Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Darth Wong]

Seriously, how would one rationalise Jesus's last words being different? I can't even think of a method.

One of their favourite rationalizations is to pretend they've never heard these passages before (even though they're among the most famous passages in the entire book). They'll say "Are you sure about that? Well I'll have to look that up and then get back to you on that!" And of course, they never do. Alternatively, they claim that all of the accounts were correct, and the writers just left out the lines that the other writers heard. Which is laughable in its own right, but as they're fond of saying, you can't absolutely prove it's wrong. Different writers could have chosen to omit different parts of his last words for no reason, and we should still trust their profound and inerrant accuracy.

[Adrian Laguna]

Relating to the Crusades, they could be considered defensive, since the Holy Land was Christian until it got invaded by Muslims, or more specifically it was (Eastern/Greek) Roman before it got invaded by Arabs. The Romanians asked for help on religious grounds, the Pope said yes, and a long exhausting serious of unsuccessful counter-attacks followed. However, it really stretches the definition, typically you would need to be in the same war for the retaking of lost land to be considered defensive. France's Plan XVII was considered an offensive plan, not an defensive one until they crossed the Rhine.

Regardless, of the numerous things you can blame Christianity for, I don't see why the Crusades always comes up. They were just a god dammed wars like any others, fought primarily for land, wealth, and power. While religion played an indispensable role in unifying the European nobility for the endeavour, you can bet your ass nobody would have participated if they weren't expecting to gain materially from it. The Spanish were rarely helped in their Reconquista, and the reason for that is that everyone knew all territorial gains would be going to the locals.

The byzantines and the catholics did not get along very well, and this "defense" did not stop the crusaders from sacking jewish settlements, and constantinople

Neither did the British and Soviets in WWII get along very well, but nobody contests they were defending themselves against German aggression, yes? Also, the Swedish intervened in the the 30 Years War to defend Protestant Germans, but that didn't stop them from sacking half the country anyway.

[Broomstick]

That you have accepted by deluding yourself into believing there is an afterlife. No need for a bet--I will be more interested in how the Scales judge you if Osiris is there waiting for us.

psssst! - It's Ma'at who does the judging, not Osiris.

Methinks his heart will weigh more than the feather.

Ancient Eqypt gave us the Negative Confession, where the deceased being judge tells the Gods the harm and evil he didn't do... and isn't that an interesting take on it? Which is more important, the good you do, or the evil you don't?

But I digress... it IS possible to have a religious discussion on this forum without a pile-on As evidence I present this thread where I take a position VERY much at odds with both the atheists and christians here, yet it did not descend into a flame fest. There is no question that, for example, Mr. Wong and I very much disagree on the topic at hand but neither of us got called an idiot. Hmmm.... interesting....

[Adrian Laguna]

Ancient Eqypt gave us the Negative Confession, where the deceased being judge tells the Gods the harm and evil he didn't do... and isn't that an interesting take on it?

It seems like a very awkward take on it, even if you sinned like a mother fucker you would probably still be there all week. That is if you can even remember all the evil deeds you could have done but didn't.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Ancient Eqypt gave us the Negative Confession, where the deceased being judge tells the Gods the harm and evil he didn't do... and isn't that an interesting take on it?

It seems like a very awkward take on it, even if you sinned like a mother fucker you would probably still be there all week. That is if you can even remember all the evil deeds you could have done but didn't.

I didn't commit genocide, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't cheat on my spouse, I didn't start any wars, I didn't beat the hell out of my best friend that one time when we had a big argument... yeah, that could go on for a while.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

psssst! - It's Ma'at who does the judging, not Osiris.

I meant Ma'at by saying "The Scales", Broomstick. I said it in the same way that saying "The Fates" or "Victory" could refer to either the concept, or the Goddess(es). *smiles* But, point taken. Not many people get my archaic usages on the best of days.

Methinks his heart will weigh more than the feather.

