Post by: Bogie on February 12, 2007, 06:57:25 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2007, 06:58:15 AM
Answer to the thread body question: yes.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 12, 2007, 07:40:06 AM
Why shouldn't they be allowed to have children?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2007, 07:42:36 AM
To anyone who says "no", who the hell would you have enforce that? The government? Allowed? Are you kidding? ALLOWED? NOT ALLOWED?
Anyone who tried to enforce that, well...that's one of the reasons I'm armed, as that's the sort of thing that'd call for the immediate and complete removal of an unjust power. And I've never heard of secular sorts denying their children care, fatally, because they believed in "faith healing" instead.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 12, 2007, 07:54:57 AM
Basing an individual's parental credibility on whether they are "high and mighty with a self-righteously religous aura" is going to leave us with a bunch of Fred Phelps-types or, worse, those who -- by Divine Right -- believe they are in positions to judge.
Preachers, Laymen, Evangelicals, Rabbis, Shaman, Ministers, Cardinals, clergy, self-styled prophets, and/or religous hedonists don't require any additional reason to believe they are special: for them, it's all-encompassing to begin with. Determining who is worthy of the Rights of Humanity comes natural to such delusion.
Post by: charby on February 12, 2007, 08:26:08 AM
If it happen here in America where certain only people can have children then the masses need to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Post by: wingnutx on February 12, 2007, 08:26:32 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 08:28:44 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on February 12, 2007, 08:29:47 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2007, 08:42:54 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2007, 08:48:31 AM
Atheists and agnostics are obviously immoral people, at best amoral. The biggest killers of the 20th century were not religiously-based but were actually atheistic philosophies. Allowing children to be brought up in that kind of environment is bad for society as a whole. Ergo they shouldnt have any.
"Gott Mit Uns"...WHO had that on their belt buckles? GOD F-ing WITH US? Huh? Huh?
WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE who flew the planes into the towers on 9/11 doing it based on? FAITH! In their GOD. The power of FAITH is blood running in the streets in the Crusades, dead natives at the feet of Spanish conquistadors, twisted metal in NYC, shouts of "god is great" before suicide bombers blow themselves up, and Fred Phelps' "GOD HATES F_GS" signs outside soldier's funerals. THERE is your FAITH. Soaked in bloody, murderous delusions and HATE. And to be blunt with you..you, or anyone who would actually stand in the way of an American's right to have children, one of the most BASIC human rights...anyone who would do that is an evil, immoral hypocrite that is using their self-righteous religiosity to excuse evil.
I am SICK of religiosity hypocrites excusing their horrible behavior and lack of respect for others due to their "faith", be they Muslim fanatics or Christianity fanatics who mistake themselves for actual Christians. Would Jesus Christ as he's written have espoused such a disgusting denial of rights? Would he?
And ANY who would actually physically deny such rights to other human beings, if they did so, justice would need to be served by any means of resistance and defeat necessary!
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: dictionary.com
a·mor·al /eɪˈmɔrəl, æˈmɔr-, eɪˈmɒr-, æˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key -
adjective
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
adjective
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Atheists and agnostics are obviously immoral people, at best amoral.
You assert that people who do not subscribe to Deity have no moral standards, restraints, or principles? That they are unaware of or are indifferent to questions of right or wrong?Please support this position. Use facts. Refrain from ad hominem.
-BP
Post by: Sindawe on February 12, 2007, 08:54:35 AM
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 12, 2007, 08:58:19 AM
This should be fun. Who wants popcorn?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
Oh, don't forget that by his logic, an agnostic is somehow less moral than a Good Christianist (I don't even call them Christian, 'cause they're not) who tells their kids to hate Jews, or a Muslim who is proud that their kid want to blow themselves up for jihad!
Try that one!
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 09:02:54 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 12, 2007, 09:11:15 AM
Does this particular form of atheism prevent the atheists from procreating on their own, or will they require intervention from the state to become parents?
Is this particular form of atheism liable to harm the child?
(How is this question any different from the other "Should XYZ be allowed to have children?" questions y'all have been discussing lately?)
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 09:18:16 AM
Quote
Does this particular form of atheism prevent the atheists from procreating on their own?
And, more importantly, whose name do they shout while they're trying? "Darwin! Darwin!"? -BP
Post by: Art Eatman on February 12, 2007, 09:41:18 AM
, Art
Post by: richyoung on February 12, 2007, 09:47:09 AM
Atheists and agnostics are obviously immoral people, at best amoral. The biggest killers of the 20th century were not religiously-based but were actually atheistic philosophies. Allowing children to be brought up in that kind of environment is bad for society as a whole. Ergo they shouldnt have any.
"Gott Mit Uns"...WHO had that on their belt buckles? GOD F-ing WITH US? Huh? Huh?
Yeah, they also had 'Arbeit macht frie" above the gate to Dachau....don't confuse the advertising with the facts - the Nazi's were godless ghouls who were more than willing to pay lip service to the anti-semitic fringe of Christianity...or Islam, for that matter. Hey, they were good enough for Mahatma Ghandi!
Quote
WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE who flew the planes into the towers on 9/11 doing it based on? FAITH! In their GOD. The power of FAITH is blood running in the streets in the Crusades, dead natives at the feet of Spanish conquistadors, twisted metal in NYC, shouts of "god is great" before suicide bombers blow themselves up, and Fred Phelps' "GOD HATES F_GS" signs outside soldier's funerals. THERE is your FAITH. Soaked in bloody, murderous delusions and HATE.
Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Red China, Soviet Union, Hungarian Uprising, Chzechoslavakian Uprising, Invasion of Afghanistan, Cultural Revolution - over 100 million dead in less than a century - the ABSENCE of religion seems to have no shortage of ..."bloody, murderous delusions and HATE".
Quote
And to be blunt with you..you, or anyone who would actually stand in the way of an American's right to have children, one of the most BASIC human rights...anyone who would do that is an evil, immoral hypocrite that is using their self-righteous religiosity to excuse evil.
Garch. I thought the knock on CHristians was that they tried to talk women out of having abortions - which seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of what we are talking about. What "Christians" are publically holding forth this opinion? References, please....
Quote
I am SICK of religiosity hypocrites excusing their horrible behavior and lack of respect for others due to their "faith", be they Muslim fanatics or Christianity fanatics who mistake themselves for actual Christians. Would Jesus Christ as he's written have espoused such a disgusting denial of rights? Would he?
Has anyone? Have they? Again, references, please...
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 12, 2007, 10:01:41 AM
Post by: Laurent du Var on February 12, 2007, 10:15:16 AM
Post by: Hugh Damright on February 12, 2007, 10:18:50 AM
Quote
Should atheists, agnostics, etc. be allowed to have children?
Sure ... as long as they aren't homosexuals.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2007, 11:03:19 AM
Quote
Should atheists, agnostics, etc. be allowed to have children?
Sure ... as long as they aren't homosexuals.
All atheists are homosexuals. You know that.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 11:07:25 AM
Quote
All atheists are homosexuals. You know that.
Does this mean that all agnostics are bisexual?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 11:09:52 AM
Regardless, the only sure way to keep agnostics, atheists and Oprah fans from abusing children is to kill them all.
Post by: Werewolf on February 12, 2007, 11:10:58 AM
It seems that the many are WRONG!
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2007, 11:12:41 AM
It's all so clear now. Thanks.
-BP
Post by: MechAg94 on February 12, 2007, 11:16:58 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 11:17:24 AM
"Gott Mit Uns" was on the belt-buckle of the common German soldiers, at least some of which did believe in it in earnest. If you want to take a swing at the Nazis instead, please do not forget that their belt-buckles had a very different motto.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2007, 11:21:44 AM
Some agnostics are not sure of their sexual orientation. Others claim it is not possible to know one's sexual orientation.
Regardless, the only sure way to keep agnostics, atheists and Oprah fans from abusing children is to kill them all.
Regardless, the only sure way to keep agnostics, atheists and Oprah fans from abusing children is to kill them all.
Darn. Beat me to it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 11:25:48 AM
Post by: richyoung on February 12, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
One small technical point:
"Gott Mit Uns" was on the belt-buckle of the common German soldiers, at least some of which did believe in it in earnest. If you want to take a swing at the Nazis instead, please do not forget that their belt-buckles had a very different motto.
