark, Deny god?,

cams card shark, Deny god?, I AM GOD, as all is god, and I deny all god definitions of any separatism, like that mythical silly dangerous God of Abraham's. Heck, biblically speaking we are all the christ, as the gnosis buddha story jesus tried to convey, as better found in the "dead sea scroll gnostic books", banned from the pathetic bible cannon.

Paul won, Jesus lost .... as the simple buddha jesus message of ONE was perverted into faith in idol worship. In a gnosis sense of knowing, Christianity is indeed the anti-christ, as faith is blind, rooted in ignorance, superstition, control, and fear, spewing dogma.

"Let's be honest" ... ye faithful idol worshipers: The real reason many of you deny we and all is God, is because you don't want to be held accountable, and face the  reality of a deterministic all connected reality where no caring sky daddy creator exists that thinks of us. There is no purpose as all is eternal, yet ye faithful can't face the nihilistic reality, and so you invent and cling to your sky daddy for a meaning of life, and deny you are simply god experiencing it self.  

We are One with the father/mother/eternal cosmos of zero possible separation, as all is equal and connected, and that is the "saving good word", as is the best gospel yet called "thermodynamics". Go go  science. 

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
cams card shark wrote:Let's

cams card shark wrote:

Let's be honest Atheists: The real reason you deny the possibility of the existence of God is because you don't want to be held accountable.

Don't want to be held accountable?

Wow. That's just... wow. Atheism demands accountability. Not to some nebulous deity who'll call you to judgment when you die, but here, and now. If this is life is all there is, if I have no appeal to 'God said so', then it is on my shoulders that ultimate responsibility for my actions and beliefs rests. The theist, by comparison, and the Christian especially, can commit all manner of act and tell themselves it is 'God's Will'. Why do I single out Christians there? Absolution. Christian dogma explicitly states that a man can commit any act... no matter how vile or sadistic, no matter how many people are harmed, killed, or deprived by it... and if he can convince a priest he is repentent, that priest can grant him absolution.

Many traditions hold that some acts are unforgivable, yes, but that in and of itself does not prevent a priest from granting absolution, or more importantly, prevent the perpetrator from believing it can be obtained.

I'm accountable here and now. My accountability can directly affect my life. You claim accountability to a being who won't call you to judgment until you have already ended your life.

Now exactly who doesn't want to be held accountable here?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Absolution is a Catholic

Absolution is a Catholic practice and is not practiced my most Christian denominations.  Judgment is Gods and not a man with a fancy collar and a theology degree. You're right that this is practice is problematic.

I was just interested in your comment that "Atheism demands accountability". What does that mean? In conversation with others I have be told that Atheism in itself has no consistent moral code and is not aphilosophy or religion or worldview. It is simply a disbelief in God...so how does Atheism demand accountability? Just wondering.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
MattC, Atheism has no "god"

MattC, Atheism has no "god" crutch.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman

Matt Churchman wrote:

Absolution is a Catholic practice and is not practiced my most Christian denominations

I'm afraid you need to double-check your list of 'Christian Denominations'. While it's true that most protestant denominations don't practice Absolution, the Anglicans/Episcopalians to, as do the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Christian, Ethiopian Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox...

There are more Christian sects that were never part of Rome's hierarchy than all the splinter groups who left after Martin Luther and John Calvin raised their objections. Christianity, in fact, stems from five Apostolic Thrones (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria), each of which began their own brands. The RCC just gets the big press because Europe's been pushing a Euro-centric worldview since Alexander the Great.

Quote:

I was just interested in your comment that "Atheism demands accountability". What does that mean? In conversation with others I have be told that Atheism in itself has no consistent moral code and is not aphilosophy or religion or worldview. It is simply a disbelief in God...so how does Atheism demand accountability? Just wondering.

Atheism itself has no moral code, that is true. But people do possess morals, or ethics, and societies possess morals and ethics both. In order to function within society, people need to function within those parameters... or find an excuse that justifies (to themselves at least) an exemption.

Atheism demands accountability in that there is no higher power. There is no arbiter that exempts us from the judgment of our peers. There is no justification for saying 'I'm right, your laws are wrong' as there is with the religious appeal to 'God's Will'. Thus, for society to function, we must all be accountable to ourselves, and moreover, to one another, for our actions and our inactions. We cannot say 'you have no right to judge me, only God can do this'. In fact, there is only the judgment of society on which to base our evaluation of our own morals. If we feel society is in error, then it is our responsibility to convince others of our rightness, based not on justification from Divine Authority (ie: "This is wrong because it opposes God's Word&quotEye-wink, but instead based on the actual merits of our argument. There is a simple term for an atheist who believes themselves above society's accountability: Sociopath.

Where we, as individuals, differ from society's ethics, we are either right - and can make an argument for our position based only on the merits of our position - or we are wrong, and should accept that. When we err, we must accept the verdict of our fellows. Failure to do so is a rejection of the base premise of society.

And yes, all of this is true of theists as well: theists who reject the validity of society's judgments on right and wrong without a reasonable and coherant rationale for that rejection are sociopathic. The difference is that theists can (and do) claim exemption, and claim that their deity gives them the right to exempt themselves from the judgment of their peers. They claim, as you have stated above, that judgment is reserved for God. Atheism carries no inherint plea to accountability in its lack of a god-belief... but it also carries the implication, when you think it through, that accountability is here, now, every moment of every day... because the ones who will judge are the very ones you interact with all your life.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:MattC,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

MattC, Atheism has no "god" crutch.