Won't it? I would really like to be in an Egyptian afterlife--it's a thoroughly decent place. I'd like to spend eternity working on sundry little improvement projects for five hours, three days a week that never go bad, endlessly exploring an infinite range of terrain, and snuggling with some cute people I love for the rest of the time. How the hell did the nice afterlives lose out to suck-tastic ones?

Ancient Eqypt gave us the Negative Confession, where the deceased being judge tells the Gods the harm and evil he didn't do... and isn't that an interesting take on it? Which is more important, the good you do, or the evil you don't?

I am rather inclined to say it's the later.

But I digress... it IS possible to have a religious discussion on this forum without a pile-on As evidence I present this thread where I take a position VERY much at odds with both the atheists and christians here, yet it did not descend into a flame fest. There is no question that, for example, Mr. Wong and I very much disagree on the topic at hand but neither of us got called an idiot. Hmmm.... interesting....

Well, you have some class, and grace. And intelligence.

[General Zod]

But I digress... it IS possible to have a religious discussion on this forum without a pile-on As evidence I present this thread where I take a position VERY much at odds with both the atheists and christians here, yet it did not descend into a flame fest. There is no question that, for example, Mr. Wong and I very much disagree on the topic at hand but neither of us got called an idiot. Hmmm.... interesting....

Things generally don't start to break down until some retard starts making claims and acts like we should assume they're true and equally valid without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Or until they start using the broken record technique. Or they flat out lie. Or rely on golden mean idiocy. etc.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that certain beliefs (like "The Bible is inerrant") are impossible to defend without resorting to various forms of dishonest and/or fallacious behaviour, so pretty much everyone who tries to defend them uses such tactics. And naturally, they get attacked for doing so.

After a while, they start declaring that they're being effectively discriminated against, which is what Invictus Idiot did earlier.

[JohnM81]

One exception. One exception. Out of all the other women who are given away, kidnapped, raped, stolen, sold into slavery... Oh, yeah, that makes it alright.

Regardless how you spin it its point stands, biblically speaking women can rise to some positions of great power and responsibility with God’s blessing. How other humans might think of it is another matter altogether.

How about Lot, wonderful Lot, blessed by god or whatever - paraphrased: "Here, rape my daughter but spare these two strange men I just took into my household. It's so much better you rape my daughters than these two." But hey, it's OK because they're angels... yeah, right

Lot? Lot is a despicable man whose actions are recorded in the bible. What is your point? And now your own bias is revealed that you take a story, tell only the half of it that supports your arguments but don’t finish the end where the Angels tell the man NOT to do such a thing! Well done, you just inadvertently gave a great example of how scripture doesn’t look at women as subhuman chattel.

And in Ancient Rome slaves could own property and money and buy their freedom if they were successful enough.. but they were still slaves.

Yet the verse does plainly put scripture’s ideal woman well above a subhuman womb on legs.

And how is THAT healthy? There is no balance there - if you don't take care of yourself you can't take care of anyone else. The whole mess is dysfunctional.

It’s healthy in that each are a living example of self sacrifice and love for each other. It’s healthy in that neither are competing with each other to satisfy their own needs before the needs of their spouse. It’s healthy because it allows each to rely on the other such that complete trust is established over a life time.

I continually hear from "good christians" that accepting salvation will make one a better person and inspire one to be Christ-like... yet christians commit crimes at the same rate as any other group. Therefore, I can only conclude your god is very weak, perhaps even powerless. Or maybe he simply doesn't exist.

That’s a pretty interesting assertion could you provide an unbiased source for that claim?

Historically, what usually happened is the woman was "granted" her separation but was essentially imprisoned in a convent for the rest of her life while the man was free to go elsewhere. Not to mention that historically it was female infidelity that was punished while male infidelity was pardoned, if not openly condoned.

Historically? Yes you are correct. Biblically? No not at all. Biblically both woman and man are equally bound to the marriage vows. Both are equally not allowed to remarry unless the other partner is unfaithful. This is just another example of how terrible things happen when man strays from the word of God.

What was that line about by the fruit of the trees you will now them...? Christianity's orchard has a shitload of rotten fruit.