"Gott Mit Uns" was on the belt-buckle of the common German soldiers, at least some of which did believe in it in earnest. If you want to take a swing at the Nazis instead, please do not forget that their belt-buckles had a very different motto.
...I do recall 'twas the Nazis giving the orders to the rest of the military, and rather NOT the other way around....also seem to recall that the Nazis in particular ran the camps....
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on February 12, 2007, 01:28:34 PM
Oh. You're talking about Heisenberg's Sexual Ambiguity Principle, which states: It's not possible to know your sexual orientation until you're actually having sex, and the very act of having sex can change your orientation, and how fast you're having sex.
It's all so clear now. Thanks.
-BP
It's all so clear now. Thanks.
-BP
Paw, I read that, and I have been laughing now ever since reading that. And ranging from chuckles to full on laugh out loud hilarity. People are starting to look at me funny......
Post by: Loucks on February 12, 2007, 02:15:12 PM
Post by: Kyle on February 12, 2007, 02:35:18 PM
Anything else is immoral brainwashing and outright indoctrination, and concerning an innocent child's eternal soul, no less.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2007, 02:51:36 PM
FWIW, I know a guy who was "indoctrinated" by his parents to be quite a sharp, well-read young atheist, who enjoyed debating hapless Christians. In his mid-teens, he was quickly "indoctrinated" by my very conservative church. He's a preacher now. Happens the other way, too.
Post by: mountainclmbr on February 12, 2007, 03:49:26 PM
Post by: griz on February 12, 2007, 04:07:28 PM
Post by: Lee on February 12, 2007, 04:33:00 PM
Post by: mnrivrat on February 12, 2007, 06:47:55 PM
? I tell you what - I am an atheist , and I will give a $10,000 reward to the first woman who gets me pregnant. (by natural means of course) Since I think that will take an act of god , I am pretty comfortable with both my non-beliefs , and my $10,000 .
All you religious woman out there however are free to apply for the reward though !
Post by: Bogie on February 12, 2007, 07:38:44 PM
If it is dark, and one is having sex, one really should turn on a light to make sure it is not with a cat.
And if you think it is still, then it is probably moving.
Be careful tho, because if the cat knows you are there, then it's may move and scratch you.
But all this is moot, because sex often leads to dancing.
Post by: Kyle on February 12, 2007, 08:28:16 PM
Seriously though, I am an athiest, although I don't have kids yet. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I never really thought about it before... I suppose I should get on that.
Now let me ask a question, in all seriousness. If you raise your kid to be of the same faith as you, the chances are VERY high that they will remain of that faith for their whole lives.
Now, I am an athiest, remember, so I am not picking sides here. Just a hypothetical.
Let's assume that the Christian God isnt as forgiving of little errors as modern liberalized Christians like to think. Lets say, that the ONLY people with real favor of God and a chance to get into Heaven are very strict Catholics. God sees all the protestant faiths as perversions of his holy word. If this is the case, and you raise your kid Lutheran, and judgement day comes, isnt that kind of "oops... my bad"?
Especialy if there was a chance, if you had left it up to them, that they might have chosen to be the favored strict Catholic?
Just musings, not trying to get anyone riled up.
And I DO assume all the athiests should not be able to have kids is all-in-good-fun joking around?
Post by: Bogie on February 12, 2007, 08:31:25 PM
Post by: Strings on February 12, 2007, 10:13:48 PM
This is different from normal how, AD? :neener:
And damn, Rabbi: that was one hell of a tug on Manedwolf's chain!
Post by: richyoung on February 13, 2007, 04:33:46 AM
This should be fun. Who wants popcorn?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
Oh, don't forget that by his logic, an agnostic is somehow less moral than a Good Christianist (I don't even call them Christian, 'cause they're not) who tells their kids to hate Jews,
Been a Baptist all my life - never met such a critter. I was taught that Jesus was a Rabbi, and that the Jews are God's Chosen People, and that "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, my bretheren, (Jews), you have done unto Me..." Care to give a refeence to a mainstream Protestant denomination that holds the views you cite?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 04:42:21 AM
Post by: Chris on February 13, 2007, 05:41:27 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 05:52:18 AM
The question in these two adoption threads is not whether one or the other type of family will commit blatant abuse. The question is whether some sexual orientations or religious viewpoints are inherently abusive environments. The focus is mental and emotional, rather than physical.
So, anyway, hows about we round up them non-religious folks for a draft, since they don't fear death.
Post by: tyme on February 13, 2007, 06:24:11 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Answer to the thread title question: no.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Atheists and agnostics are obviously immoral people, at best amoral.
Die in a fire.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 13, 2007, 07:08:16 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Answer to the thread title question: no.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Atheists and agnostics are obviously immoral people, at best amoral.
Die in a fire.
Care to elaborate?
Post by: Mabs2 on February 13, 2007, 12:05:29 PM
It's not atheists that shouldn't have children, nor Christians, or Jews, or any other religion or race.
It's none of us!
The world would be SO much more peaceful without us humans spreading violence, hate and destruction about.
(Except the animals killing each other, that'd still be pretty violent)
(And the plants killing animals, that's pretty nasty.)
(And also the plants killing other plants.)
(And the environment killing those plants...)
Post by: RevDisk on February 13, 2007, 03:50:55 PM
This also includes people who are not members of your particular religous sect.
No religious or atheist zealot has enough arms or self-righteous zeal, on this side or the Beyond, to stop me from living my life. At best, they can kill me. Freedom is not lost by others taking it from you. Freedom is lost by you giving it up.
Such lunatics have tried already. I hope no others will be so stupid. I doubt it. I don't own weapons in fear of mugging or home invasion. I own weapons because I've seen religious lunatics murder people by the hundreds and bury them in unmarked mass graves.
Molon labe.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 04:27:23 PM
Post by: Strings on February 13, 2007, 04:37:16 PM
Me? Last time I had the offer to become firewood, I offered to use the antagonists as targets...
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 04:40:45 PM
Post by: RevDisk on February 13, 2007, 05:11:39 PM
Ah, crap! And we've spent so much TIME preparing to crack down on you pagan.
Na. Mostly twits so stupid you'd think they forget to breathe.
Seriously, though. Yes, there are some Christians that believe in using physical violence solely based on religious beliefs. Others racial. Others, who knows, maybe just the voices in their head. It's not the majority, nowhere close. But it's enough to make folks edgy at times. Rightly so.
Many (most?) religions claim to be based on peaceful purposes. A glance at any history shows otherwise. Every major religion has at some point been oppressive, and occasionally murderous. It's human nature. Nature, red in tooth and claw.
If you honestly believe no member of your religion is a bad egg, I admire your innocence or naivety.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 06:23:44 PM
Post by: tyme on February 13, 2007, 06:34:51 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=die+in+a+fire
Post by: Sindawe on February 13, 2007, 06:45:37 PM
Quote
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Gots to write that one down.
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 13, 2007, 08:54:31 PM
.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 14, 2007, 02:30:12 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 04:58:22 AM
If you honestly believe no member of your religion is a bad egg, I admire your innocence or naivety.
Did I give that impression? I've met some bad eggs in my religion, just not any that would make me want to stock up on weapons, were I a pagan. I'm not calling you guys liars, but it's hard to overcome the dissonance between your stories and what I know about American Christians. I've met a lot of Ned Flanders types and never anyone as bad as Fred Phelps. Even his group doesn't seem to be violent; just vile.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 05:01:04 AM
What a ridiculous question, a persons religious convictions have no bearing on their right to reproduce. Wow just wow...........when you think youve seen it all .
.Gullible.
Post by: valencia on February 14, 2007, 01:37:33 PM
This should be fun. Who wants popcorn?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
extra butter please!!!
should they be allowed?!? pfft! what kind of question is that?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 02:06:40 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on February 14, 2007, 04:29:49 PM
This should be fun. Who wants popcorn?
So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
No thanks: So as I understand your stated position Rabbi, atheists/agnostics can't have kids, but Pagans, Hindus, etc. can?
