Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Broomstick]

Your straw man elements:
1. “because the role of women in that cult was clearly that of wombs with legs”
Because not being able to teach in a church turns you into a breading machine? Riiight.

No, being able to mix/cook yeast dough turns you into a "breading" machine. I said "breeding" machine.

I actually have read the Bible - it's very clear that the purpose of women, both old and new testament, is to have babies and damn little if anything else.

2. “no more than chattel”
If women were no more than chattel why were men instructed to love their wives in a fashion that if need be they would die for them?

I'd rather my husband have a reason to LIVE for me than to DIE for me.

Why were men instructed to place the needs of their wives ahead of their own desires?

That's not healthy, either - marriage should be a partnership between equals, not a matter of one giving all and one getting all

Chattel you say?

Pretty much, yeah.

3. “quality of humanity they have was of no importance”
Again, if women had no importance I guess it would have been a really hard sell to tell men to serve their wives by putting their needs ahead of their own and be ready to die for them. Hrmmm.

Yes, I think it is a hard sell. That's why christian men, like men of any other stripe, have a certain percentage who beat, rape, and otherwise abuse "their" women.

4. “their duty was to squeeze out child after child and if they couldn't do that, they were worthless.”
Please point me to the post where this was said…

Sorry this wasn't clear - that's the conclusion I came to after reading the Bible on my own.

Why shouldn't women teach? What are you afraid you will learn if we do?

I am not sure why scripture says women can’t teach in church. But it does.

Scripture doesn't say it, but my conclusion, after reading the base mythos of your cult, and seeing its variants in life, is that women aren't allowed to teach because they aren't considered worth listening to. Men are the important people, women are there to produce sons and more women for sons to marry.

Because in the end a person can be in complete disagreement with how God wants a society to run and find out that God does truly exist and at that point disagreements become a moot point.

Have fun arguing with the atheists here.

Once upon a time weren’t we talking about marriage restrictions?

Yes, that's where it started.

Let's try this again - in the OT Jews weren't supposed to marry outside of their uber-tribe. Unless the foreign spouse converted (that is, in fact, still the case among Jews). Of course, there's always been the messy issue of rape, which is one reason Jewish populations comes to resemble the people they live among, alongside the intermarriage possibility. You say the NT undid that restriction, now everyone was free to marry. As long as you kept it to one person of the opposite sex, correct? And, oh yes, no more divorce. For any reason. Did I miss anything about the change from OT to NT?

[Darth Wong]

If they saw themselves as a distinct ethnicity, then my point stands, moron. It was racism for them to ban intermarriage.

Hardly, seeing themselves as a distinct group doesn’t make them a specific race. That alone is my only point from the beginning, the line wasn’t drawn by race. Were there marriage restrictions of the group before the new covenant was established? Yes, I said this in the beginning. Whether you feel this is fair or unfair is not the point.

You're an idiot and a lying sack of shit. White people aren't a distinct race either, fool. Or didn't you know that white Europeans are the mongrels of humanity? Does that mean the Nazis weren't racist? Hell, Hitler himself might have had a Jewish ancestor; does this mean that he wasn't racist either? Your pseudo-logic is nothing more than typical Bible thumper evasion and dishonesty. If a people believe they are ethnically distinct, then any discrimination based upon that belief is racist.

That's because there is no such connection, any more than there is a connection to equality of the sexes or the banning of slavery, which I pointed out and which you pointedly ignored in your reply. I pointed out the only statement which is actually contained in the text. The rest is your personal doctrine.

Frankly the connection couldn’t be any more apparent. But if one wishes not to see it then no amount of explaining will suffice.

I didn’t ignore your pointing out of slavery or equality of men and women for reasons of deception. Rather your remark had nothing to do with the topic of marriage restrictions.

Again you lie. You claimed that the phrase you quoted meant equality of the races, but the SAME PHRASE also mentioned man and woman, bond and free. This means that if your interpretation is correct, then there should be gender equality and an end to slavery: both things which Paul explicitly denied elsewhere. YOU are twisting the text.

It says nothing about all races being treated the same, or men and women being treated the same, or slaves and free men being treated the same. In fact, it's written by Paul, who elsewhere exhorts slaves to obey their masters.

I never claimed the verse even spoke the issue of equality of the sexes or slavery.