You are very correct there is a huge amount of people who say they are Christian, do things blatently against the scriptures and cause non-believers like yourself to label all of as hypocrites. This “rotten fruit” are wolves in sheep clothing.

[JohnM81]

Yeah, actually two tribes that consider each other separate "races" who are biased against each other are racist, even if WE would define them as being in the same group.

The reality is we are all one species - any other division, even when based on a biological trait, is to one degree or another somewhat arbitrary as in reality there are not sharp divisions between populations but gradations. "Race", although a real concept, is mutable.

So in a nut shell your point is what? The term race is subjective and its meaning is in the definition of the user?

Well almost every Jew will admit they are semitic. Now go look up what other groups belong to the semitic race. And as a person who is of Levite heritage I can tell you everyone in my family acknowledges they and Arabs (not all Arabs though) are the same semitic race. This is their subjective definition. Yours and Mikes “subjective” definition differ. But if we are talking about the semitic race then what matters is what they say.

Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, in that one person is benefiting from the labor of another who has no ability to terminate or change the conditions of the contract. It's not as bad as North American chattel slavery was, but it still exists on the spectrum. In actual fact, the first Africans brought to North America were "indentured servants" legally, and that later evolved into race-based chattel slavery.

A "paid servant" is not an indentured servant. They are an employee.

There is a significant difference between what the new testament talks about a bond servant and being a slave as our society uses the term. Being a servant/bondsman/bondservant is not the same as a slave. The former is a person what willingly agrees to a contract to work off a debt they owe a person. The latter is when a person is owned and they never had any choice in the matter like Africans that were captured, sold into slavery, and sent to the Americas.

Right. He's king, she's chattel. Doesn't matter if she's the most capable of the two, or he's batshit insane, or gone soft in the head - he's the man, he's in charge because he has a penis and testicles and she doesn't. Institutionalized inequality.

Being mandated to observe the fact that a man is the head of the house hold doesn’t relegate her to be chattel, subhuman, or worth less than the man. If asked, when I was a teenager should I have obeyed my parents most people would say that is something I should do. And yet that didn’t make me worth less than my parents. That didn’t make me any less equal to my parents in the eyes of God. And yet my parents valued me enough that I know they would have given their lives for mine. Your point only stands if being told to observe the authority of someone makes you worth less than the one who has authority. And that assumption is just plain false.

Gotta admit, John, there's nothing in that verse that says "By the way - this only applies to worship.

I agree.

Let me get this straight - you're asking an atheist to find a verse in the Bible for you? Haven't you ever heard of a concordance? There's a bunch on the web, even a pagan such as myself knows that.

Let me get this straight - Mike brings up some mystery verse to make a point and it’s my responsibility to identify it for him so he can make an argument? Mike can make his own posts without my help.

[JohnM81]

Well I am off to bed now. I have hospital rotations for the next two weeks and can't stay up late. I am still responding to posts on page five. Hopefully I can catch up with this thread soon. I am half way down the fifth page. I will continue tomorrow.

[Darth Wong]

You're still insisting that it's impossible for any kind of racist behaviour to occur between Jews and Arabs, based on the fact that they have some common ancestry? You still don't realize how ridiculous this position is? How the hell does it follow that it's impossible for two ethnic groups to be racist toward each other if they have any shared ancestry? Your entire argument is based upon this absurd non sequitur.

Let's get this straight, moron: the presence of shared ancestry does not automatically mean that there cannot be any ethnic distinctions. I suppose you're going to say that there was no racism toward the Irish when they started arriving in America, because Irish and British have common ancestry too. Is that what you think?

[Lusankya]

I continually hear from "good christians" that accepting salvation will make one a better person and inspire one to be Christ-like... yet christians commit crimes at the same rate as any other group. Therefore, I can only conclude your god is very weak, perhaps even powerless. Or maybe he simply doesn't exist.

That’s a pretty interesting assertion could you provide an unbiased source for that claim?