LOL. Atheism does indeed have a god crutch. The god is yourself. You believe you must have self-fufillment, self-gratification, self-worth, self-image and I could list several other self-isms.

The bible says we are created in God's image so Chrsitains believe in having God-image in their lives ratther than self image. The bible tells us the problem we have is the self so the Christian is looking for Godworthiness not selfworth. God-gratifying rather than self-gratification etcetera.  This is because the Christian looks to a God outside of himself, wherea the Atheist looks to the God inside of himself.  Atheism is a religion which justifies being a lover of yourself. This is the problem with mankind however according to the bible which warns that "men will be lovers of themselves" in the second letter to Timothy.

You are your own God. Therefore you do what is good in your own eyes. That is Atheism.

Ray,

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Except that I am no more

Except that I am no more important than anyone else, Whitefox. Your God demands the sublimation of not just 'me' in favor of his decrees, but that of every 'me', in service of 'his' demands, which are communicated only by humans. It's those humans, who insist that everyone else must sublimate their own sense of right and wrong to theirs that are the 'lovers of themselves'. That you would apply that label to those of us who instead hold that we are all responsible to one another... that's just a bit ironic, isn't it?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:LOL. Atheism

Whitefox wrote:
LOL. Atheism does indeed have a god crutch. The god is yourself. You believe you must have self-fufillment, self-gratification, self-worth, self-image and I could list several other self-isms.

- You appear to be committing a fallacy of equivocation. Indeed, when I don't believe in an all-powerful deity, I automatically become the God of my life. However, in this context, the term "God" simply means that I hold authority over my life, not that I believe I am the ominpotent Creator of the universe. This is different.

- You've failed explain why this is a bad thing, except that it hurts your little bubble of presuppositions. 

- Also, I think you are making the mistake of marking all atheists as humanists.

- The "religious crutch" implicitly refers to many criticisms of faith: emotional dependency, fundamentalism, intellectual withdrawal, etc. Since atheism simply means, by definition, not believing in any god or gods, I don't understand how these these problems apply to atheism.

- What is a religion? 

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
whitefox wrote:LOL. Atheism

whitefox wrote:

LOL. Atheism does indeed have a god crutch. The god is yourself. You believe you must have self-fufillment, self-gratification, self-worth, self-image and I could list several other self-isms.

The bible says we are created in God's image so Chrsitains believe in having God-image in their lives ratther than self image. The bible tells us the problem we have is the self so the Christian is looking for Godworthiness not selfworth. God-gratifying rather than self-gratification etcetera.  This is because the Christian looks to a God outside of himself, wherea the Atheist looks to the God inside of himself.  Atheism is a religion which justifies being a lover of yourself. This is the problem with mankind however according to the bible which warns that "men will be lovers of themselves" in the second letter to Timothy.

You are your own God. Therefore you do what is good in your own eyes. That is Atheism.

Ray,

 

What pretentious and arrogant crap.

 

I am an atheist. I know I am since I have no belief in a supernatural being of any description, no suspicion that anything is intelligently controlling "destiny", no belief in a requirement for such a being to have "originated" the universe so that I could play a role in it - or any other human for that matter - and no belief in a requirement to hold such a belief in order to behave in a moral and decent way. This apparently is what's called an "atheist" so that is what I am in the vernacular. Personally I just call myself "me" most of the time.

 

Yet you say that as an atheist I "must have" self-fulfillment. What the fuck does that mean? I wish for contentment in a world which often militates against me having it. Some aspirations are fulfilled. Others aren't. That's life. What are you on about?

You say that I "must have" self-gratification. I beg your pardon? How on earth does my level of gratification or my desire for such gratification define me as either a religious or irreligious person? You presumptious git! I desire no more or less gratification than I can realistically expect to acquire and I am intelligent enough to have moderated such expectations from a very young age and continue to moderate them wth experience. It doesn't sound like you're keeping pace, if you don't mind me saying so.

You say that I "must have" self-worth. Of course I must. That is a concept related to dignity. Are you saying that I should not hope to retain my dignity? Is that what religious people think? Are you sick in the head, man? What on earth type of society do you think we'd live in if the individual's respect for dignity and desire for self-worth was eroded by people like you?

You say I "must have" a self-image. Come again? As opposed to what? Even were I stupid and lacking in appreciation of self-dignity enough to believe I was "made" in the "image" of some supernatural deity - isn't that still a "self-image"? What utter bloody twaddle.

 

Then, as if you have made a clever opening remark you seek to enforce its validity by suggesting that the intelligent pursuit of a rational assessment of one's value, potential and ability is inferior to a lifetime of comparing yourself against the perceived values insisted upon by a phantom deity which itself is the invention of the human mind - just someone else's. And this is better? This not a "crutch"? It is, you know. And if ever an implement which supports you while keeping you stuck in a quagmire of presumptious crapology can be called a "crutch" you're leanng on it! A decent crutch would at least assist you in making forward progression. You don't even have that.

 

They saw you coming, man! You lean so hard on your crutch you can't even see that others do not require it. I am not my own god - I reject that whole terminology as bullshit. But I am my own person. You can believe any amount of rubbish you want and lean on it as much as you wish too, but don't ever tell me that I'm doing the same thing as you and just transposing myself with your "deity".

 

Why are religious people so fucking arrogant?

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Alex -- the rational theist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TO ALL: A Story of a Very Successful Man

To All:

I would like to share everyone a story.