Just how fucking stupid are you? This is what you claimed:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And with it smashed all race/ethnic biblical barriers for marriage. Anyone who holds on to opposition to inter-racial marriage does so in spite of scripture.

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

Look Mike, you want to talk about slavery and equality of the sexes pertaining to the bible I would be more than happy to oblige. But we are talking about restrictions on marriage.

Yes we are, and the word "marriage" does not occur in Galatians 3:28. YOU are the one who is twisting scripture for an agenda.

You tell me what do you want to talk about and I will answer, but I don’t want to go off on wild tangents with you leading the way.

If you want to talk about sexual equality, slavery, or marriage restrictions tell me and I will address it in my next post.

No you won't. You will be an evasive, dishonest little shit, just like you're being now. The only reason you think your "interpretations" flow from the text is because you were taught those interpretations along with it. If you read the text by itself, without various helpers telling you what it "really" means, you would never come to that conclusion.

Then why are you quoting Paul, who clearly didn't get the message because he continued to quote from Leviticus in his epistles?

Paul quotes the torah for several reasons, but without a specific example on your part I can’t say in a matter of fact way.

He quotes Leviticus to explain why homosexuality is evil. Now answer the point, Evasion Man.

I wrote:
And further add to my point about at what point are Christians no longer under the law (out of Christ’s mouth):
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John (the Baptist): since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

You replied:

See above, wanker.

See above? The book of Luke wasn’t written by Paul.

If those words didn't (supposedly) come from Jesus' mouth, then they don't matter.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Funny how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a liar Mike...

[Darth Wong]

Funny how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a liar Mike...

If you think my point-by-point rebuttal is not valid, then find some flaw with it. Otherwise, you're making a claim you can't back up, and I'm calling you out on it right now, fucktard. Back it up or get the fuck off my forum.

He claims that Galatians 3:28 decisively ends any ethnic restrictions on marriage, even though it says nothing about marriage. He's a liar. If you think my only justification for calling him a liar is the fact that he disagrees with me, then back that up. Explain yourself, asshole. Or I'll ban you by supper and trust me, nobody will miss you.

[Broomstick]

Funny how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a liar Mike...

Actually, Mike and I have disagreed on more than one occasion. It's pretty damn rare he accuses me of being a liar. Mistaken, confused, my head up my ass... but pretty damn rare he says I'm lying

Myself, I think JohnM81 has been thoroughly brainwa--- er, educated by his cult to have certain responses to certain stimuli. Most people in North America have had similar indoctrination, which is why it's always such a shock to those like him when they run into someone like Mike who rejects the Bible and/or traditional interpretations as established fact.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You make quite the claim and yet you don’t quote the torah or the books of the prophets to show how Jesus didn’t meet the criteria or why we would still be under the law. I wonder if this assertion you are making is from what scripture actually says or what you think it says.

Lets find the list O' prophecy now shall we?

Lets see, birth prophecies...

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

There are two problems with this. Nowhere is Jesus ever called Immanuel. And also, the word used in the original hebrew was Ahlma, which means Young Woman, not virgin.

The other problem with this, oft touted messianic prophecy is that if you read it in the entire context of the seventh chapter, it is not a messianic prophecy at all. It is a prophecy about a child who will be born as a sign to the king of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Syrians.

Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 Wait... are those clonflicting geneologies? Oh they are, and more to the point Jeconiah was supposed to have been without descendants. Then there is the little problem of at this period, Jews tracing descent through the Patriline. This was pre-european diaspora, and both of these geneologies go through Joseph... Jesus cannot be the son of god, and also descended from Joseph. Indeed he cannot be the product of a virgin birth at all, as he must be descended from David, through Jesse via the patriline.

Then there is the slaughter of innocents that never actually occured, and was a made-up new testament post-prophecy...

Malachi 4:5-6. This failed prophecy refers to Elijah coming before The Messiah. He did not do this. It does not refer to someone coming in the spirit of the Elijah. That would be an instance of christian revisionism of the hebrew text.

Then there is the little fact that the Jewish concept of God is indivisible... so the trinity is right out.

Isiah 2: 4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

this was supposed to be done IN HIS LIFETIME. You dont get to cop out with a second coming.

He is also supposed to rebuild the third temple

Do I have to go on?