Actually, she's wrong. As you can see from here and here, Christians make up about 82% of the US prison popuplation, but only 76.5% of the total US population. So Christians are actually more likely than the average person to commit crimes. Note that my source is the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Incidentally, the non-religious, while making up approximately 14% of the US population, only make up 0.2% of the prison population, so it would seem that people who have independently decided that (for example) it is morally wrong to have children eaten by bears just because they called you "Baldy" are of higher moral calibre than those who would worship someone who does just such a thing as a prophet. Who would have thunk it?

[Lusankya]

(to the mods: sorry about the double post, also, could a mod please fix my url tag)

And incidentally, John, a recent study by the Bana Research Group showed that the divorce rate in America is higher amongst Christians than it is amongst other religious groups, and much higher than that of atheists. The highest divorce rate, in fact, was amongst fundamentalist Christians.

Combine this information with the data I gave in my last post about prison statistics, and tell me what sensible conclusion can be reached regardings atheist ethics vs Christian ethics.

[Setzer]

Relating to the Crusades, they could be considered defensive, since the Holy Land was Christian until it got invaded by Muslims, or more specifically it was (Eastern/Greek) Roman before it got invaded by Arabs.

Rome was weak after a war with the Persians, which was very much a war for their existence. The Persians came damn close to wiping out their ancient foe, but were finally repelled by a series of campaigns by Heraclius. After that, neither power was in any state to repell an army like the one the Muslims had.

The reason Egypt and Syria went over to the Arabs so quickly was because of doctrinal differences in Christianity. The traditional trinity established at the Council of Chalcedon was not accepted universally. There were some who believed Jesus was part human and part divine, that he was all divine, that he was human with a single divine will, etc. etc. Whoever was Emperor at the time determined which viewpoint merited persecution. The Monophysites believed Jesus was entirely divine, and after centuries of persecution, decided Islam was more inline with their views.

The Romanians asked for help on religious grounds, the Pope said yes, and a long exhausting serious of unsuccessful counter-attacks followed. However, it really stretches the definition, typically you would need to be in the same war for the retaking of lost land to be considered defensive. France's Plan XVII was considered an offensive plan, not an defensive one until they crossed the Rhine.

IIRC, the Romans only lost their lands in Armenia and Asia Minor because they refused to abide by a treaty with the Seljuk Turks signed after Manzikert. The Seljuks were originally going to bypass Anatolia and head straight for Egypt. But when you've got an army of migrating tribesmen, it's a bit difficult to keep them all together. The Romans decided to destroy the Seljuks because they couldn't keep their raiders out of Roman territory.
Romanos Diogenes scraped together every soldier he could, got backstabbed by one of his generals (Ducas, IIRC) at the Battle of Manzikert, and was captured by the Turks. He signed a peace treaty, was released, and killed by the man who usurped his throne. The usurper refused to honor the treaty, and a civil war broke out in Byzantium. Both sides hired Seljuks as mercenaries, and the Turks refused to leave afterwards. I really think the situation at the time of the First Crusade was one of the Christian's own making.

[Invictus ChiKen]

PS. You show no interest in retracting your bullshit claim that I automatically accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a liar. Apparently, I didn't spell it out clearly enough last time. I'm spelling it out now: either you back up this claim, retract it, or say goodbye.

Apologies Mike, life has been busy on my end. Consider the claim retracted with my apologies.

[JohnM81]

Gotta admit, John, there's nothing in that verse that says "By the way - this only applies to worship."

There is something interesting there. The Jewish prohibition against women instructing men is a product of 3rd century rabbinic judiasm, it is a legal and cultural rule, not a religious one. Paul was supposedly a rabbi. It stands to reason that he (to the extent he existed) decided he liked this rule and tried to make it a religious command rather than the optional variety that is presently considered outmoded in most of modern Jewry.

It also means he may not have written anything until the 3rd century....

Well while we are simply speculating...

It could also be due to him believing what was revealed to him was inspired by a real entity we call God and so passed the instruction on to others.