It’s based on a very successful man. He was noted as very wise. He had a wife and 10 kids. He was very wealthy, in fact more so than anyone else in the area. If you could think of a successful man with many relationships, wealth, political power, and strong friends… then this would be him.

In one day, all his wealth was lost. While he received the news, he heard all his employees died. Shortly after, he heard that the house of his eldest son collapsed while all his children were present in it.

He was tremendously grieved and fell to the floor where he was. His three close friends joined him and grieved with him for 7 days. His wife began to despise him and walked away from him. Suddenly the man lost his great health and was overcome with illness.

On the eighth day he spoke for the first time and his friends spoke poorly of him. Anytime he said something, his friends would reply bitterly and their words tormented him. Once prominent leaders whom admired him began avoiding him and even children mocked him as they passed by.

He lost everything he ever had; wealth, accomplishment, admiration, health, even his wife, children, and friends.

Such things still happen today. By a whim, your world could change and become meaningless. I’m here to tell you that there is still a hope for meaning. When I’ve missed out on things and I realize how incompetent I am, I turn to God. He is and always has been the sustainer of life. He is kind, loving, and compassionate. When bad things happen he is still there to comfort you. Don’t limit yourself to sufferings, but instead find the joy I find in the Lord. You will never find evidence for God’s existence until you believe he is the creator of all things. Then when you look around, you will see the marvels of his creation and you know he is real without a doubt… it is why so many others and I are so passionate. We see the truth that others have been blinded to.

Simply open your heart to God and you will see him begin to work in and through you because he’s done the same in me. I do not support religion by any means. The only way to heaven is by a relationship through Jesus himself (no Pope necessary).

You’re welcome to send me a message if you have any questions: alex@carolinacoopers.net


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol. I guess I have to earn

Lol. I guess I have to earn the right a little more for what I said.

I find atheism to be very religious. Because I find this to be the case I logically conclude there must be a god of the atheist and the closest thing I can find is agrandisement of the self.  I find so many self-isms that my logical conclusion is it must be the self. Statements in history like "I am the captain of my ship. The master of my destiny"  I me my etcetera.

I find atheism to be religious because it has to believe things.

To be an atheist you have to believe in Evolution.  Which is another self-ism. It's the belief that material existance is self created from nothing. We agree on the nothing as the starting point except for the fact of who the creator is.  Evolution is a belief system you must put your trust in to be an atheist.

To be an atheist you must believe in the sciences of the Psyche as opposed to believing in absolute right and wrong as dictated by a God-given conscience.  Psyche in greek by the way means "soul" in english. So Psyche sciences are an attempt to deal with your soul but void of God. Is it any wonder that the first thing Psyche teaches is that there is something other than the conscience called the subconscious that guides you. This is a denial of the biblical teaching that you know when you do wrong becuase your God given conscious tells you. We all know right from wrong and we are all programmed with the same sense  right and wrong which should lead you to a logical conclusion that there is a programmer who instilled this in everybody to give them the same standard to live by.  But as an atheist you must fight against this notion and instill in yourself a support system which helps you to counter this sense of right and wrong instilled in you. You must allow yourself to believe that your sense of right and wrong is merely repression caused by people such as myself pointing the finger. If you accept the conscience. If you accept the absolute right and wrong standard it gives you then you must accept there is a God who put this in you. That is why I say you must have the Pscyche sciences as your belief system to put your trust in to be an atheist.

To be an atheist you must believe in laws; not the giver of laws but the laws themselves. You must believe that laws will protect you. You must surround yourself with them.  Rather than the 10 Christian laws (the ten commandments) you need to have 10,000 laws and more. You must believe in the State and put your faith in it to be an atheist.  You must believe that infractions of laws are infractions against the state which you substitute for the Christian belief of violating God's will. You must as an atheist be a legalist. Sins for you must be violations of laws, not the law giver.  That is how you justify murder of unborn children as it does not infract the law to do it.  Perhaps you know of an atheist who does not agree with the murder of the unborn. I am yet to meet one.  But it is possible as it is possible for a person to change their stance from atheism to belief in higher principles such as liberty, justice, freedom (which are biblical concepts). For example who are the defenders of Justice, liberty and freedom for the unborn? Is it atheists who are defending this? I don't think so.

There are many negatives you must believe also but I don't know why you would want to believe these negatives.

You must believe that life here on earth is final, wheras the bible says we are eternal beings. The quality of our eternity however is dubious for those that do not come to terms with God during this life. The atheist has to believe what I just said is untrue. The Atheist has a very complex and difficult religion that he must maintain.  You might call it a world view.

I might call my faith in the Lord JEsus Christ as my God, Creator and Saviour as a world view as well. But you cannot say Atheism is any less religious than Christianity.  Atheisms high priests are Darwin and Freud and their god is themselves.

That is the longer form of what I was saying.  I have more such info at my website. I don't mind you pulling apart some of what is said there in this forum if you like.

God Bless,

Ray,

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:To be an

Whitefox wrote:
To be an atheist you have to believe in Evolution.

Wrong.

Quote:
To be an atheist you must believe in the sciences of the Psyche as opposed to believing in absolute right and wrong as dictated by a God-given conscience.
 

You don't have to be scientifically knowledgeable to be an atheist. However, how can you believe in God-dictated morality when you don't believe in God?

Quote:
Psyche in greek by the way means "soul" in english. So Psyche sciences are an attempt to deal with your soul but void of God.

Science doesn't deal with the soul because we currently have no way to research such an entity, if it even exists.

Quote:
Is it any wonder that the first thing Psyche teaches is that there is something other than the conscience called the subconscious that guides you.
 