Do have actual genetic evidence? No I don’t. However there have been studies that show that genetically Jews, Palestinians, and Syrians have a common genetic link. I am not a geneticist so without actually doing more research on this topic I can’t comment much further.

Not the same thing. For the bible to be true, one guy had to spawn both groups with different matrilines. But there is no evidence for that.

Yes, I do think God is infallible. I don’t think infallibility is incompatible with changing one’s mind if what determines the need for new course of action is man’s fallen nature. Or if it serves an even larger purpose that was determined from the beginning.

If you are infallible you must also be omniscient. If you are omniscient you would have picked the course of action you knew you would intend the first time around. Also: you would have accounted for the fall of man. To be rather frank, the notion of an infallible omniscient god causes the breakdown of your entire theology, as it eliminates free will via predestination, and breaks down the idea that God did not intend sin to enter the world.

That’s an interesting bit of information. Could you point me to the primary research that you are referencing so I could read it?

That is just it. All the research done is either too recent (IE breaks down the different patrilineal groups in Judiasm, of which there are 8, not 12, and that includes arabs) or they go back so far you cant determine what ethnic groups are which. I did a search of the literature, the evidence is not there. The burden of proof is on you to show that one guy DID found the Semitic group.

Biblically speaking, women are barred from “teaching” a congregation of men and women. Not speaking, singing, and attending is not biblical.

Is this one of your sky-god's arbitrary rules again?

[Imperial Overlord]

Then there is the little fact that the Jewish concept of God is indivisible... so the trinity is right out.

Tiny nitpick: Not all Christian sects believe in the Trinity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Then there is the little fact that the Jewish concept of God is indivisible... so the trinity is right out.

Tiny nitpick: Not all Christian sects believe in the Trinity.

True, but they do more often than not

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hey John, does your worthless fucking false religion have any answer for what happened to ME? How the fuck do you think you have any right to come into a thread about the horrors of being raised in a fundamentalist household and defend your sickening, perverted ideology and its morbid obsession with torturing children? Do you really think you've had a good life? Let's start talking about your childhood and picking apart how you've been abused, and we'll see how much you love your false god then when you realize just how much of who you could have been has been destroyed.

But you won't do that, because you're a stupid coward and you aren't courageous enough to stand up and face the truth that there is no heaven, no hell, and only oblivion on death, and that those who you love who have died, will never come back, and you will never see them again. And yet I had the most brave and honourable of friends, an old and rather traditional upper class Englishman, by the name of Drake, who was staunchly and firmly a rational atheist; he was once a moderator here. And he dealt with the death of someone dear to him, when we were the closest of friends many years ago before we fell out of touch, with an incredible equanimity that drove me to the highest respect of him--he needed no god and no solace in the cloying, false promises of resurrection. He was brave to the end for her sake, and handled her death with a loving reverence. And in doing so he proved himself more the man, more courageous, more compassionate, steadfast, and at peace with himself, than a hundred little scurrying fools like yourself who need the false ideology of a God in the sky to comfort yourselves, the delusion that you will go on to something else.

You live for death, you stupid fool, and in doing so, you're letting life pass you by. Every moment that you spend in fear of your god and in fear of his wrath and his anger, and in hope of his rewards, is a moment that you have wasted, blown away like the sands of the desert, all shifting, formless clay, wasted dreams and hopes without satiation. Turn from your false god and live life as it may be lived, not as some wild party animal or epicurean who indulgences in material things, if you wish, but in the gentle and firm Stoicism that I had so wonderfully displayed for me in the form of my dear friend Drake, and to whom our civilization may worthily look for an example in Marcus Aurelius.

And you don't even have the decency to go back to the original source--Enter the Risen Osiris, Risen Again! (do you find the words of pagans so strangely familiar? I hope so--you copied them!)--and follow a more fundamentally decent version of your myth, in which the reborn Osiris points your way to an afterlife which is exactly like our own life up here, except with all the faults removed, no more starvation and no more suffering, and entrance is judged on merit rather than the specious concept of forgiveness and the ethical and moral horrors that it entails. You are instead worshipping a God who promises you only eternal worship of Himself, in the mad desire of a lunatic being for the endless flattery of mortals, a literal eternal of despair as you endlessly repeat choruses of praise and he makes you like it. Do you really believe such a God, such a God who promises you only an eternity of the endless chanting of hymns in worship to his name, could possibly exist? That such a monstrous fantasy of the worst priests in the Near East could have created this marvelous and structured universe, which has instead unfolded according to the mechanistic precision demanded by its component parts? A God who fancies to save people according to their worship for him rather than any ethical or moral standards?