Post by: mnrivrat on February 14, 2007, 07:20:54 PM
Story of my life - God hates us atheists !
Post by: Kyle on February 16, 2007, 06:50:53 AM
Obviously, there was an angry crowd around him allllll day. I (the heretical pagan) pissed off all my religious friends, by asking them why they were upset with the guy.
After all, he just takes his religion seriously, and doesn't pick and choose what he will and wont believe on, the durn "extremeist."
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 16, 2007, 07:14:02 AM
Can you supply the preacher's name, or denomination, or something that tells me what he believes in? Where did this take place? Let's expose these wierdos.
Why were your religious friends upset with him?
Post by: LAK on February 20, 2007, 05:44:55 AM
Quote
Should atheists, agnostics, etc. be allowed to have children?
This also includes people who are not members
This also includes people who are not members
And just who or what claims to have the authority to give or withhold "permission" for anyone - any free person - to have children?
And who or what gave this entity the power or authority to do so?
-------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 06:59:04 AM
In case you dont read the whole thing, the Secular Students Alliance brought him out because they were tired of hearing Christians say "I've never met a Christian like that," ala fistful.
My Christian friends were upset at him... because he was "twisting Christianity and making it look hateful." I would point out, he is not making any of this up and at the very worst he is exagerating some things found in the bible. I have more respect for this dude's faith than I do those friends of mine who complained about him. He says it like it is, and doesnt water his faith down to fit into modern society... even if his faith is utterly disgusting.
http://media.www.theindependentutsa.com/media/storage/paper1093/news/2007/02/19/News/Venyah.Condemns.Utsa-2727034.shtml
Venyah Condemns UTSA
Secular Student Alliance brings Preacher to Campus
Kalia Malone
Issue date: 2/19/07 Section: News
Michael Venyah, 38 year old from Michigan, decided to head to UTSA "last Saturday after the Lord commanded me to come." With wife of three and a half years, Tamika, and their child, Venyah travels the world spreading his message. His goal? To save the sinners from hell. His message drew such a strong response from the student body he was removed from campus on Monday and Tuesday.
Wednesday, Secular Student Alliance stepped in and gave him a table under their organization. "We believe in the right to freedom of speech" said Nick Paschall, President of SSA.
"Venyah was being removed from campus because of what he was saying." Paschall said. "Showing just how much we believe in the first amendment, we decided to share a table with Venyah."
While he passed out things like "You have been lied to about God" SSA passed out condoms from UTSA student health center and fliers for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who opposes "the dangerous agenda of Religious Right groups like the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family." SSA doesn't agree with him but "brought him to show what they don't like, closed minded individuals."
Venyah could be considered closed minded. His bright red shirt displayed "All homos go to Hell", and "No Homos go to Heaven" in bold letters, but his message was not limited to those who live a homosexual lifestyle. According to Venyah, anyone who sins by any definition the Bible gives is headed down. Both him and his wife claim to live a life completely without sin, although Tamika said that "if I sin I am no longer a Christian." When asked if he takes the Bible literally, he said "the Bible is for literal interpretation with metaphoric context."
Students from all backgrounds agreed that Venyah was not the best vessel to give a message of turning to God. Ryan, a Political Science major and Junior at UTSA said "it's about the end result not about the freedom of speech. No on should be subjected to a hate message." According to Venyah, God does in fact hate some people. "God does not love those who sin against him" he said when asked. He also mentioned Ezekiel 7:3-4 that talks about the judgment of God.
Ana Graves, Campus Minister with Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship, said "he portrayed Christianity as a hateful thing. The truth is Jesus loves us and wants us to show love to others." Although she did admit that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, she said "God is a forgiving God, one that loves us in the midst of our sins." She was not alone. Anthony, Psychology major and senior said that Venyah made him "uncomfortable". He quoted Paul the Apostle, "'would you rather I came with a whip or with love,' people don't respond well to a whip".
"It's a little crazy. He's supposed to be a man of god and it's like, he has a lot of hatred." Said Tiffany Kindred, a students who seemed offended by Venyah's preaching. "It's just a lot. If we don't get it right we're all gonna go to hell."
After his interview, Venyah prayed that I would "turn to the Lord and escape damnation" and as a reporter I would share the truth. Was his prayer successful? You tell me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: 'extremeist' christian preacher
If you go to college, you are doing it for money, and are a greedy bastard. Also, you should spend your study time worshiping God, than worshiping false idols like Knowledge, Satan's fruit
And you took this for authentic Christian doctrine? You thought your "religious friends" should accept this as part of their Christianity? Why? Kyle, let me see if I understand you. You think that the Bible, or true Christianity, is hateful and/or irrational or anti-intellectual? Something like that? And therefore any Christian who won't profess those kinds of views is an intellectual coward or is choosing to ignore parts of the Bible they have trouble with? OK. I would agree that a lot of people do that. I have also met people who don't seem to. Have you read the Bible? Have you looked into the way differrent branches of Christianity interpret it? You could hardly expect everyone to get the same message from such a large book that has so many things to say. Are all of your "religious friends" of the same denomination? Would you say their Christianity was liberal or conservative?
The following are examples of Christians claiming the "extreme" things you want them to admit.
Quote
an "extremeist" christian preacher came to my university the other day to preach at us about how we were all going to hell for (insert one of 1001 reasons) or somesuch.
Well, I can find you plenty of Christians who say that sinners go to hell. Most of them won't go to a college campus to say it, of course. My pastor has preached this at colleges in the past. Quote
After all, he just takes his religion seriously, and doesn't pick and choose what he will and wont believe on.
What is it that Christians are choosing not to believe? That homosexuals are going to hell? Well, thousands of people have studied the Bible and have come to different conclusions on that. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that sin is punished by hell. But things get cloudier from there. Some believe one can have saving faith and still commit sins like homosexuality. Some believe that sins like murder, homosexuality and others would indicate a lack of saving faith. And that's just the beginning of variant points of view. Quote
Tamika said that "if I sin I am no longer a Christian."
My preacher says that sort of thing all the time. He thinks it's very clearly taught in scripture. I do not. His is the minority position.Quote
According to Venyah, God does in fact hate some people. "God does not love those who sin against him" he said when asked.
My local Lutheran radio show (LCMS) was teaching that God hates unrepentant sinners just the other day. Of course, they might use the word differently than you do.
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 08:39:02 AM
The tie that binds them both together is that they both pick and choose what to believe, and what not to believe. The "conservative" ones base their homos-are-sinners belief on an obscure passage from Leviticus. However, that same book spells out how to handle menstrating women, how to clean yourself if you get ejaculate on yourself, the necessity of and proper way to ritualisticaly sacrifice animals, etc. It also says that rabbits are unclean because they chew cud but don't have split hooves... even though rabbits do NOT chew their cud. I would exhaust myself if I kept going.
The idea is, they harp on the laying with man as you would with a woman, but they IGNORE everything else. They can quote the gay passage verbatim but they cant even give a light outline of the rest of Leviticus. Who taught them to do that, huh? The gay ones can quote the whole book of Leviticus but ignore the simple fact that the Bible they love so much calls them abominations.
And you are going to claim that Christianity is not inherently anti-intelectual? In the Bible, REASON and INTELEGENCE are held up to be the paths tp Hell. Blind faith is the right path. Doubt is the best way to achieve knowledge, but doubt is forbidden in the Bible.
A cursory look at the history of Christianity will demonstrate how anti-intelectual that particular religion is. I dont feel the need to go over it all.
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 08:41:42 AM
Yes, I have read the bible. I have read the KJV cover to cover and recently the NIV cover to cover. I have probably read the KJV 5 times if you count the bits and pieces.
Post by: roo_ster on February 20, 2007, 08:53:43 AM
Quote
Both him and his wife claim to live a life completely without sin...
Yeah, right. Let's see how that works for him in the long run**.Oh, the bents don't get to dictate to the straights what is normal. Atheists don't get to define orthodox Christianity, either. Especially when they display ignorance of its theology.
* There is some basic theology all orthodox Christian denominations hold. Unorthodox Christianity can be anything from gnostic beliefs to believing in such rejected scriptures like the Gospel of Thomas & Judas & making hay from them ("Paging Dan Brown..."). Unorthodox denominations are not considered Christian by the orthodox.