It's just a function of your brain.

Quote:
Rather than the 10 Christian laws (the ten commandments) you need to have 10,000 laws and more. You must believe in the State and put your faith in it to be an atheist.
 

Fallacy of equivocation. 

Quote:
You must believe that infractions of laws are infractions against the state which you substitute for the Christian belief of violating God's will. You must as an atheist be a legalist. Sins for you must be violations of laws, not the law giver.

Non sequitur. Begging the question.

Quote:
That is how you justify murder of unborn children as it does not infract the law to do it.

Strawman.  

Quote:
Perhaps you know of an atheist who does not agree with the murder of the unborn. I am yet to meet one.
 

Using anecdotal evidence as only proof.

Quote:
But it is possible as it is possible for a person to change their stance from atheism to belief in higher principles such as liberty, justice, freedom (which are biblical concepts).

Lieing.

Quote:
But you cannot say Atheism is any less religious than Christianity.  Atheisms high priests are Darwin and Freud and their god is themselves.

Ignorant. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:Lol. I guess

Whitefox wrote:

Lol. I guess I have to earn the right a little more for what I said.

You're free to say whatever you like, Ray. Just don't expect it to go unremarked when folks don't agree.

Quote:

I find atheism to be very religious. Because I find this to be the case I logically conclude there must be a god of the atheist and the closest thing I can find is agrandisement of the self.  I find so many self-isms that my logical conclusion is it must be the self. Statements in history like "I am the captain of my ship. The master of my destiny"  I me my etcetera.

Well, that statement was W.E. Henley, so I assume that you have some basis for referring to him as an atheist? I can't find it, but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't. But I can find similar sentiments from theists, as well. Being self-assured does not necessarily mean someone believes they are the alpha and omega of their world. It simply means that on a day-to-day basis, they trust their own judgment. Many people who trust their own judgment without ever questioning it do so because of a deep faith that God is guiding them, you know.

Quote:

I find atheism to be religious because it has to believe things.

No, you simply have to not actively believe in a deity. But let's go down the list!

Quote:

To be an atheist you have to believe in Evolution.  Which is another self-ism. It's the belief that material existance is self created from nothing. We agree on the nothing as the starting point except for the fact of who the creator is.  Evolution is a belief system you must put your trust in to be an atheist.

First of all, Darwin didn't believe in 'Evolution'. He hated that term. It implies moving from an inferior form to a more perfect, somehow 'better' form. Natural Selection isn't about becoming more perfect or better. It's about the critters that are best suited to their specific environment having the best chance of breeding. That means that they're the ones whose traits get passed on. That's it. That's all Natural Selection says.

Do you prefer LaMarke? Use and Disuse? What you're complaining about isn't believing in 'Evolution', it's rejecting Creationism, specifically, Young Earth Creationism. After all, even the Catholic Church has said that the Big Bang, Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and other theories that describe the progression of universal development from early stages to our present condition don't technically preclude God doing it through those mechanisms.

Quote:

To be an atheist you must believe in the sciences of the Psyche as opposed to believing in absolute right and wrong as dictated by a God-given conscience.  Psyche in greek by the way means "soul" in english. So Psyche sciences are an attempt to deal with your soul but void of God. Is it any wonder that the first thing Psyche teaches is that there is something other than the conscience called the subconscious that guides you. This is a denial of the biblical teaching that you know when you do wrong becuase your God given conscious tells you. We all know right from wrong and we are all programmed with the same sense  right and wrong which should lead you to a logical conclusion that there is a programmer who instilled this in everybody to give them the same standard to live by.  But as an atheist you must fight against this notion and instill in yourself a support system which helps you to counter this sense of right and wrong instilled in you. You must allow yourself to believe that your sense of right and wrong is merely repression caused by people such as myself pointing the finger. If you accept the conscience. If you accept the absolute right and wrong standard it gives you then you must accept there is a God who put this in you. That is why I say you must have the Pscyche sciences as your belief system to put your trust in to be an atheist.

Well, it would follow that if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in a 'God-given' conscience. Personally, I find that the theory that sits best with me is the one that says that our conscience is an expression of fairness and social justice tendencies that we observe in other apes. You know when you have done 'wrong' because you're taught 'right' and 'wrong' at an early age by your parents. I tell you what: if you feel we all know right from wrong implicitly, because of divine programming for it, then you shouldn't need to teach your kids right from wrong. You shouldn't need to teach them to share, or not to hit and bite, and you shouldn't need to teach them not to take whatever they like. In fact, you shouldn't need to teach them about God, because they're programmed for 'right' and 'wrong', which would include whether or not to give glory to God, and in fact which God to glorify.

In fact, there isn't a single 'standard' of right and wrong across the globe. There are some baseline concepts that are pretty close to universal, like 'don't murder', 'don't take things that belong to others', and all sorts of other 'don't do things that work against the interests of the group' behaviors... but again, we see that in gorillas, chimps, orangutan, etc, even baboons (which are, after all, monkeys, not apes). In fact, we see it in pretty much every social animal with complex interactions.

Quote:

To be an atheist you must believe in laws; not the giver of laws but the laws themselves. You must believe that laws will protect you. You must surround yourself with them.  Rather than the 10 Christian laws (the ten commandments) you need to have 10,000 laws and more. You must believe in the State and put your faith in it to be an atheist.  You must believe that infractions of laws are infractions against the state which you substitute for the Christian belief of violating God's will. You must as an atheist be a legalist. Sins for you must be violations of laws, not the law giver.  That is how you justify murder of unborn children as it does not infract the law to do it.  Perhaps you know of an atheist who does not agree with the murder of the unborn. I am yet to meet one.  But it is possible as it is possible for a person to change their stance from atheism to belief in higher principles such as liberty, justice, freedom (which are biblical concepts). For example who are the defenders of Justice, liberty and freedom for the unborn? Is it atheists who are defending this? I don't think so.