If you are to persist in your delusional religious beliefs, you could at least have the decency to turn your prayers to Osiris, who both came first and offers a more decent and humane afterlife and an ethical means for judging your entry to it--and for the condemned offers not an eternity of torture, but rather the mere oblivion of the consumption of the Soul. Yet you don't even have the courage to realize that your religion is a pastiche farce based on older faiths, and turn to them instead. No, you will instead persist in the comforting delusion that you are the chattel slave of a mad Deity, out of fear of his wrath and systematic inoculation from the day you were born into a belief that there was nothing better out there. But there is, and each second that ticks while you remain Christian is another second that you have let it all pass you by.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Funny how anyone that disagrees with you becomes a liar Mike...

If you think my point-by-point rebuttal is not valid, then find some flaw with it. Otherwise, you're making a claim you can't back up, and I'm calling you out on it right now, fucktard. Back it up or get the fuck off my forum.

He claims that Galatians 3:28 decisively ends any ethnic restrictions on marriage, even though it says nothing about marriage. He's a liar. If you think my only justification for calling him a liar is the fact that he disagrees with me, then back that up. Explain yourself, asshole. Or I'll ban you by supper and trust me, nobody will miss you.

Well Galatians more or less does. If there are no races or no differences how can you justify interracial marriage except by picking and choosing your words?

[General Zod]

Well Galatians more or less does. If there are no races or no differences how can you justify interracial marriage except by picking and choosing your words?

Since when have holy men ever done anything but pick and choose words to support their personal prejudices?

[Invictus ChiKen]

Since when have holy men ever done anything but pick and choose words to support their personal prejudices?

Very often Zod, it's just many people prefer to focus on the negative and those who where the robes of the Holy and Abuse there office. This is usually declared a No True Scotsman faliency (spelling).

Of course when a Atheist nation such as N. Korea is the pointed out as an example of Atheism run amok. The Atheist will declare it wasn't a real atheist nation because Atheism wasn't central to it.

This ignores that many groups don't have Christianity as central to there views as anything more than a social badge if that.

I hope this came out right I am happy to clarify if you want.

[General Zod]

Very often Zod, it's just many people prefer to focus on the negative and those who where the robes of the Holy and Abuse there office. This is usually declared a No True Scotsman faliency (spelling).

That's bullshit and you know it. The vast majority of holy books are so self-contradictory you'll be hard pressed to find anyone capable of actually following everything in the book without picking and choosing, let alone holy men.

Of course when a Atheist nation such as N. Korea is the pointed out as an example of Atheism run amok. The Atheist will declare it wasn't a real atheist nation because Atheism wasn't central to it.

False analogy; atheism isn't a set of moral values retard. It's merely rejecting the possibility that God exists.

[Invictus ChiKen]

That's bullshit and you know it. The vast majority of holy books are so self-contradictory you'll be hard pressed to find anyone capable of actually following everything in the book without picking and choosing, let alone holy men.

No it isn't. You can say it all you want but the truth is not something that can be decided by Majority vote.

False analogy; atheism isn't a set of moral values retard. It's merely rejecting the possibility that God exists.

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

[General Zod]

No it isn't. You can say it all you want but the truth is not something that can be decided by Majority vote.

Back up this claim with evidence fuckwit.

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

It's because retards like you can't conceive of an ethics system that does not depend on a higher power. The fact that there are secular ethics systems out there which do not depend on a deity does not change the fact that atheism in and of itself is not a set of moral values.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Back up this claim with evidence fuckwit.

So you want me to back up with evidence that just because a small minority abuse there position it is wrong to say all Holy Men twist and alter there doctrines to suit them correct?

Or did you mean Truth isn't decided by majority vote?

Or both?

It's because retards like you can't conceive of an ethics system that does not depend on a higher power. The fact that there are secular ethics systems out there which do not depend on a deity does not change the fact that atheism in and of itself is not a set of moral values.

Again just because you say it's true don't make it so. Confucianism for example doesn't derive anything from a deity nor those Taoism yet there both fine moral systems.

I believe Aristotle and Socrates where didn't derive there views from a deity and there moral codes where wonderful.