[JohnM81]

Being omniscient doesn’t mean God picked the course of action all it means is he knows which course of action is going to be picked by lesser beings with free will (us). Omniscience does cause a break down because it still allows free will as soon as we acknowledge that omniscience doesn’t mean you control every outcome rather you simply know what that outcome is.

Anyway, omnipotence, omniscience, and free will, are incompatible because if you know everything and you're all powerful, you'll make your thoughts into reality, thereby annihilating the free will which supposed caused that course of action in the first place.

1. How does my thoughts becoming manifest into existance deny free will?

2. If I am omnipotent then I am "able" to not allow my thoughts to become reality thus preserving my free will by the standard that you just wrote.

[JohnM81]

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?

I would deny that claim

Why?

There's plenty of contradictory material in that wacky book. Unless the church is promoting doublethink, you need to pick and choose.

Because I believe a book is the inspired work of God and have been able to explain every contradiction by going back to the original hebrew/greek that I have encountered.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gotta admit, John, there's nothing in that verse that says "By the way - this only applies to worship."

There is something interesting there. The Jewish prohibition against women instructing men is a product of 3rd century rabbinic judiasm, it is a legal and cultural rule, not a religious one. Paul was supposedly a rabbi. It stands to reason that he (to the extent he existed) decided he liked this rule and tried to make it a religious command rather than the optional variety that is presently considered outmoded in most of modern Jewry.

It also means he may not have written anything until the 3rd century....

Well while we are simply speculating...

It could also be due to him believing what was revealed to him was inspired by a real entity we call God and so passed the instruction on to others.

What is more likely? Apply parsimony. The naturalistic explanation, or the theistic one? Hell, lets go a step further, we can more readily assume that he had a temporal lobe seizure than assume that god was talking to him

[JohnM81]

If there is no God and no life after death, why should I not live my life as a party animal drinking my fill of happiness at the expense of anyone/everyone?

Seriously, this sentence is exactly why atheists are more moral than Christians like you.

I don't filly my happiness at the expense of others, because they too have no life after death. I can't justify being cruel to others by saying, "Well, at least they'll have it better in heaven." That's right. I treat others well, because I feel a basic concern for them and I don't want them to suffer. I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't believe in judgement, but I have enough generosity to be kind to others. Can you even comprehend that? I seriously doubt it, since you felt the need to ask such a question.

.. that, and living my life as a party animal would probably shorten my life drastically, and since there's no life after death, I wouldn't want that, now, would I?

You missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why would an atheist be moral. There are many atheists who live their lives with great decency towards others because they have their own moral code.

The point of the question was to pose a situation. I am a person who doesn't believe in God, judgement, or anythign else. What would you say to that person (me) if I asked why shouldn't I live my life that maximizes my happiness regardless of others?

[Lusankya]

You missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking why would an atheist be moral. There are many atheists who live their lives with great decency towards others because they have their own moral code.

The point of the question was to pose a situation. I am a person who doesn't believe in God, judgement, or anythign else. What would you say to that person (me) if I asked why shouldn't I live my life that maximizes my happiness regardless of others?

You mean aside from the fact that morality is independent of whether or not you get punished? Clearly you don't understand the concept of doing something merely because it is the moral choice.

Do you really think your actions exist in a vacuum? Sure, you could go around being a dick to everyone, but do you know what? People will end up hating you, because you're a dick. Did you know that people have memories and stuff? They'll remember you after a while and think, "Oh, that's JohnM81. He's a dick. Let's not be nice to him." How many things give you enough long- or short-term happiness to compensate for the fact that you don't have any friends because you're a dick?

[Gandalf]

I would deny that claim

Why?

There's plenty of contradictory material in that wacky book. Unless the church is promoting doublethink, you need to pick and choose.

Because I believe a book is the inspired work of God and have been able to explain every contradiction by going back to the original hebrew/greek that I have encountered.

Fantastic. So are all of the contradictions a mass of translation errors?

[JohnM81]

Just, fuck off, seriously. You're so consumed with your pathetic little religion that you can't even read the goddamned thread, na klar.

Short of a undeserved ban, I don’t see that happening.

