atheism

[yankee_doodle]

Why are you assuming so many things about me, I don’t understand your attacks? Furthermore, I only responded to your post to add a little perspective because you were implying that the Church is somehow “anti-freedom”, which is indeed your position. I wasn’t exactly expecting ANOTHER put down by you.

I’m not attacking. First you as much as inferred your church built the civilization I live in, now you say you were merely trying to “add a little perspective”?

And yes the church “was” anti-freedom (at least the way we view freedom today); and in some respects it’s still anti-freedom IMO (along with it’s fundamentalist partners).

 

[josie_L]

I’m not attacking. First you as much as inferred your church built the civilization I live in, now you say you were merely trying to “add a little perspective”?

And yes the church “was” anti-freedom (at least the way we view freedom today); and in some respects it’s still anti-freedom IMO (along with it’s fundamentalist partners).

You are attacking me, and you’re somehow making this personal (you’ve called me intellectually dishonest twice and bigoted), furthermore, there are other ways to communicate your differences with people so if you can’t be kind about it then it’s only a reflection of who you are. And yes, the title of the Book is what it is, but that wasn’t the point of what I posted. IMO, the period after the “enlightenment” has brought with it much violence and chaos, but to each their own.

 

[yankee_doodle]

IMO, the period after the “enlightenment” has brought with it much violence and chaos, but to each their own.

sure … freedom doesn’t come cheap. If we wanted to remain slaves of the monarchy and your church I’m sure there would have virtually no violence; but history had different plans.

 

[josie_L]

sure … freedom doesn’t come cheap. If we wanted to remain slaves of the monarchy and your church I’m sure there would have virtually no violence; but history had different plans.

No freedom doesn’t come cheap, and many Christians can attest to this but you’re too blinded to see this.

 

[gearhead]

I would like to disagree with this claim. Judaism as far as I can tell are against any individual human beings to claim they are God. Islam claims the creator of the world is their God from what I know. Hinduism is a totally different story and I do not see any Hindu teachers to claim they themselves are their deities that were considered orthodox Hindu. The same with Buddhism who talks about this enlighten state which is not God. Shinto does not claim any person who have lived to be a diety either right? Only aspects of their lives and or their existence, not the individuals.

That wasn’t the claim. What I posted was in response to this statement about Christianity:

It is based in history, whereas most religions make little or no historical claims.

I was saying that all those other religions make a significant number of historical claims.

Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am not wrong, then the quote you are trying to refute still stands. Jesus teaches us he is the Son, whom we understand to be the second person if the Trinity.

At this point, I’m not really sure what quote you think I’m trying to refute.

 

[josie_L]

first of all Lawrence was a case involving men who were engaged in a consentual sexual act (in the privacy of their own home); it had nothing to do with marriage. Secondly, I never suggested that some people out there won’t try to use all sorts of absurd arguments to advance their twisted agenda. However, how far did Green get with his legal arguments? If you don’t know allow me to enlighten you… 5 to life!!

Let me create an analogy to show you how fallacious your logic is. Imagine someone would like to institute Shariah law as the law of the land in the United States. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of religious advocates on occasion. For instance, high school students can participate in voluntary extracurricular religious clubs on school property. If our good friend who proposes national enactment of Shariah law relies on the cases which won the right for those high school students to participate in student religious organizations, does that give me license to create a nexus between the two? Of course not … yet this is exactly what you’re doing.

By the way, I made no commentary on the Green case, what I was trying to demonstrate and what I found interesting about what I quoted is how the ACLU was involved in the matter and what their stance was on polygamy and family. I would surmise that you view polygamy as wrong and as such should not be made legal, why?

 

[shoewindow3000]

Oy, so much bickering!

Why so much pride!
Which reminds me…

The reason the Egyptians didn’t record the Exodus of the Hebrew people (and many more humiliations in Egyptian history) is because they were a proud people.

This isn’t my expert opinion. My grandfather just so happens to be an Egyptologist(and an atheist by the way, so don’t claim he is biased toward the Bible).