[Imperial Overlord]

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

You are one stupid bastard. Atheism isn't a set of moral values. It is simply the lack of belief in gods. Full stop. That's it. That in no way means atheists don't have morals. There are a number of moral codes that don't involve appeals to religious authority. If an individual believes religion is harmful, then the one believes religion to be immoral. That belief is held by many atheists, but one does not have to hold that belief to be an atheist.

As for your inability to understand the issue of Paul and interracial marriage, here's what Mike said a few posts above:

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

Paul merely said all were Christians. He most definitely did not mean they were equal, since his other writings are clear that slaves remain slaves and that women are inferior to men. You are projecting what you want that line to say and ignoring what it actually does and you're too god damn stupid or dishonest to actually deal with the rebuttal that has already been made.

[General Zod]

So you want me to back up with evidence that just because a small minority abuse there position it is wrong to say all Holy Men twist and alter there doctrines to suit them correct?

Or did you mean Truth isn't decided by majority vote?

Or both?

You claim they can follow every commandment in their books with no need to pick and choose. Prove it.

Again just because you say it's true don't make it so. Confucianism for example doesn't derive anything from a deity nor those Taoism yet there both fine moral systems.

Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nothing in this definition regarding morality. Now go choke on my cock.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

That's bullshit and you know it. The vast majority of holy books are so self-contradictory you'll be hard pressed to find anyone capable of actually following everything in the book without picking and choosing, let alone holy men.

No it isn't. You can say it all you want but the truth is not something that can be decided by Majority vote.

Are you fucking high, Invictus ChiKen? Or are you just more retarded than I actually thought? Are you saying that there are absolutely no contradictions within the bible, a stance that any intelligent Christian avoids like the plague because it is goddamn indefensible? Anyway, I thought you left the Catholic Church after your girlfriend left you? Or did you flip-flop on your religious beliefs yet again? How amusing.

Every Christian picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow and which not to. Or they let their church pick and choose for them. Some pick the good parts, some pick the bad. Or are you denying this claim?

False analogy; atheism isn't a set of moral values retard. It's merely rejecting the possibility that God exists.

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

Okay, so you are a retard. How is "not wanting religion around" or "not liking religion" a moral value, dipshit? More over, its up to you to prove that atheists want that in the first place. I don't particularly care to see religion exterminated, I just want it to stop sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, like in politics. Or in intelligent discussion, for that matter.

Atheists have their own opinions on things. That doesn't make Atheism a moral code. All that atheism is, is a disbelief in god. From there, we can form our own sets of moral values.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course when a Atheist nation such as N. Korea is the pointed out as an example of Atheism run amok. The Atheist will declare it wasn't a real atheist nation because Atheism wasn't central to it.

This ignores that many groups don't have Christianity as central to there views as anything more than a social badge if that.

The first sentence is a non-sequiteur. Atheism does not lead to North Korea. Atheism by itself is not a coherent worldview, it is a component, merely the lack of belief in Gods. As an example, I am a philosophical naturalist, and a humanist. That is a comprehensive world view which gives me an ethical system. Atheism is only a component.

The crimes of N. Korea are not due to atheism. They are due to Stalinist Communism, they are done in the name of communism and Kim Jong Il. Atheism does not enter into the equation any more than it is merely a tiny component of the larger Stalinist belief system.

You are a fuckwit.

The second bit: A lot of atrocities have been committed explicitly in the name of, and because of, the beliefs of christianity. The crusades, the inquisition, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery, Manifest destiny, colonialism of various forms.

No it isn't. You can say it all you want but the truth is not something that can be decided by Majority vote.

That depends on what type of truth you are looking at.

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

Because it is immoral for other reasons you moron. A utilitarian for example would say that religion is immoral because it causes more harm than it fixes. A deontologist would object to religion for any number of reasons.

So you want me to back up with evidence that just because a small minority abuse there position it is wrong to say all Holy Men twist and alter there doctrines to suit them correct?

But they all do. You will never find two priests that believe the same exact thing. They ALWAYS reinterpet the doctrine to suit their own wants and needs. The fact of the matter is, some of these individuals have made some rather unpleasant changes.

Oh, and as far as the catholic church is concerned, the corruption goes all the way up to the top, and is supported by the parishoners who refuse to believe that father O'grady likes fucking children.