Pity they didn't teach you english, and you've certainly proved yourself to be a worthless idiot in terms of your education and capabilities, so, they didn't do so good of a job after all.

My grahmar suks?
And we all know sentence structure is the surest way to prove the existence of God… oh wait…

Oh, it's alright. The whole polemical was an effort at shocking you for a moment, but since it didn't take, you're hopeless to that sort of approach, and I'll leave you be--no reason to drag dirty laundry through the streets. The dogs might get sick.

I just put up a wash so I don’t have any dirty laundry at the moment.

No, because mine isn't an unprovable opinion, it is the best theory to fit the known facts. Whereas your's, I have heard plenty of times, thanks kindly.

Oh then by all means show me your proof.

He is! He'd eat a little twerp like you up like chopped liver, but do it with a politeness to put to shame a saint.

uh huh.

Not an unprovable opinion, but the best theory to fit the known evidence.

I await your proof.

Correct. Your mortal life is spent preparing for your death; ergo, you live for death.

I tell you what, if this whole religion thing is a farse then you are correct. If there is a God and an afterlife then it’s not death we are preparing for… rather it’s an eternal life.

You know, my sister once said that any person who used that phrase was an unreflective idiot, and though that is not proof that you are an unreflective idiot, since you have already proved yourself to be one earlier in this thread, it is confirmation that she is correct.

Well if your sister said it must be true!

Because it's not right. Because there is much work to be done in the world--and there is life to be lived rightly and beautifully. Each life is a painting, and death is but the last and finishing brush-stroke. The idea that the lack of a god absolves us from all moral responsibility was decisively disproved by Kant in the 18th century, and the fact that inherent morality exists, governed and divined by the nature of our bodies and development as sapient primates, is unquestionable. We need no God to behave in a righteous and ethical fashion, and if you do, then you're a sociopath who should be shot for the safety of the rest of us.

“Because it’s not right.”
Right? Who defined right? You? And you want to impose that right/wrong on others?

“Because there is much work to be done in the world—“
Why should I care about the world if there is no absolute objective morality? In other words who is to say caring about the world is “right”?

“and there is life to be lived rightly and beautifully”
Again with this “right” of yours. Are you trying to establish an absolute objective morality that everyone should follow? What if I don’t want to?

“Each life is a painting, and death is but the last and finishing brush-stroke.”
Oh wow… you are like a poet and I didn’t… oh right what your sister said.

“The idea that the lack of a god absolves us from all moral responsibility was decisively disproved by Kant in the 18th century, and the fact that inherent morality exists, governed and divined by the nature of our bodies and development as sapient primates, is unquestionable.”

Inherent morality being governed by our bodies and our species falls on its face in two exceptions.

1. If my end goal isn’t the betterment of my own body rather just my own personal pleasure.
2. I don’t care for the development as a sapient primate.

“We need no God to behave in a righteous and ethical fashion…”
Considering how the atheists on this board have thus conducted themselves this is a pretty weak argument.

It's a pity you didn't listen to them, since they're all right.

Which one? They contradict each other.

I will be more interested in how the Scales judge you if Osiris is there waiting for us.

I’d guess just about the same as Osiris would judge an atheist, so I guess you are screwed to!

Reached out to you and brought you to him? Where did he provide his miraculous proofs of this? Is it just a feeling inside of you? It surely is, I know, a feeling created by decades of brainwashing by your parents and your church. No, no, my good fellow, you are not important enough for the supposed creator of the universe to care about. And it is the height of human arrogance to think otherwise--born-again Christians are the most arrogant people who have ever lived, and we may be reasonably assured that if beings of the power of Yahweh exist that they are more along the lines of Yog-Sothoth than your precious Jesus the Christ.

When? When I was a teenager and into my twenties.
Just a feeling? No, it was an actual event.
You are right I am not important enough for God to care about me but he does… and that I find incredible.

[JohnM81]

Well Im off to bed. Alyrium Denryle I will reply to you next because thats where Im at in reading the thread on page 6.