He said that they wouldn’t record it if it happened, because it would “look bad” that the most powerful nation around couldn’t even hold onto their slaves(I don’t remember his *exact *words, but I’m paraphrasing his 30 minute explanation why lol).

He even mentioned one time when the Egyptian Pharaoh asked for peace from a neighboring nation to the north. However, when Pharaoh returned to Egypt, he put up statues with inscriptions boasting something along the lines of, “He came begging on his knees to me for peace.” I guess *ego *and legacy mean more than truth to some!

---

Another reason that I later thought of is this: (I know you atheists won’t care for this one. You probably didn’t care for the last one, either!)

Imagine being Pharaoh. “Their” God just essentially “showed up” the gods *you *worship. Would you really want to record that?

 

[yankee_doodle]

By the way, I made no commentary on the Green case, what I was trying to demonstrate and what I found interesting about what I quoted is how the ACLU was involved in the matter and what their stance was on polygamy and family. I would surmise that you view polygamy as wrong and as such should not be made legal, why?

sure … not that I’m gonna judge a guy whose fortunate enough to have a bunch of hot chicks (ADULT chicks) at his beckoned call (Hugh Hefner is my personal hero ); but of course that’s not the case with Mormon polygamists who basically enslave teenage (or pre-teen) girls and force them to satisfy their perverted and aberrent desires. These men are criminals and should be imprisoned accordingly.

 

[josie_L]

sure … not that I’m gonna judge a guy whose fortunate enough to have a bunch of hot chicks (ADULT chicks) at his beckoned call (Hugh Hefner is my personal hero ); but of course that’s not the case with Mormon polygamists who basically enslave teenage (or pre-teen) girls and force them to satisfy their perverted and aberrent desires. These men are criminals and should be imprisoned accordingly.

But what if they were adults, would you allow polygamy (legalize it throughout all states)? I’m asking because I’d like to know how far people would go in order to satisfy the “rights” of a specific group/individuals?

p.s. I think Hugh Hefner should invest in some clothes (idiot that he is).

 

[yankee_doodle]

But what if they were adults, would you allow polygamy (legalize it throughout all states)? I’m asking because I’d like to know how far people would go in order to satisfy the “rights” of a specific group/individuals?

p.s. I think Hugh Hefner should invest in some clothes (idiot that he is).

this is just a classic red herring … the type of argument you use when your position is irrational.

You’re literally saying we should oppress one group of law abiding consenting adults because an entirely separate group of people may demand the right to engage in a currently criminalized practice?

I can’t speculate on how other groups might use a precedent like gay marriage to bolster their cause, nor is it relevant.

Imagine if your religion were banned and you were arguing in favor of legalizing its practice. Now also imagine there are other religions out there who engage in all sorts of bizarre and harmful practices (like drug use, sex with minors, etc.). I’m the guy fighting to retain the status quo and I say if we legalize Catholicism then these bizarre cults will use that precedent to try and argue for legalization of their religion (and legalization of practices like drug use and sex with minors within the context of their religious worship). I’m able to rile the majority into a frenzy, convincing them if we legalize the Christian religion their children will become the target of sexual predators who will abuse them in horrific ways.

Try and imagine that world … then imagine how you would feel?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

this is just a classic red herring … the type of argument you use when your position is irrational.

You’re literally saying we should oppress one group of law abiding consenting adults because an entirely separate group of people may demand the right to engage in a currently criminalized practice?

I can’t speculate on how other groups might use a precedent like gay marriage to bolster their cause, nor is it relevant.

Imagine if your religion were banned and you were arguing in favor of legalizing its practice. Now also imagine there are other religions out there who engage in all sorts of bizarre and harmful practices (like drug use, sex with minors, etc.). I’m the guy fighting to retain the status quo and I say if we legalize Catholicism then these bizarre cults will use that precedent to try and argue for legalization of their religion (and legalization of practices like drug use and sex with minors within the context of their religious worship). I’m able to rile the majority into a frenzy, convincing them if we legalize the Christian religion their children will become the target of sexual predators who will abuse them in horrific ways.

Try and imagine that world … then imagine how you would feel?

Correct.