Or did you mean Truth isn't decided by majority vote?

Depends on the truth. Physical properties, scientific principles, no. Morality in so far as the moral rule is not absolutely necessary for human functioning... pretty much. They are formed by a sort of non-conscious majority vote. The rule that works best for ordering society in a given environment with the interaction of other social forces will be subject to natural selection and spread in the population.

I believe Aristotle and Socrates where didn't derive there views from a deity and there moral codes where wonderful.

You're kidding right?

Aristotle's ethics epitomized the golden mean fallacy, and plato (read: socrates, as he was mostly platos literary metaphor) thought that we should all be ruled by a tyranny of philosopher kings with a rigid caste system. Please do get a clue before you spout off.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course when a Atheist nation such as N. Korea is the pointed out as an example of Atheism run amok. The Atheist will declare it wasn't a real atheist nation because Atheism wasn't central to it.

This ignores that many groups don't have Christianity as central to there views as anything more than a social badge if that.

The first sentence is a non-sequiteur. Atheism does not lead to North Korea. Atheism by itself is not a coherent worldview, it is a component, merely the lack of belief in Gods. As an example, I am a philosophical naturalist, and a humanist. That is a comprehensive world view which gives me an ethical system. Atheism is only a component.

The crimes of N. Korea are not due to atheism. They are due to Stalinist Communism, they are done in the name of communism and Kim Jong Il. Atheism does not enter into the equation any more than it is merely a tiny component of the larger Stalinist belief system.

You are a fuckwit.

The second bit: A lot of atrocities have been committed explicitly in the name of, and because of, the beliefs of christianity. The crusades, the inquisition, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery, Manifest destiny, colonialism of various forms.

No it isn't. You can say it all you want but the truth is not something that can be decided by Majority vote.

That depends on what type of truth you are looking at.

So then if Atheism isn't a set of moral values why do so many believe wish to see religion removed forever because it is immoral. If that isn't a moral value I invite you to tell what is.

Because it is immoral for other reasons you moron. A utilitarian for example would say that religion is immoral because it causes more harm than it fixes. A deontologist would object to religion for any number of reasons.

So you want me to back up with evidence that just because a small minority abuse there position it is wrong to say all Holy Men twist and alter there doctrines to suit them correct?

But they all do. You will never find two priests that believe the same exact thing. They ALWAYS reinterpet the doctrine to suit their own wants and needs. The fact of the matter is, some of these individuals have made some rather unpleasant changes.

Oh, and as far as the catholic church is concerned, the corruption goes all the way up to the top, and is supported by the parishoners who refuse to believe that father O'grady likes fucking children.

Or did you mean Truth isn't decided by majority vote?

Depends on the truth. Physical properties, scientific principles, no. Morality in so far as the moral rule is not absolutely necessary for human functioning... pretty much. They are formed by a sort of non-conscious majority vote. The rule that works best for ordering society in a given environment with the interaction of other social forces will be subject to natural selection and spread in the population.

I believe Aristotle and Socrates where didn't derive there views from a deity and there moral codes where wonderful.

You're kidding right?

Aristotle's ethics epitomized the golden mean fallacy, and plato (read: socrates, as he was mostly platos literary metaphor) thought that we should all be ruled by a tyranny of philosopher kings with a rigid caste system. Please do get a clue before you spout off.

[JohnM81]

I actually have read the Bible - it's very clear that the purpose of women, both old and new testament, is to have babies and damn little if anything else.

Did you read about Deborah who was the Judge of the entire nation of Israel? How does that fit into your paradigm of women’s only purpose is to have babies?
Jdg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

Did you read about the righteous woman running her own business in proverbs?
Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Pro 31:25 Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

That's not healthy, either - marriage should be a partnership between equals, not a matter of one giving all and one getting all

You shouldn’t make that remark thinking that I was trying to describe the entire picture of marriage. I was just describing one half. The complete picture is the man putting his wife’s needs above his own and the wife doing the same for her husband. Each striving to fill the needs of eachother.

Yes, I think it is a hard sell. That's why christian men, like men of any other stripe, have a certain percentage who beat, rape, and otherwise abuse "their" women.

Are you making the assertion that Christian teachings cause a percentage of its followers to beat, rape, and abuse their women?

Have fun arguing with the atheists here.