Not at all true. You could be a sociopath. There's nothing stopping you. No need to trust in the laws. You could be an anarchist; not only don't you trust the laws, you want to abolish them. Here's the thing: 'the law' is nothing. If you trust 'the law', you're not trusting the words on the pages in the legal texts. You're trusting exactly what you claim isn't being trusted: the giver of laws. The difference is, the giver of laws is the collective will of the group. You say there are '10 Christian laws'. Ok, so where in those 10 commandments is the proscription against homosexuality?

Ah, wait, that's in Leviticus, isn't it? Damn those pesky books of laws! Of course, that's the same book of laws, supposedly directly given out by God, that says to kill the unborn if mom's an adulterer, or gets raped by her father-in-law, etc. But then, you don't have to worry about that, do you? You just pick and choose which of those laws still apply. After all, the Law was changed... didn't Paul say so? Of course, that brings us right back to the 'not one jot or tittle' clause, but hey, it's Paul's religion, not Christ's.

But see, here's the really fun part about all this science you're railing against: You don't have to believe any of it. You can sit back and say 'nice theories, guys, but I'm not sold. Come back when you have proof.' Just because it leaves a massive empty space in one's comprehension of the world around you... doesn't mean it can't be done. Or that it isn't done, on a regular basis. After all, isn't that just the kind of empty space you're embracing with Creationism? 'God made it!' 'Ok... how?' Arguing divine power doesn't answer the question, after all... it just says 'We can't ever know, cuz we're not capable of being smart enough to understand it'... after all, if we could understand how divine power works, we'd have the basis for duplicating it... and then it wouldn't be divine power, it'd be magic.

Quote:

There are many negatives you must believe also but I don't know why you would want to believe these negatives.

Again, you seem to be equating 'don't believe in X' with 'believe in !X'. There's also the middle ground of 'I don't know, so I don't invest any faith in either one.'

Quote:

You must believe that life here on earth is final, wheras the bible says we are eternal beings. The quality of our eternity however is dubious for those that do not come to terms with God during this life. The atheist has to believe what I just said is untrue. The Atheist has a very complex and difficult religion that he must maintain.  You might call it a world view.

Actually, the bible says nothing of the sort. The Bible says that those judged unworthy will be thrown into the fires of Gehenna for a thousand years, at which point they'll then be destroyed utterly, along with the Beast. That's not dubious, and it's not 'eternal beings'. It's 'suffer for a thousand years, and then be obliterated'.

As far as believing that life here on earth is final... I'd say, rather, that the athiest acknowledges that life here on earth is indisputable. We can be reasonably sure that this life happens. You're the one claiming to know about some other place that nobody's ever shown any evidence for beyond 'Bob said so.'

If I told you there was an island where everyone was happy, and that you could go there, but that nobody who goes to the island can ever have contact with people who haven't gone to the island ever again... you'd be skeptical. You'd probably ask 'then how do you know about the island if nobody who goes there can contact you?' But because it's in a book that's been used for thousands of years to gain and maintain power in the hands of an elite, often hereditary priesthood... oh, well, that makes it all ok?

Show one shred of actual corroboration, something that can't be disputed. Short of that, be prepared to be disputed.

Quote:

I might call my faith in the Lord JEsus Christ as my God, Creator and Saviour as a world view as well. But you cannot say Atheism is any less religious than Christianity.  Atheisms high priests are Darwin and Freud and their god is themselves.

Sure I can. Religion is a series of beliefs. Atheism requires only the rejection of claiming certainty on one issue. Anything else is irrelevant. It may not be logically consistent, it may not be sane, but the man who claims there is no God, and that the Earth was made in an extradimensional factory by aliens working under commission from hyperdimensional super-genius mice... he's still an atheist.

As for Darwin and Freud... Darwin described a mechanism. It's a mechanism we've seen in action. And Freud was just obsessed with his own cigar. What's next, you attack Einstein, despite a century of practical application of his theories?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To be an atheist you

Quote:

To be an atheist you must believe in laws; not the giver of laws but the laws themselves. You must believe that laws will protect you. You must surround yourself with them.  Rather than the 10 Christian laws (the ten commandments) you need to have 10,000 laws and more. You must believe in the State and put your faith in it to be an atheist.  You must believe that infractions of laws are infractions against the state which you substitute for the Christian belief of violating God's will. You must as an atheist be a legalist. Sins for you must be violations of laws, not the law giver.  That is how you justify murder of unborn children as it does not infract the law to do it.  Perhaps you know of an atheist who does not agree with the murder of the unborn. I am yet to meet one.  But it is possible as it is possible for a person to change their stance from atheism to belief in higher principles such as liberty, justice, freedom (which are biblical concepts). For example who are the defenders of Justice, liberty and freedom for the unborn? Is it atheists who are defending this? I don't think so.