 

[josie_L]

this is just a classic red herring … the type of argument you use when your position is irrational.

You’re literally saying we should oppress one group of law abiding consenting adults because an entirely separate group of people may demand the right to engage in a currently criminalized practice?

I can’t speculate on how other groups might use a precedent like gay marriage to bolster their cause, nor is it relevant.

Imagine if your religion were banned and you were arguing in favor of legalizing its practice. Now also imagine there are other religions out there who engage in all sorts of bizarre and harmful practices (like drug use, sex with minors, etc.). I’m the guy fighting to retain the status quo and I say if we legalize Catholicism then these bizarre cults will use that precedent to try and argue for legalization of their religion (and legalization of practices like drug use and sex with minors within the context of their religious worship). I’m able to rile the majority into a frenzy, convincing them if we legalize the Christian religion their children will become the target of sexual predators who will abuse them in horrific ways.

Try and imagine that world … then imagine how you would feel?

No, you’re setting up a red herring as we know very well that Americans were given freedom of religion by the forefathers of America (and news flash, bizarre cults already exist in droves). What I’m trying to make you understand is setting precedence (in America) by redefining the word marriage, and what that would entail? Now I’ll ask you again, would you legalize polygamy if they were consenting adults in the picture? God bless.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No, you’re setting up a red herring as we know very well that Americans were given freedom of religion by the forefathers of America (and news flash, bizarre cults already exist in droves). What I’m trying to make you understand is setting precedence (in America) by redefining the word marriage, and what that would entail? Now I’ll ask you again, would you legalize polygamy if they were consenting adults in the picture? God bless.

Many places do marry homosexuals so the word is not confined to two people of different sex.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

Yes we believe that everything in the Bible is the inspired “Word of God”, but do you not understand the meaning of the words “new covenant” and “revelation”? The whole raison d’etre of the Bible was to reveal God’s purpose and plan to save the world through the one the Jews called the Messiah. The arrival of Jesus is basically the culmination of salvation history, i.e., the new covenant with Jews and Gentiles. We do not abide by the old covenant.

If you don’t abide by the old covenant then you don’t abide by the 10 commandments? Why are homosexuals still discriminated against?

If the new covenant is the literal word of god that you follow now, then why do you not support slavery as jesus did? Or admonish your women to be quiet in church? Why didn’t he come back when he promised that he would?

Here are other thigns to consider…

If jesus died for our sins and, then why do women still suffer pain in childbirth and men still toil in the fields as punishment for the original sin?

Why is it that we forget that in the last book of the new testament Jesus says that the evil god of the OT will get back to his old ways? Why do we believe that he says that he comes not as a hand for peace but a sword to divide brother from brother?

Just some thoughts

Peace

 

[josie_L]

Many places do marry homosexuals so the word is not confined to two people of different sex.

These other countries have little effect on the world in comparison to America.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

No, you’re setting up a red herring as we know very well that Americans were given freedom of religion by the forefathers of America (and news flash, bizarre cults already exist in droves). What I’m trying to make you understand is setting precedence (in America) by redefining the word marriage, and what that would entail? Now I’ll ask you again, would you legalize polygamy if they were consenting adults in the picture? God bless.

You are against the term marriage being redefined? It won’t be redefined, it will be expanded to stop discriminating against those who love as we do but with partners of the same gender. Just like it was when it was changed to allow interacial marriages. Just like it was when it was a business arrangement between families? Just like it was before women had equal rights in marriage?

If you are against the term being redefined, then you might want to look at the many times it has been redefined before.

It is not being redined as much as it is being opened to the rest of those who were denied before.

peace

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

But what if they were adults, would you allow polygamy (legalize it throughout all states)? I’m asking because I’d like to know how far people would go in order to satisfy the “rights” of a specific group/individuals?

p.s. I think Hugh Hefner should invest in some clothes (idiot that he is).