** In the long run, we're all dead. ----John Maynard Keynes
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 09:24:30 AM
You do not have to call yourself a Christian to be knowledgeable about it's tennants.
You can be raised from a Christian background, love to talk about religion with people of all faiths, and be a serious amature student of world religions.
And BTW, I don't think it's too unfair of me to say what Christianity is, orthodox or otherwise. The book only says one thing. 99% of all "interpretations" are attempts by weak-willed people to make an ancient religion fit into their modern, secular worldview. When there is a contradiction between the two, the theological side is dropped, because the secular one is more immediate.
An obvious one: The timeline of the Bible puts the world at about 6k years old. This is obviously not true. So, many (id say most) modern American Christians discard this detail as unimportant or somehow "metaphorical" to solve the inherent contradiction between their faith and their real life. The minority who take the 6k years thing seriously may be wrong, but they are strong in their convictions, and for that I have respect.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 10:08:03 AM
Quote
You do not have to call yourself a Christian to be knowledgeable about it's tennants....And BTW, I don't think it's too unfair of me to say what Christianity is, orthodox or otherwise.
Yes, one can be knowledgeable about Christian tenets without being a believer. But, respectfully, you really have a long way to go. Not that I wish to whine about this, but it truly IS unfair of you to make pronouncements about Christianity when you have such a limited understanding of it. I'm just as annoyed by my fellow Christians who say not-so-nice things about Islam when they haven't really taken the time to learn about it. Kyle, unless you're going to claim you were just kidding around again, I'd be really interested in knowing where the Bible says that "REASON and INTELEGENCE are held up to be the paths tp Hell," [sic] or where doubt is "forbidden." Did you forget about the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job?
And I'm having trouble believing you've read the Bible six times, yet you think the Bible only condemns homosexuality in "one obscure passage in Leviticus." Both Testaments condemn it repeatedly.
Quote
A cursory look at the history of Christianity will demonstrate how anti-intelectual that particular religion is.
Then it shouldn't take long for you to explain it. You've made the charge that Christianity is anti-intellectual, now explain. Quote
The timeline of the Bible puts the world at about 6k years old. This is obviously not true. So, many (id say most) modern American Christians discard this detail as unimportant or somehow "metaphorical" to solve the inherent contradiction between their faith and their real life. The minority who take the 6k years thing seriously may be wrong, but they are strong in their convictions, and for that I have respect.
Thanks for your respect. I appreciate it. But I'd point out that the age of the world is far from obvious. People with the instruments, information and training to study such things may find it obvious, but it's not easily accessible to most of us. Therefore, it's really not a part of anyone's "real life." Most people who believe in an old earth are just putting blind faith in majority opinion. Not that any of that decides the issue, of course.
You have every right to exalt your own poor understanding of Christianity above that of Christians themselves. But you're not helping yourself by doing so, and it makes you look silly. It wouldn't take long to find some resources about why Levitical rules are not to be lived out by Christians. You could start by reading the New Testament again.
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 11:27:49 AM
Leciticus
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
So, if you are unenthusiastic about the killing of homosexuals, you are slightly unstable in your faith. Even most "orthodox" Christians who hate the sin and/or the sinner dont follow up by saying we should kill gays. So even they are cafeteria Christians to some extent.
As far as the reason/doubt part goes, I would concede that the Bible containts both sides of that coin. I would point out that the only unforgiveable sin is to doubt the Holy Spirit (cooincidentaly the wierdest and most counter-intuitive part of the trinity).
Also, Christianity in practice is almost inherently anti-intelectual. Reason has always flown in the face of Christianity, and only in the last century or two has the religion been able to water itself down enough to survive. Just ask Galileo and untold thousands more like him.
Before I continue on this note, may I ask what denomination you call your own?
The reason its difficult for you to believe I have read the Bible is because I have read it primarily objectively, and walk away from it with a far different impression than you. Read the Bible again, with an open mind. When somthing doesnt make sense, is obviously untrue, or flies in the face of your consience, make a note of it. The list you have when you are done will likely be impressive. Then we can talk about who has a long way to go.
You get annoyed when your fellow Christians talk bad about Islam? Have YOU read the Qur'ān? You may be suprised by just how right your fellow Christians are about that one. If only they cound turn that mirror on themselves.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 20, 2007, 11:49:45 AM
I don't have a dog in this fight.
Post by: roo_ster on February 20, 2007, 12:19:12 PM
It is entirely possible that you did, indeed read the KJV many times. Your words demonstrate no understanding, however, of the theology of orthodox Christianity.
For instance, you quote Romans as requiring Christians to kill homosexuals:
Quote
Romans
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This is an error in understanding.1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Look a bit deeper into the book of Romans:
Quote
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
The orthodox understanding is that all sinners have earned death since the Fall, not just those who commit homosexual acts.Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Thing is, even your own quoted text does not support whay you write, Kyle. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death..." Being worthy of death does not mandate that Christians go out and slay all those in need of killing. That would be a full-time occupation. Also, it is "the judgment of God," not of man, that condemns homosexual behavior.
You are well within your rights to erect straw men and take whacks at them, Kyle. Norah Vincent said it best:
"...a true libertarian should never stand between a person and his First Amendment right to make a perfect jackass of himself."
----Norah Vincent
Post by: roo_ster on February 20, 2007, 12:27:35 PM
That ought not stop you from manufacturing one out of available materials and calling it the Athiest Epistemological Hound Dog of Verisimilitude. Then announce that any atheists who do not believe in accordance with its dictates are cowardly and inconsistent.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 01:44:34 PM
On another note, in the NT and OT, whenever homosexuality is condemned, it is often followed up with the order or suggestion that men who engage in it should be killed by the rest of the community.
Well, now you're not talking about picking and choosing obscure passages, you're talking about a pretty major part of Christianity. That is, that the theocracy of ancient Israel had outlived its usefulness. Recall when Christ was presented with the adulterous woman and he failed to stone her as the law demanded. Notice that Peter was explicitly told that laws about uncleanness (of food and of Gentiles) were no longer to be observed by faithful Jewish Christians. And that Gentile Christians are not bound by every detail of the Mosaic Law. Any "serious amateur" student of Christianity would understand that.
Quote
Even most "orthodox" Christians who hate the sin and/or the sinner dont follow up by saying we should kill gays. So even they are cafeteria Christians to some extent.
No, they just have a better understanding of the Bible than you do. You won't find Christians calling for the stoning of any other sinners, either. So if we're picking and choosing, we're doing it rather consistently. For that matter, you won't even find that many who want to outlaw things like adultery or lying. Quote
I would point out that the only unforgiveable sin is to doubt the Holy Spirit (cooincidentaly the wierdest and most counter-intuitive part of the trinity).
Doubting and blaspheming are not the same thing. Are you going to show me these passages of the Bible that tell me I can't ever doubt or be skeptical or use reason? What do you find so wierd about the Holy Spirit?
Quote
Also, Christianity in practice is almost inherently anti-intelectual.
I'm practicing Christianity right now. Been doing so for years. Please explain how it affects my intellect. Quote
Reason has always flown in the face of Christianity, and only in the last century or two has the religion been able to water itself down enough to survive. Just ask Galileo and untold thousands more like him.
Could you perhaps restate that? It sounds like you're saying that Christianity was struggling to survive until it started to water down two hundred years ago. Yet, it was strong enough to make Galileo recant. Yes, the Church officials of that time opposed Galileo's scientific views. Yes, Christianity went through another anti-intellectual phase in the recent past. But that does not mean that Christianity is itself anti-intellectual or irrational. I could easily counter with the fact that the church was responsible for the modern university. That the church was, for centuries, the only institution in Europe that offered education and learning. But really, since you have made the charge, you should tell me specifically what it is about Christianity that keeps people from thinking.
Quote
Before I continue on this note, may I ask what denomination you call your own?
I don't. Quote
The reason its difficult for you to believe I have read the Bible is because I have read it primarily objectively, and walk away from it with a far different impression than you. Read the Bible again, with an open mind. When somthing doesnt make sense, is obviously untrue, or flies in the face of your consience, make a note of it. The list you have when you are done will likely be impressive. Then we can talk about who has a long way to go.