I am fully aware that my presuppositions, my axioms, aren’t accepted by all. Almost all of us will be arguing past each other because we don’t have the same starting beliefs. That is the futility of discussions on religion but they are entertaining none the less.

And, oh yes, no more divorce. For any reason. Did I miss anything about the change from OT to NT?

I believe divorce can still be granted in circumstances of infidelity. I have to read up on that.

[JohnM81]

You're an idiot and a lying sack of shit. White people aren't a distinct race either, fool. Or didn't you know that white Europeans are the mongrels of humanity? Does that mean the Nazis weren't racist? Hell, Hitler himself might have had a Jewish ancestor; does this mean that he wasn't racist either? Your pseudo-logic is nothing more than typical Bible thumper evasion and dishonesty. If a people believe they are ethnically distinct, then any discrimination based upon that belief is racist.

Of course the Nazis are racist. They define the term for themselves and then proceed to hate those groups. But even they use the term improperly just as you do. They advance a superiority of white people as if that was a pure line and even by your own words whites are most definitely very mixed.

Race is a loosely defined social construct of similar looking people with a similar heritage. Historically, Jews and Arab say they are brothers due to they both are decedents from Abraham. Genetically they are closely related with Palestinians and Syrian Arabs. If you want to claim racism then you have to say they are being racist against their own race. In Nigeria, sometimes a girl from one tribe can’t marry a guy in another tribe. Is that racism? Is it that the two tribes that lived together for hundreds of years are black and racist against blacks? If they would marry would it be an inter-racial marriage being they define themselves in distinct groups? Of course not.

Again you lie. You claimed that the phrase you quoted meant equality of the races, but the SAME PHRASE also mentioned man and woman, bond and free. This means that if your interpretation is correct, then there should be gender equality and an end to slavery: both things which Paul explicitly denied elsewhere. YOU are twisting the text.

Just how fucking stupid are you? This is what you claimed:

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

No no no. You totally miss understood what I was trying to say. I wasn’t saying that we can’t learn about slavery and equality of sexes from that verse. I was trying to say that “I” wasn’t making any claims about it. As in I wasn’t addressing that issue when using that verse. Look where you plucked that line from when you quoted me. It was in the paragraph where I was talking about how we are changing the subject of marriage restrictions to slavery and equality of the sexes.

I admit I wrote it poorly and should have been clearer.

Well being you so dearly want to change the topic from marriage to slavery/equality of the sexes then I will address it as I said I would.

Slavery:
The verses you are referring to isn’t slavery its being a bond servant. The NKJ version of scripture reads the meaning of the Greek word Doulos (bond servant) – bond, bondman, servant. So it’s not slavery as you might think rather its someone working off a debt or a paid servant.

Equality of the sexes:
God states in his scripture that a man is the head of the house hold and his wife must observe that. It also states that a husband must serve his wife by putting her desires ahead of his own and be willing to die for her just as Christ did for the church. Both wife must serve her husband and husband serve his wife.

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

See above.

Yes we are, and the word "marriage" does not occur in Galatians 3:28. YOU are the one who is twisting scripture for an agenda.

I haven’t twisted anything. Gal 3:28 is pretty clear is establishing that all races are considered one in Christ. And yes mike men/women and freeman/bondman are included in that.

No you won't. You will be an evasive, dishonest little shit, just like you're being now.

See above. If you want more I can go into more detail.

He quotes Leviticus to explain why homosexuality is evil. Now answer the point, Evasion Man.

Mike, quote the verse so I can look it up and see what it says. I don’t recall Paul quoting Leviticus about homosexuality so I need to actually read it to answer you.

If those words didn't (supposedly) come from Jesus' mouth, then they don't matter.

The words are a quote from Christ. Look it up.

[Invictus ChiKen]

You claim they can follow every commandment in their books with no need to pick and choose. Prove it

Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Nice little dodge there. But did I not just list fine moral systems that didn't come from a deity according to there creators? Did you not say I was incapable of believing that?

Are you fucking high, Invictus ChiKen? Or are you just more retarded than I actually thought?

Well the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus did back quite a punch at Mass today

As for retarded why? Because I do not agree with your points of you?

Are you saying that there are absolutely no contradictions within the bible, a stance that any intelligent Christian avoids like the plague because it is goddamn indefensible? Anyway, I thought you left the Catholic Church after your girlfriend left you?