 

More arrogant presumptive crap. You have a problem understanding atheism. You have an uncontrollable compunction to confuse the concepts of "belief" and "blind belief". Your arrogant assumptions concerning my attitude to abortion are simply fucking offensive. Your dangerous inability to distinguish between a legal system based on the principle of justice and fairness for all and a selective set of Iron-Age edicts, especially in terms of their applicability to the real world, mark you out as either stupid or subversive, or both. Your eagerness to distract even yourself from discussing such principles by reducing them to their application in only one legal circumstance (and one much more complex than your emotive treatment of it allows) supports the "stupid" deduction and speaks volumes for your narrow-mindedness.

 

I am so glad I do not live in a society controlled by people like you.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
I can only think of 2 answers to give on behalf of my fellow Christians in America

1: all but one of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament

2: The Ten commandments have played a rather important role in the formation of legal systems in the history of government. Since Courthouses are places of law, it makes sense to have the ten commandments being so integral to the history of law and order.

just my .02 cents.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Dan- "found Jesus who is the source of truth" (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
reason this!

Here is something for all of you Bible rejectors to reasonupon.

Have you ever really thought of what kind of world that you would wind up with if everyone thought like you?

Lets see,

People who believe the Bible tend to believe in and try to live by the two greatest commandments ( which by the way sum up all the rest); please don't tell me that you know so little about the Bible that you reject that I have to quote them for you.

On the other hand:

People who reject the Bible tend to believe in the following teneants:

a. Look out for #1

b. survival of the fittest

c. do unto others before they do unto you

d. live, eat drink and be merry for tommow we die (live it up and fear not to face  judgement for it)

e. lie, cheat, steal, trick, and deceive as long as you can get away with it, just hurt anyone that you don't want to

f. people are just animals, so use them and treat them as such unless it benifits you to treat them better

 

I got news for you. If you would read through the Bible ond consider the things it says you would realise that when man has tried to live like God dosen't exhist, man winds up creating a world that no one would want to live in. Take the time peroid of the Judges for example. The Bible describes that time as a time when "everyone did that which was right in his own eyes". I'll let you go to the book of Judges and find out for yourself.

Don't worry. You're time is comming. We will be gone in the rapture and you can have the whole world to yourself.

I will be glad to not be here when people like you have free rule.

 

By the way, have you ever used your super intelligent reasoning skills to consider that there must be a creator who created the delecate, intricate, interdependant life on Earth? Don't overlook that word interdependant. From what I have heard about Charles Darwin he finally came to admit at the end of his life that the theory of evolution is proven false by things such as the human eye. You see, the human eye has many aspects that would have to have evolved at the same time in order to prevent natural selection from ruling it out. Tear ducts, tears, optic nerve, retna lens, muscles, cones, rods, etc all had to evolve at the same time or natural selection would rule out the mutation. The chances of such a successful and coincidental mutation are astronimacally small.  I could go on and on about evidence about creation and disproof of evolution, but I'll leave that to the Creation Research Institute.

Do yourselves a favor. Seek the Lord while He may be found. Humble yourselves and call upon Him while He is still near.

 

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:2: The Ten

Quote:

2: The Ten commandments have played a rather important role in the formation of legal systems in the history of government.

 

No they haven't, unless of course you mean their role in encouraging sane people to come up with a more intelligent and less divisive group of tenets by which just law can be framed.

 

Modern western law derives much of its historical impetus and structure from Justinian's Institutes and Code, themselves refinements to more ancient Roman law, a very non-religious body of legislation with an emphasis on property law - hence its popular longevity. US law more than many other western countries is also hugely in debt historically to the 18th century surge in phrasing egalitarian legislation which enshrined some basic human rights - a product of Enlightenment thinking and in which religion was generally seen as something worse than an interference in the process.

 

If, as a christian, you must wilfully remain ignorant of your own history in order to justify your claims and push your agenda, then you are a member of a clique which places dishonesty higher in importance than truth. As anyone with even a smattering of knowledge concerning constitutional law will tell you - such cliques must never be allowed control the framing of law, of any sort. Whether you are open-minded and intelligent enough to appreciate the fact or not, your precious "ten commandments" are - in terms of a legal system constructed on egalitarian principles - subversive.

 

They have no place in a court of law. Even as a statue. Unless of course occasionally when used as evidence in assessing the behaviour of most decidedly non-egalitarian fanatics claiming them as their inspiration.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


stellar renegade
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 I think the answer is

 I think the answer is rather simple.  Most of the OT law was relevant for the people of that day, but the Ten Commandments at least appear to be relevant for every day and age.  It's not that they must be followed simply because they are OT commandments or somesuch, but because it is believed that they are God-inspired in the sense that they are applicable to every age of human existence.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
stellar renegade wrote: I

stellar renegade wrote:

 I think the answer is rather simple.  Most of the OT law was relevant for the people of that day, but the Ten Commandments at least appear to be relevant for every day and age.  It's not that they must be followed simply because they are OT commandments or somesuch, but because it is believed that they are God-inspired in the sense that they are applicable to every age of human existence.

How do we determine what is relevant or applicable?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


stellar renegade
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 We base it on the natural

By basing our criteria on the natural laws governing our existence.  But I was just explaining how Christians can emphasize some laws from the OT as important while denying others.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
stellar renegade wrote:By

stellar renegade wrote:
By basing our criteria on the natural laws governing our existence.
And these are?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


stellar renegade
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:stellar

Thomathy wrote:

stellar renegade wrote:
By basing our criteria on the natural laws governing our existence.
And these are?

I might butcher this (haven't gotten very much sleep lately), but here goes:

It basically boils down to give and take.  Every force in the universe tends to try to become equalized. Therefore, what you measure to others will be measured back to you.  What you give will be given back eventually.  Your subconscious follows these laws.  For whatever measure of damage you deal to others, your subconscious recieves the same impact, and whatever way you make the life of another better, your subconscious reaps the benefit of as well.