I am reading it again, thanks. How is it that you have been able to read the Bible so "objectively," when greater minds than ours have read it and found nothing that was untrue, nonsensical or unconscionable? Or if the Bible offends your conscience, maybe your conscience is the one in the wrong. But I really don't need to make a list, thanks. I've already seen the lists of "contradictions" or "errors" and so far I haven't found anything that would invalidate the inerrancy of scripture. Quote
You get annoyed when your fellow Christians talk bad about Islam? Have YOU read the Qur'ān? You may be suprised by just how right your fellow Christians are about that one. If only they cound turn that mirror on themselves.
Haven't read it all yet, only some of the violent or offensive parts that get all the press. Actually, I suspect that my fellow Christians are correct in what they say about Islam. I'm only bothered by those who seem to be parotting others, when they don't really know. I've seen a lot of non-Christians make really outrageous and ignorant comments about my religion. I'd rather not do the same when it comes to Islam. So, I'm reserving judgement until I can study it more. So far, I think it's safe to say that the Quran is quite a bit different from the Bible. Unlike most other scriptures, the Bible abounds in truth claims that can be proven or disproven. It tells stories that are set in real history, sometimes involving characters from secular history. By contrast, the quran seems mainly to be the opinions of one man, so it's much harder to prove it one way or another. Also, the Bible contains no open-ended commands to slay unbelievers. I don't know yet if I can say that about the quran.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 01:46:45 PM
Post by: Strings on February 20, 2007, 02:01:20 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 02:07:11 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 20, 2007, 02:16:21 PM
Rabbi, are you trying to control your anger at us stupid, non-Talmud-reading Christians? I suppose you think we're commenting on the OT when we haven't tried to understand it, eh?
Not anger. Bemusement maybe. It's funny to see people wrestling with passages when they have no context to put them into. Really the answers are not that complicated.
Post by: Strings on February 20, 2007, 02:31:47 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 05:24:11 PM
Funny stuff. Rabbi, I don't think this is the place for your I-Speak-Hebrew trump card. We're really not talking about the Torah that much. But if you care to enlighten us...
Post by: Kyle on February 20, 2007, 06:50:08 PM
How many women have been horribly turtured to death over this one?
Exodus 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die;
I am going to stop here. I could go on but won't. I am sure you have some way of denying that these statements mean somthing other than what they say. I am interested to hear it. This stuff is straight up Wahhabism if you ask me.
Does any of the OT apply to Christians? All of it? Parts? Which parts? Do you believe that the 10 Commandment apply to Christians? Do these rules I listed above? Why or why not? Can you produce a list? Or even a passage that even vaguely lies out which do and do not apply? What justifies following some and not others? Not bound by every detail of mosiac law? Thats rather vauge. You argue that the reason lies in Christ's words, but I argue that the reason lies in what you personaly need his words to mean.
Could it be that "Dont Murder" and "Dont steal" fit nicely into our modern worldview, but "kill rape victims who don't fight back hard enough" clashes with it, so we throw it aside?
You say that nothing in the Bible flies in the face of your morality. Your God killing small children for the actions of one man, or perhaps of their parents, sounds fine and dandy to you?
On another note, the Qur'ān tells many of the same stories as the bible, with the same characters. Sometimes the Islamic telling is very similar, sometimes it is very different.
If you are interested, I would suggest a book called A History of God by Karen Armstrong.
Karen Armstrong spent 7 years... Roman Catholic nun... Left order... Oxford Univ.... now teaches at Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism and the Training of Rabbis...
The book details the history of the development of the Judeo-Christian god, and how he was and is understood by different peoples throughout history.
I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other. I don't think there is any way that someone like me who sees the Bible as an amusing historical annecdote can have a discussion along these lines with an all-out believer.
I wish we could travel in time and see how in the future, children are taught biblical stores with the same whimsy we teach our children about the Greco-Roman religions.
Post by: Antibubba on February 20, 2007, 08:24:21 PM
Atheists should NOT be prohibited from having children; they should be encouraged, because the first time that kid gets sick, they'll start praying.
Post by: roo_ster on February 21, 2007, 05:13:33 AM
There are plenty of places (both on the net & in meat-space) where you could alleviate your ignorance of Christian theology. If you are interested, I am sure you could find them. If you ask, I am sure folks would be happy to direct you to them.
Your attitude, however, does not bode well for such an open-minded search. It seems you have a whole lot of faith invested in straw/bogey-man you have erected and called "Christianity."
Folks can assist you in a search for knowlege, but mere humans are powerless to unloose the fetters you have made for your own mind.
"There's an old saying out there: 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.' In SAC, we had a different version: 'Hold his head underwater and suck on his butt... the water will flow.'"
----Gewehr98
I was a Ranger, not SAC flyer, and do not subscribe to the SAC view on the whole horse/water problem. We had different solutions for such horse/water difficulties.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 21, 2007, 05:13:59 AM
With all due respect to Mr. Kyle, I'm rather amused myself. Yeah, the Bible says you can't use reason and aren't allowed to doubt. Funny stuff.
Rabbi, I don't think this is the place for your I-Speak-Hebrew trump card. We're really not talking about the Torah that much. But if you care to enlighten us...
Funny stuff. Rabbi, I don't think this is the place for your I-Speak-Hebrew trump card. We're really not talking about the Torah that much. But if you care to enlighten us...
Sorry, Fistful. I tend to think that debate is made better by having accurate information available. You seem to think that things mean whatever you think they ought to mean. That would be fine except other people think just like you. The result is people pushing their own idiosyncratic views of whatever it is, ignoring basic facts and information. And there is no harm in that. But it is fun to watch.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2007, 05:20:17 AM
Not to distract you all by answering the original question, but-
Atheists should NOT be prohibited from having children; they should be encouraged, because the first time that kid gets sick, they'll start praying.
Atheists should NOT be prohibited from having children; they should be encouraged, because the first time that kid gets sick, they'll start praying.
Actually, I think it'd be more likely that their parents would realize that they need to take advantage of modern medical science instead of JUST "praying".
People pray all the time and still die. Parents have been convicted for refusing medical attention for the kids and relying on prayer and the kids summarily die. (after suffering for quite a while from an easily treatable illness).
I work for a medical corporation that makes a lot of high-tech devices. For some specific serious conditions, I think I can safely say that if you just pray, you are going to die. There's no way about that. However, if there's intervention with these devices by a skilled surgeon, you have an excellent chance of survival. If you have no other serious conditions, a good chance of long-term survival.
It's 2007, not 1207.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 21, 2007, 06:18:13 AM
Plenty of people also go to doctors and have expensive medical equipment and still die.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 21, 2007, 06:23:59 AM
Did anyone recommend "just praying"? If so, I didnt see it.
Plenty of people also go to doctors and have expensive medical equipment and still die.
Plenty of people also go to doctors and have expensive medical equipment and still die.
But unless they "just pray" and it works on its own, it's not a quantifiable medical treatment. Though it might have a placebo effect on psychosomatic illnesses, or affect neurotransmitter levels.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2007, 06:28:44 AM
Sorry, Fistful. I tend to think that debate is made better by having accurate information available. You seem to think that things mean whatever you think they ought to mean. That would be fine except other people think just like you. The result is people pushing their own idiosyncratic views of whatever it is, ignoring basic facts and information. And there is no harm in that.
Well, there is some harm in making vague accusations. What do you mean?
Maned, it's definitely a tragedy, and a form of child abuse, when parents fail to take reasonable medical steps to help their sick children. But I doubt you could really show that religious people are more likely to abuse or kill their children. Then again, when spanking is considered child abuse...
Wait, I just read your last post. You're taking all this too seriously. Antibubba was joking, man. Nobody even suggested that praying was a medical treatment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2007, 08:25:52 AM
I am sure you have some way of denying that these statements mean somthing other than what they say. I am interested to hear it. This stuff is straight up Wahhabism if you ask me.