Polygamy is a hard question, but this is what it boils down to. If polygamist marriages are allowed then they deny women rights. That is the fact. If there are divorces in those marriages, a man simply can’t provide a fair division of assets as he would in other marriages and that clearly is a violation of her rights.
She may agree when marrying, but her opinions when leaving that marriage might be another thought altogether. That is why I think that it should stay illegal. If you can demonstrate harm or discrimination, then that is an impetus to legislate. Gay marriage simply doesn’t harm anyone, and it does allow loving couples rights that they should have access to.

That is my take on it until shown evidence to the contrary.

peace

 

[josie_L]

If you don’t abide by the old covenant then you don’t abide by the 10 commandments? Why are homosexuals still discriminated against?

Yes, I abide by the 10 commandments, but those commandments are also present in the New Testament. Can you please be more specific when you say that homosexuals are discriminated against by Christians?

If the new covenant is the literal word of god that you follow now, then why do you not support slavery as jesus did? Or admonish your women to be quiet in church? Why didn’t he come back when he promised that he would?

Jesus did not support slavery (and the slavery that was mentioned in the Bible is in reference to indentured servitude not chattel slavery the kind which the Jews had experienced in Egypt). And remember, Jesus did not die for political reasons/revolution (this was however what the Jews were expecting) but to spiritually revolutionize the world as to vanquish all evil (including slavery). As for women (I’m a woman) remaining quiet in church, I believe St. Paul meant they could not preach in church, i.e., they could not be priests. And he did come back, he’s in the eucharist, but if you’re referencing the second coming that will eventually happen but nobody knows when.

Here are other thigns to consider…

If jesus died for our sins and, then why do women still suffer pain in childbirth and men still toil in the fields as punishment for the original sin?

Jesus saved us from the death of sin (took away original sin) by opening the gates of heaven so that upon our deaths we could come home to our heavenly abode. It wasn’t the intent of God to do away with all pain and suffering that a concupiscent nature as brought forth through original sin, however, Jesus has now given us the Church that can unloose and bind our sins and grant us the grace of baptism, reconciliation, communion, and confirmation. These were given to us freely because of his love.

Why is it that we forget that in the last book of the new testament Jesus says that the evil god of the OT will get back to his old ways? Why do we believe that he says that he comes not as a hand for peace but a sword to divide brother from brother?

What are you talking about I’m not sure I understand your meaning? And furthermore, Jesus does bring peace but the problem is other people, for example, in Islam to convert to another religion can be penalized by death, so if someone were to convert to christianity this could cause great difficulty and even harm to the person. Jesus foresaw the many problems that would arise in those who wished to follow him, even today many Christians are being persecuted for simply following Christ.

Peace and God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Polygamy is a hard question, but this is what it boils down to. If polygamist marriages are allowed then they deny women rights. That is the fact. If there are divorces in those marriages, a man simply can’t provide a fair division of assets as he would in other marriages and that clearly is a violation of her rights.
She may agree when marrying, but her opinions when leaving that marriage might be another thought altogether. That is why I think that it should stay illegal. If you can demonstrate harm or discrimination, then that is an impetus to legislate. Gay marriage simply doesn’t harm anyone, and it does allow loving couples rights that they should have access to.

That is my take on it until shown evidence to the contrary.

peace

Actually, I wouldn’t deny gays the rights they should have access to, but I would simple say let them have these rights within civil unions without changing or redefining marriage (a covenant/contract between man and woman for the purpose of creating a loving and protective environment for children brought about by their sexual union). Furthermore, I kind of see what you mean about polygamy, but I’m assuming that those who practice it have the financial means to support the women which they have married, therefore, if one should wish to divorce than the husband would have the alimony she deserves. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

You are against the term marriage being redefined? It won’t be redefined, it will be expanded to stop discriminating against those who love as we do but with partners of the same gender. Just like it was when it was changed to allow interacial marriages. Just like it was when it was a business arrangement between families? Just like it was before women had equal rights in marriage?

If you are against the term being redefined, then you might want to look at the many times it has been redefined before.

It is not being redined as much as it is being opened to the rest of those who were denied before.

peace

What you’ve mentioned above is not a redefinition of marriage like it would be if we allowed gays to marry (marriage was for almost all of human history a contract between man and woman by which they could procreate and protect their offspring).