I am saying that it is wrong to state that all Holy Men just pick and choose. Maybe to some it's the same as saying no contradictions but not in my eyes. As for leaving yes I left and was out for over a year and went back...

After my ex I just wasn't thinking clearly and blamed my faith on it. I see a few here have had the same thing happen. Difference is I realized it was wrong to blame religion as a whole for my misfortune.

Okay, so you are a retard. How is "not wanting religion around" or "not liking religion" a moral value, dipshit? More over, its up to you to prove that atheists want that in the first place. I don't particularly care to see religion exterminated,

Glad to hear you don't. To reference where you find many that consider it a moral imperative to stamp out religion just look around this board for a few months.

Atheists have their own opinions on things. That doesn't make Atheism a moral code. All that atheism is, is a disbelief in god. From there, we can form our own sets of moral values.

True and sometimes they are bad moral codes. My point is you can't just say oh those moral codes weren't made my true atheists. To show why that is important let us say hypothetically that we end up with 20 nations founded on Atheism that's populations are total de-religioned. 19 of them become Hell Holes. At what point can we say it's because of Atheism?

The first sentence is a non-sequiteur. Atheism does not lead to North Korea. Atheism by itself is not a coherent worldview, it is a component, merely the lack of belief in Gods. As an example, I am a philosophical naturalist, and a humanist. That is a comprehensive world view which gives me an ethical system. Atheism is only a component.

So how many examples will it take till I can use Atheism? It is catching up for the past sins of the Church rather rapidly.

You are a fuckwit.

So can anyone on this board debate like an adult without having to result to Jr. High level name calling?

The second bit: A lot of atrocities have been committed explicitly in the name of, and because of, the beliefs of christianity. The crusades, the inquisition, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery, Manifest destiny, colonialism of various forms.

The Crusades where a series of defensive wars. The Holy Inquisition was a move to purge Spain of traitors trying to infultrate the Church.

The oppression of women and homosexuals was just horrible but is mostly in the past and is rapidly moving into the past.

Slavery, Manifest destiny and colonialism have more to do with capitalism than religion and you know it.

That depends on what type of truth you are looking at.

Conceded

Because it is immoral for other reasons you moron. A utilitarian for example would say that religion is immoral because it causes more harm than it fixes. A deontologist would object to religion for any number of reasons.

Such as?

An how about the fact the Catholic Church basically BUILT Western Civilization? Our Schools, Our Hospitals and the fact it's the worlds largest and possibly oldest charity organizations on the planet?

But they all do. You will never find two priests that believe the same exact thing.

Do you mean as in important issues or little side things that have no real importance and are rather optional like vestments and candles? If the latter I invite you to come check out a Catholic Church that is orthodox for a very nice surprise. if you show up for a theology on tap event there's normally beer

They ALWAYS reinterpet the doctrine to suit their own wants and needs. The fact of the matter is, some of these individuals have made some rather unpleasant changes.

I will not deny that there have been a minority... In fact going over some notes at times a majorty that where bad. But the bad always become a majority soon.

Oh, and as far as the catholic church is concerned, the corruption goes all the way up to the top, and is supported by the parishoners who refuse to believe that father O'grady likes fucking children.

An Atheist refuse to believe the Catholic Church is bringing that under control and the problem is being well fixed. But then why give up a useful lever to use against the Church?

Depends on the truth. Physical properties, scientific principles, no. Morality in so far as the moral rule is not absolutely necessary for human functioning... pretty much. They are formed by a sort of non-conscious majority vote. The rule that works best for ordering society in a given environment with the interaction of other social forces will be subject to natural selection and spread in the population.

Conceded. Although obviously I believe the Holy Spirit is at work there but still conceded.

You're kidding right?

Ummm no I consider there stuff to be awesome

Aristotle's ethics epitomized the golden mean fallacy, and plato (read: socrates, as he was mostly platos literary metaphor) thought that we should all be ruled by a tyranny of philosopher kings with a rigid caste system. Please do get a clue before you spout off.

I stand by what I said. You got some here wanting a caste system based on intelligence just read some of the posts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[

I stand by what I said. You got some here wanting a caste system based on intelligence just read some of the posts.

Caste system based on intelligence? That's mutually contradictory, and the correct term is a meritocracy, about which there is nothing bad.