They mean exactly what they say, but we're not living in a pre-Christian, Jewish theocracy. Give me some time, and I'll dig up the scriptures that explain such things. Now, I'm going to answer your questions, and spend some time doing it, so after I post all that stuff later on today, I hope you can answer my questions.
Quote
What justifies following some and not others? Not bound by every detail of mosiac law? Thats rather vauge. You argue that the reason lies in Christ's words, but I argue that the reason lies in what you personaly need his words to mean.
As I keep saying, the Bible gives us plenty of diverse passages that leave room for interpretation. That is the case with the Law as much as anything else. Yes, there are people who pick and choose from the OT to fit what they already believe. That doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to interpret the OT. It doesn't mean my view of the OT is invalid, just because others have made that mistake. Quote
On another note, the Qur'ān tells many of the same stories as the bible, with the same characters. Sometimes the Islamic telling is very similar, sometimes it is very different.
I know. That's a big difference between Wahabism and the ancient Jewish theocracy. Mohammed was writing about things he really had no way of knowing, (other than some accounts of his own activities, I think) and with nothing to substantiate that he was really inspired. This is quite a bit different from the Bible, in which the authors were far closer, in time, to the events they described and were often eye-witnesses.Yes, I have heard of Karen Armstrong, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, et al. I'll get around to reading them some day, but so far I'm not impressed.
Quote
I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other. I don't think there is any way that someone like me who sees the Bible as an amusing historical annecdote can have a discussion along these lines with an all-out believer.
There are so many things to address, here. I'll have to get back to you.Quote
I wish we could travel in time and see how in the future, children are taught biblical stores with the same whimsy we teach our children about the Greco-Roman religions.
You can already see that in liberal congregations all over the place, Jewish and Christian.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 08:46:28 AM
Quote
I tend to think that debate is made better by having accurate information available. You seem to think that things mean whatever you think they ought to mean. That would be fine except other people think just like you. The result is people pushing their own idiosyncratic views of whatever it is, ignoring basic facts and information.
Hehehe. Delicious.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 08:52:53 AM
Quote
Oh, the bents don't get to dictate to the straights what is normal.
Who decides who is bent? Most of the believers look like pretzels to me. Some are so bent (over), they don't need to pay for colonoscopy.
Post by: jnojr on February 21, 2007, 10:31:50 AM
It's easy for anyone to come up with a reason why "those people" shouldn't reproduce. But what happens when "those people" are in charge, and they say you don't get to reproduce?
Post by: Cromlech on February 21, 2007, 10:43:24 AM
It's easy for anyone to come up with a reason why "those people" shouldn't reproduce. But what happens when "those people" are in charge, and they say you don't get to reproduce?
Indeed. For a moment here, Religion is irrelevant, let's assume that their is no God/Gods/Higher power (whatever). If we were to let natural selection take place as it does elsewhere in nature (we are mostly above all of that now, at least in the traditional sense), then kids with severe Autism or Cerebral Palsy, and other such afflictions, should be left to their own devices at the same age as other children. The real bad cases need people to do everything for them, including feed them. I am sure that some people would be horrified at the notion of aborting/murdering (whatever) these children, and I can understand why. But, as I was saying (yes this is a long winded rant), by all rights they should not live. We are fighting against 'survival of the fittest'.
That being said, in society/civilisation today, we don't really need individuals to be strong to survive and be considered worth living.
I don't know where I am going with this to be honest, but I felt like a little bit of keyboard mashing.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 21, 2007, 11:02:33 AM
It's easy for anyone to come up with a reason why "those people" shouldn't reproduce. But what happens when "those people" are in charge, and they say you don't get to reproduce?
Indeed. For a moment here, Religion is irrelevant, let's assume that their is no God/Gods/Higher power (whatever). If we were to let natural selection take place as it does elsewhere in nature (we are mostly above all of that now, at least in the traditional sense), then kids with severe Autism or Cerebral Palsy, and other such afflictions, should be left to their own devices at the same age as other children. The real bad cases need people to do everything for them, including feed them. I am sure that some people would be horrified at the notion of aborting/murdering (whatever) these children, and I can understand why. But, as I was saying (yes this is a long winded rant), by all rights they should not live. We are fighting against 'survival of the fittest'.
No, I don't know where you're going with it either. But one civilization did try doing pretty much what you suggest. Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.
Post by: Cromlech on February 21, 2007, 11:07:31 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 21, 2007, 04:29:05 PM
Post by: mnrivrat on February 21, 2007, 09:55:08 PM
I especialy like the quotes from that great book of fiction called the bible , which I'm sure is in the same library location as the Tora and the Koran (sp).
If somebody wrote it down it must be true ! LOL
OK - You all got the right to believe in whatever turns your crank . Wether it is god or the easter bunny, ghosts or vampires , it's your right to think your way. Just have the courtesy to allow others to do the same without trying to convert them and I think all will get along much better.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 02:02:04 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 04:56:07 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 06:11:42 AM
Quote
Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.
And look where we are now - western civilization is dying demographically, ideologically, politically, and culturally. Some victory. Vivat!
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 06:30:28 AM
Quote
Fortunately we decisively crushed them and their views in WW2.
And look where we are now - western civilization is dying demographically, ideologically, politically, and culturally. Some victory. Vivat!
That qualified as non-sequitur of the week. Call me to arrange prize pick up.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 06:34:48 AM
Quote
That qualified as non-sequitur of the week. Call me to arrange prize pick up.
You are smart enough to see the connection. But are you brave enough to acknowledge it?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 06:56:07 AM
Quote
That qualified as non-sequitur of the week. Call me to arrange prize pick up.
You are smart enough to see the connection. But are you brave enough to acknowledge it?
I would attempt to flesh out exactly what you are proposing. It appears you think the Nazis were some contribution to Western culture and civilization and their defeat augered ill for same.
I assure you that is not the case.
If that isnt what you meant then I have no idea. I doubt anyone does.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 07:16:11 AM
Quote
It appears you think the Nazis were some contribution to Western culture and civilization and their defeat augered ill for same.
The Nazis were quite pedestrian in culture because it was popular socialist culture - see "totalitarian art". What I maintain is that the war "to crush them" was a Pyrrhic victory to the extreme because it devastated Europe, bled it white of people and energy, allowed communism to spread over half of it, and ultimately bred the multicultural leftism and self-loathing nihilism that has been destroying the west since then.
I'd prefer if the dumbasses in charge had been wiser at Versailles and St Germin in 1919 and had not carved up Germany, thereby fomenting WW2. Failing that, I'd have preferred if the Brits and the French had kept an armed neutrality and let Hitler kill communism, as was his intention in the first place.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 07:27:52 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 07:32:49 AM
Just when I thought I was the master thread-jacker.
Well, that beats being the Master Baiter....
Post by: Strings on February 22, 2007, 08:50:29 AM
I guess I can KINDA see the connection that CA is making. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I can kinda see it...
Personally though, I think there were other causes of the spread of multicultural leftism and self-loathing nihilism...
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 08:52:36 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 09:11:34 AM
1) Leftism is about collectivism, and collectivism is about sacrifice of the individual to the needs of society, exploiting the strong for the benefit of the weak, the many dictating over the few. Conversely, European culture has evolved in the opposite direction - recognizing the individual as the center and thus deriving individual rights and personal freedom. The two world views are inherently incompatible. The Nazis, while ultimately socialist, partly promulgated Nietzsche and the strive to perfection as one of their slogans. Thus the modern leftists think the Nazis were individualist, and since Nazis are bad, so is individualism. If the Nazis did not become radioactive, individualism would not have contracted it either.
2) Many upstanding anti-communists joined the nazis to fight communism and thus died. If they had not, they would be around to offer a great counterweight to leftism taking Europe and America by storm.
3) WW2 and its devastation formed a horrific image in the minds of the sheeple that ANY war is inherently unjust, evil, and unacceptable. They drew the incorrect conclusions and so did culture in general, and the vanquished hawks were not around the counterweigh. We see the failures of this attitude both in Vietnam and Iraq. The same is true for "casualty-tolerance".
4) A great many conservatives and anti-communists, who did not join the nazis, still ended up jailed and killed off by the commies in a "internal security" wave instead of war action. Nobody counts those it seems. They would have been a counterweight in each of their countries.