I guess the other basic principle would be that of a contract.  Once an action is created or an agreement is made natural consequences will develop based upon these and their effects.  The focus as far as written or verbal agreements is upon intent, of course, and social dynamics are involved.  However, for the benefit of society once such an agreement is made it must be followed upon in order for order to result, unless it is nullified by both parties.  We could get into the logistics of the kind of commitment certain actions or agreements entail, but I digress.

Also, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  One must expect resistance in some form to every action he involves himself in.  Even health requires opposition and therefore stabilization.  It requires the body making enough active resistance to its environment to keep itself alive.

Basically what lies at the root of all this is the fundamental concept of stabilization and interdependence. Everything seeks to become at equal harmony with everything else, and the nature of existence will oppose anything preventing such a harmony.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Maybe you should get that

Maybe you should get that sleep mate!

 

The principle "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton's Third Law, in colloquial terms) was quickly superseded by a better expression for the same physical propensity of the behaviour of matter which itself is colloquially phrased as "the conservativion of momentum". Quantum mechanics, for example, would make no sense whatsoever if Newton's Law was absolutely true.

 

But then neither Newton nor Noether would ever have imagined that their theories, derived from observation of matter and intended only as physical rules governing its behaviour, would be appropriated to be applied to human behaviour, as you are doing. Nor would they appreciate that their painstakingly constructed theories concerning universal laws would be hi-jacked quite ignorantly by people who would wish to apply their rules in any and every context just because the word "universal" was in their published texts on the subject.

 

So, notwithstanding the fact that the expression, even in purely physical terms, is not universally true, it cannot be assumed to be relevant in the slightest to behavioural science in any case. What you are talking about is a subjective belief along the lines of "karma" for which no evidence exists because no evidence can exist. Human behaviour, by definition, is not subject to the "rules" concerning the properties of matter except in so far as human behaviour affects physical movement.

 

What you have expressed above, I am obliged to tell you, is as false as any religious assertion concerning a divine purpose to our existence, or a divine intelligence controlling it.

 

Bunkum. Plain and simple. Not to mention deliberate theft of expressions which you obviously do not really understand.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Also, to every action

Quote:
Also, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Ah, I hate it when people prematurely try to transport some law of physics to another category using a fallacy of equivocation.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Tradition maybe.  Plus it

Tradition maybe.  Plus it kinda comes out as an attack on our faith.  Just because Jesus fulfilled the law does not mean that the old law should be forgotten, it's still got some good stuff in there even if you take out all the commandments dealing strictly with God.

Honor your father and mother, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet.

Actually I'd say that most court cases could be prevented if people followed those, kinda ironic eh?  Wanting to move something that, if people would follow, would result in alot less problems I mean.

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You all know, I hope, that

You all know, I hope, that more of our current justice system owes thanks to Napoleon and the French Revolution than it is to any religion? So we should have portraits of Napoleon and France all over American courthouses, not dipictions of the ten commandments. Boy, wouldn't that be fun? Pics of the nation that America generally hates most. Maybe putting it in this light would allow christians to get an idea of how atheists feel when we see the commandments there.

There's my 2 cents. Eye-wink

 

Editted for wording error.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 900
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 

I don't get upset about it.  In fact I think this sort of effort has the wrong focus.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world (or my servants would fight)."  I think it makes a stumbling block God has no intention of making for followers of Christ to try to couple Christianity with politics.  As individual citizens every man has his right to his political view but to try to moralize the world isn't even the way God goes about it.  God doesn't violate man's will by opening the treasure chest of his will with a crowbar - He uses the key of showing His undeniable love in His Son.  Our focus is to be on Christ.  The changing of man's heart is willing done by allowing Him to do it from the inside. 

 

 

 


The Law (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The 10 Commandments...simple really..

To answer your question....

Without "the law" GRACE is meaningless...

As Paul said I would not have know sin, BUT BY THE LAW!

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You all know, I

Vastet wrote:

You all know, I hope, that more of our current justice system owes thanks to Napoleon and the French Revolution than it is to any religion? So we should have portraits of Napoleon and France all over American courthouses, not dipictions of the ten commandments. Boy, wouldn't that be fun? Pics of the nation that America generally hates most. Maybe putting it in this light would allow christians to get an idea of how atheists feel when we see the commandments there.

There's my 2 cents. Eye-wink

 

Editted for wording error.

Due to the corruption in our current justice system, I don't know if I'd want to give credit to such great names.   The point was that if the Bible's teachings were followed, there'd be a lot less justice to be served. 

The Bible teaches something about every aspect of life.  So far I have found the teachings to be great advice and good to follow.  Non-believers would agree despite their disbelief in God.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The point was that if

Quote:
The point was that if the Bible's teachings were followed, there'd be a lot less justice to be served.

Without a doubt.

Though the downside would be- there would be more mutilated corpses than there are now.

Quote:
The Bible teaches something about every aspect of life.

Of course. It's a broad range of books compiled into one and claiming to be all from the same sources. One can find a Bible verse for any occasion, and a commentary or theologian that agrees with that interpretation.

Quote:
So far I have found the teachings to be great advice and good to follow.  Non-believers would agree despite their disbelief in God.

The really obvious, 'No shit, Sherlock' stuff- primarily the stuff that was attributed to Jesus- was far from unique to Christianity. In fact, about the only thing that Christianity added to philosophy was intolerance and their final words, "Shut the fuck up; mystery of god at work."