5) In terms of self-loathing, every time anybody is to express a preference for Europe or western culture above all, he is 50% likely to have "racist" and "nazi" thrown in his face. That alone is damaging enough. Add to that teens that feel compelled to behave like minorities "to blend in" and out of "white guilt", and you will see how the nazi defeat and the rise of multiculturalism have made being a "cracker" essentially radioactive. How can anyone promote/maintain/preserve a culture when there is an immediate negative feedback? Why isn't the same feedback given to the "underprivileged" cultures? All of this is psychological and political fallout of WW2.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 11:03:17 AM
But what do I expect from someone who thinks genocide is a viable option.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 22, 2007, 11:31:48 AM
In brief, in the perceptions of many, everything and everyone (speaking overly-broadly) anti-socialist, pro-individual, pro-capitalism, pro-freedom, ad nauseum got (mistakenly) lumped in with "Nazism".
Since the perception was thus established, it poisoned the ability of those who were "conservative" (for lack of a better term) to get their points across without being labeled "Nazi" following the war. In addition, many of those who were actually pro-capitalism/freedom but anti-Nazi were killed by (or with) the Nazi's and the Sovs, so their credible voices were also lost.
Thus leaving the field of ideas skewed in favor of the socialists and statists from that point forward.
Perception shaped reality.
That I can see in discussions with statist types. They are blind to their resemblence to the fascists and instead project that label onto me, the classical liberal, because my arguments are perceived as those of the Nazi's.
Post by: roo_ster on February 22, 2007, 11:36:42 AM
I would put forth the proposition that the most dangerous opponent in WWII was the USSR. Nazism had limited popularity outside of Germany/Germanic states, seeing as the Nazis tended to commit genocide on non-Germans. The threat of Japanese hegemony was similarly self-limiting. Communism was a self-proclaimed global phenomenon.
The German/Russian portion of the conflict was bound to disappoint, as BOTH couldn't lose and be destroyed.
The left supported WWII because their darling, Communist Russia, was at existential risk. Thye haven't supported a single one of our dust-up since.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 12:01:13 PM
Quote
The German/Russian portion of the conflict was bound to disappoint, as BOTH couldn't lose and be destroyed.
Churchill said in the end: "We slaughtered the wrong pig." About damn time for the fat drunk to figure that one out... Roosevelt never did.
The victory of either is no cause for celebration, but I am of the opinion that the Nazis would have been the far lesser evil. They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run. On top, there likely would not have been a Cold War, or at least not with the bitterness, length, and fallout of the historical one.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 12:47:47 PM
The victory of either is no cause for celebration, but I am of the opinion that the Nazis would have been the far lesser evil. They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run. On top, there likely would not have been a Cold War, or at least not with the bitterness, length, and fallout of the historical one.
Excuse me while I beg to differ.
Post by: Werewolf on February 22, 2007, 12:51:31 PM
That's the most screwed-up analysis I think I've read. It is totally misinformed. It makes astoundingly unfounded assumptions. I couldn't begin to unravel all the untruths, half-truths, and misinformation there.
But what do I expect from someone who thinks genocide is a viable option.
That, Rabbi, is your standard answer to every thing on this forum that you disagree with.But what do I expect from someone who thinks genocide is a viable option.
Why don't you actually try taking Canoneer's argument apart. Disect it. Provide via fact, logic etc why you disagree. Simply disagreeing is both moral and especially an intellectual copout.
Oh - I almost forgot - you almost always add an ad hominim attack in most of your respones. The one referenced above to Canoneer is no exception.
Besides. You really don't have to tell us you disagree. We already know that. You disagree with almost everything.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 22, 2007, 12:52:36 PM
Rabbi has a dog in this fight...
Rabbi has a dog in this fight...
Rabbi has a dog in this fight...
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 12:59:02 PM
I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism. Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.
I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2. The very opposite. It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good. In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two. People were disillusioned by the slaughter of WW1. And there wasnt a major war for 20 years after that. Look at the DaDa movement for support of that.
Anti-communists did not join the Nazis. They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime. The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.
I could go on and on.
But have I convinced you now, Werewolf? Or did you have something else in mind making those comments?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 01:10:11 PM
You disagree with almost everything.
And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 01:20:20 PM
Quote
I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism. Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.
Only partly right. Communism is intrinsically internationalist and multicultural. Nazism is extremely nationalistic and thus anti-multicultural. Also, nazism has levels of severity and the moderates actually won in Germany in the face of Hitler & co, who disposed of the ultras in the face of Erich Roehm & co. In fact, Hitler made a deal with the conservatives in the army and industry for exactly that, as well as the disbandment of the S.A. So, in terms of socialism, by the time of WW2, the nazis were far far righter on the spectrum than the commies.
Quote
I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2. The very opposite. It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good. In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two.
The "war-weariness" was much less in US before Vietnam than it was in Europe, but for Europe it was the final blow to any hawkish backbone. I am convinced that were it not for nuclear weapons, the Soviets would have rolled to the Atlantic without much non-American opposition.
Quote
Anti-communists did not join the Nazis. They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime. The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.
Here you are plain wrong. Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians had many divisions on the Eastern Front, while volunteers throughout Europe, but especially cental and eastern, flocked to the banners. Cossacks and Russians had their own army fighting the Stalinists. Even Waffen-SS divisions had volunteer soldiers from virtually every European nation, including Russians.
Quote
I could go on and on.
Please do.
Quote
But have I convinced you now, Werewolf? Or did you have something else in mind making those comments?
Werewolf is on the money. You do like to dismiss bombastically what you do not like, then finish with a personal attack.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 22, 2007, 01:34:20 PM
Quote
I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism. Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.
Only partly right. Communism is intrinsically internationalist and multicultural. Nazism is extremely nationalistic and thus anti-multicultural. Also, nazism has levels of severity and the moderates actually won in Germany in the face of Hitler & co, who disposed of the ultras in the face of Erich Roehm & co. In fact, Hitler made a deal with the conservatives in the army and industry for exactly that, as well as the disbandment of the S.A. So, in terms of socialism, by the time of WW2, the nazis were far far righter on the spectrum than the commies.
Quote
I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2. The very opposite. It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good. In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two.
The "war-weariness" was much less in US before Vietnam than it was in Europe, but for Europe it was the final blow to any hawkish backbone. I am convinced that were it not for nuclear weapons, the Soviets would have rolled to the Atlantic without much non-American opposition.
Quote
Anti-communists did not join the Nazis. They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime. The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.
Here you are plain wrong. Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians had many divisions on the Eastern Front, while volunteers throughout Europe, but especially cental and eastern, flocked to the banners. Cossacks and Russians had their own army fighting the Stalinists. Even Waffen-SS divisions had volunteer soldiers from virtually every European nation, including Russians.
[/quote]
Post by: mnrivrat on February 22, 2007, 06:27:03 PM
Quote
I didnt see anyone trying to convert anyone else. I did see people engaging in discussion who were committed to what they believed but treated the other side seriously.
LOL ! I might not be as smart as you think you are, but I do recognize a cock fight when I see one !
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 07:16:45 PM
To answer your questions, here's a few things the New Testament has to say about the Mosaic Law and how it relates to Christians.
Hebrews Chap. 7, NIV
11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to comeone in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Hebrews Chap. 8
5They [Jewish priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts. I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Hebrews Chap. 9
9This [see verses 1-8] is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washingsexternal regulations applying until the time of the new order.
15For this reason [see the rest of the chapter] Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews Chap. 10
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are comingnot the realities themselves.
Acts, Chap. 10, NIV
9About noon the following day as they [the servants of a Gentile centurion, Cornelius] were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Later on in the chapter, Peter interprets the vision:
Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
Here is one instance in which Jewish tradition is shown to be out-moded. Now, it looks like this may not apply to dietary laws, although that might certainly be inferred.
Acts 15 (NIV)
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples [i.e., Gentile believers] a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
I'll spare you the whole proceedings of the council, but their final decision was as follows:
28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Now, we could go round and round about what that ultimately means to the Christian, but it is clear that Jesus' earliest Jewish followers did not find the whole Mosaic Law to be binding on the Gentile believers. If I am correctly informed, even Gentile converts to Judaism were not necessarily expected to be circumcised and completely follow all the tenets of the law.