You can find moral teachings anywhere outside of Christianity; in fact, you can find BETTER moral teachings outside Christianity. Ever read Epictetus? Great stuff. What about Lucretius? Also really good stuff. And that's just considering the extant Western philosophy.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2619
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:caposkia

crazymonkie wrote:

caposkia wrote:
The point was that if the Bible's teachings were followed, there'd be a lot less justice to be served.
Quote:

Without a doubt.

Though the downside would be- there would be more mutilated corpses than there are now.

Not according to the NT.  The law was fulfilled.  Research before you conclude.

crazymonkie wrote:

Of course. It's a broad range of books compiled into one and claiming to be all from the same sources. One can find a Bible verse for any occasion, and a commentary or theologian that agrees with that interpretation.

Sure you can take any Bible verse to make it what you want it to be, but to take it for what it is is a different story.  A well versed theologian is the only one who will agree with what it's supposed to say.

crazymonkie wrote:

The really obvious, 'No shit, Sherlock' stuff- primarily the stuff that was attributed to Jesus- was far from unique to Christianity. In fact, about the only thing that Christianity added to philosophy was intolerance and their final words, "Shut the fuck up; mystery of god at work."

Actually, that was the dispenstionalists, not the Bible.  and if the "no shit, Sherlock stuff" was actually so obvious... then why do few follow the advice... regardless of the source?

crazymonkie wrote:

You can find moral teachings anywhere outside of Christianity; in fact, you can find BETTER moral teachings outside Christianity. Ever read Epictetus? Great stuff. What about Lucretius? Also really good stuff. And that's just considering the extant Western philosophy.

I'd be interested in your reference to "better moral teachings" as opposed to ?  teachings in the Bible? 

Remember, do the research first.  It's easy to take things out of context. 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:crazymonkie

caposkia wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Without a doubt.

Though the downside would be- there would be more mutilated corpses than there are now.

Not according to the NT.  The law was fulfilled.  Research before you conclude.

Research into fantasy... that's rich. Seriously though, this 'Jesus fulfilled the law' thing is an invention of Paul (who paradoxically also thought of himself as under the law, since he was Jewish). There are/were other interpretations equally "valid" when reading/inventing the NT. Why don't you quote what Jesus had to say about himself fulfilling the law...? Ok, so in Paul's invention, gentiles are not under the Jewish law. But he does tell people to follow some of them in those letters of the NT he wrote himself. Problem is, he's very fuzzy about which ones are still in place isn't he? How does he discern which ones are? I blame Paul for 2000 years of perpetual confusion regarding this, he could have saved countless hours of christians twisting their brains just by being explicit.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Not according

caposkia wrote:
Not according to the NT.  The law was fulfilled.  Research before you conclude.

Depends on what part you look at. Jesus said "no," Paul said "yes... but only certain ones" (He was keen on keeping the misogynistic bits, for one thing.) Fuck you for assuming what I have and haven't researched anyway.

Quote:
Sure you can take any Bible verse to make it what you want it to be, but to take it for what it is is a different story.  A well versed theologian is the only one who will agree with what it's supposed to say.

Not true. "Well-versed theologians" are some of the most contentious people on the planet when it comes to 'true' interpretations of the Bible. Put five theologians in the room and you'll get six opinions.

Anyway, the whole idea that 'pure reason' will give us the true interpretation of the Bible has been shown to be false, again and again. The Catholics were right to institute and uphold the Magisterium- otherwise, there are just too many interpretations. Ignoring for a moment that it was Christianity that basically outlawed classical education in the 400s or so.

Quote:
Quote:

The really obvious, 'No shit, Sherlock' stuff- primarily the stuff that was attributed to Jesus- was far from unique to Christianity. In fact, about the only thing that Christianity added to philosophy was intolerance and their final words, "Shut the fuck up; mystery of god at work."

Actually, that was the dispenstionalists, not the Bible.  and if the "no shit, Sherlock stuff" was actually so obvious... then why do few follow the advice... regardless of the source?

If by 'dispensationalists' you mean CHRISTIANS before your 'true' Christianity claimed to fix their issues, sure; dispensationalists.

The obvious stuff WAS followed, you fucking idiot.

Think of most moral codes. Reeeeaaaaaalllly look hard, outside your xenophobic and sanctimonious holy book. Look at what each religion says: Pretty much the same stuff Jesus said. We can therefore discount Jesus as 'special' based on his moral teachings- even within the Empire, there were the Stoics and Neoplatonists, both of whom basically said what he said. So what's left? Spurious claims of divinity, an unproven story about resurrection, and this man who alternately denigrates and upholds the Law. It's just a big mess, really, and doesn't make a good case for what supposedly is a superior religion.

Quote:
I'd be interested in your reference to "better moral teachings" as opposed to ?  teachings in the Bible?

I mentioned some names. How about you read my response before you reply?

 

Ok, specific names: Epictetus; Plotinus; Lucrectius; the Buddha (title); any Zoroastrian texts; the Upanishads....

These are superior moral teachings of the Bible because they don't rely upon fear of a god who will send you to hell for not believing. Though if you're not a 'dispensationalist,' this just doesn't apply to you. Which, hey, not my fault if you want to move the goalposts and create your own god and system of belief- just don't expect me to hold back my laughter when you tell me that the Bible is the most moral book ever, even though the reason for it (Jesus coming to earth to get rid of our sins) is something you don't believe in; hence really making your case weaker. 

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.