You're correct that there's no one passage of scripture that says "this-and-this will still apply, these other things do not." But we have this dillema of the above passages that clearly state that the Mosaic Law is not to apply to us as it did to the ancient Jews, yet the authors of the NT (and Jesus himself) still treated the OT as being authoritative and their moral views seem to be pretty well in line with it. A lot of Christians have gone through the Old Testament trying to sort out the "civil law" and "ceremonial law," which was only for the ancient Jews, from the "moral law," which is universal and timeless. Others have decided that Christians are only bound by those moral guidelines laid down by the New Testament. Either way, it seems pretty clear that Mosaic guidelines for prosecuting rape cases or punishing witchcraft are not a part of Christian practice.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 07:19:07 PM
Rabbi Wrote :
LOL ! I might not be as smart as you think you are, but I do recognize a cock fight when I see one !
Quote
I didnt see anyone trying to convert anyone else. I did see people engaging in discussion who were committed to what they believed but treated the other side seriously.
LOL ! I might not be as smart as you think you are, but I do recognize a cock fight when I see one !
Are you trying to convert Rabbi to your view that this thread is a proselytizing cock-fight? Sounds like it. Sounds very frightening.
mnrivrat, I think we're getting along pretty well in this particular thread without you.
Feel free to participate in other threads where you can be more congenial, and understand better what other people are saying.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2007, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Kyle
I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other. I don't think there is any way that someone like me who sees the Bible as an amusing historical annecdote can have a discussion along these lines with an all-out believer.
I thought I had a rather substantial reply to the above, but the more I read it the less sense I can make of it. What kind of discussion did you want to have? What do you mean by "all-out believer"? Are you presuming that I have some sort of blind faith? Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others? Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct? Why can't you do that?
Quote
Could it be that "Dont Murder" and "Dont steal" fit nicely into our modern worldview, but "kill rape victims who don't fight back hard enough" clashes with it, so we throw it aside?
It could be, but it's obvious that a lot of people don't read the Bible so self-servingly. If I dismiss this rape business just because it rankles me (and the Bible contains no such passage, anyway), why do I and many others still affirm that homosexuality is sinful? "Homophobia" is just as offensive by current standards. "Our modern worldview" has a pretty permissive view of sex. Yet, many still interpret the Bible as teaching that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, including pornography. Don't you think I'd like to be free from such moral restraint? The truth is that many people interpret the Bible in such a way that it steps on their toes and those of others.
Quote
You say that nothing in the Bible flies in the face of your morality. Your God killing small children for the actions of one man, or perhaps of their parents, sounds fine and dandy to you?
Could you be more specific about what you're talking about? But first, what if something in the Bible does conflict with my conscience? I'd have to consider that my conscience might be in the wrong. Then I'd have to realize that, in the Bible, God is regarded as the creator and man as a creature that has sinned against God. Death is regarded as being the rightful sentence for sin. Given that, there's no way that God could be in the wrong by killing anyone, regardless of age. Now, if you'd like to question whether death is a proper punishment for sin, that would be a meatier question. But when you ask these questions, keep in mind your own moral code has no real basis. Without some divinely-inspired Word on which to base your moral views, youre just spouting your own opinion more arbitrarily than any Bible-thumper could.
Quote
kill rape victims who don't fight back hard enough
The Bible simply doesnt say that. Let's look at what the passage is talking about. Adultery would appear to be the actual topic.
Deuteronomy 22
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deaththe girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Rabbi, if I'm making things mean whatever I think they ought to mean, this would be a good time to point out what I'm doing wrong.
So, adultery (whether before or after marriage) is punished by stoning for both parties. But exceptions are made for cases where the "adultery" may have been a rape. In the case of the girl in the countryside, she is given the benefit of the doubt. Whether the sex was consensual or not, she is not punished. You might think that marrying the alleged rapist (for the un-betrothed girl) is a punishment, but I don't think it was. First of all, the law only assumes the girl was raped, and this was for her protection. It could assume she was willing, which would mean a stoning. And the passage doesn't state that she is required to marry him, but that he is required to marry her. As I understand it, this is not a culture where a non-virginal girl has much chance of being married. And the future was bleak for women without husbands. It seems to be the case that the man is forced to provide for the girl and any potential children for the rest of his life. This was probably about as good as the defiled girl could hope for, given the culture.
Youll notice the word rape is not even mentioned in the urban scenario. It explicitly talks about a woman who could have refused to have sex (cried out for help) but did not. But I have been scolded by a prickly Jewish clergyman for speculating, so I will stop there. Rabbi could enlighten us if he would condescend to grant us the benefit of his great learning.
Post by: Werewolf on February 23, 2007, 06:12:54 AM
You disagree with almost everything.
And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels.
Post by: griz on February 23, 2007, 07:14:04 AM
Quote
They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run.
This one baffles me. I caught the "long run" qualifier, but still, Germany declared war on us. What did you expect to happen?
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 08:06:28 AM
Quote
Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others? Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct? Why can't you do that?
Anyone can take true history, insert a few things, and turn it into a religion. Historical accuracy doesn't make a religious tract valid; it just means that the writer wasn't a dunce.
If I wrote a biography of Elvis and added that someone saw Elvis reappear and get picked up by the Flying Spaghetti Monster on 1999-12-31, would you accept FSM as a religion? A decent writer could turn that into a glorious religion, complete with Y2K mythology and the importance of bad music for the hardiness of the soul.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 08:33:48 AM
Quote
I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other.
Now, whether he believes in any religion at all, he can certainly look at the claims of various religions and determine whether one is more "true" or "correct," (what are those quotation marks doing there, anyway?) than some other, by testing whether their factual statements mesh with objective facts. The point being that Kyle is welcome to his skepticism, but it's simply wrong to claim that no one religion is more correct than any other.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 09:30:36 AM
Quote
I thought you were confining yourself to Germany pre-war.
Nope, I was talking about both pre- and during war. In any case, there are a series of memoirs of common soldiers that started with the political situation in their native countries before the war. Those memoirs more than substantiate my claims on the political dynamics both before and during the war. While the details varied, the common theme was anti-communism.
Quote
Even so, those you mention were not anti-communists in any ideological sense. They hated the Russians for nationalist or other reasons.
That may be true for some of them (e.g. some Latvians, Romanians, and Chechens), but certainly not for all or even the majority. Also Italians and Russians have no ethnic or historical reason to hate Russians.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 23, 2007, 09:35:33 AM
You disagree with almost everything.
And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels.
"Cringe" would have maintained the canine parallel better. Dogs yap and whine, but they don't snivel.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 23, 2007, 09:58:52 AM
Quote
I thought you were confining yourself to Germany pre-war.
Nope, I was talking about both pre- and during war. In any case, there are a series of memoirs of common soldiers that started with the political situation in their native countries before the war. Those memoirs more than substantiate my claims on the political dynamics both before and during the war. While the details varied, the common theme was anti-communism.
Quote
Even so, those you mention were not anti-communists in any ideological sense. They hated the Russians for nationalist or other reasons.
That may be true for some of them (e.g. some Latvians, Romanians, and Chechens), but certainly not for all or even the majority. Also Italians and Russians have no ethnic or historical reason to hate Russians.
No one was an anti-communist in the 1930s, except Nazis and fascists. All the intellectuals were communists themselves. I think Orwell was a communist at this time. How many Italians volunteered to fight the Russians (outside the Italian Army) is subject to question. White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 10:02:46 AM
Quote
it's simply wrong to claim that no one religion is more correct than any other.
Most religions ultimately deal with the immaterial, and thus nobody can disprove that final immaterial component by material means. However, we materialists believe in probability descriptions of a random process. Since we have no objective material way to ultimately test one religion against another, we have to content ourselves with assigning equal probability of correctness to each religious worldview, because being right is not a democracy and thus is not decided by popular vote.
Thus if we have 100 competing denominations, and assume for simplicity that they are mutually exclusive, then each has a chance of 1% at best of being correct. Thus if we are asked to assess any particular religion, we have to say that it is overwhelmingly likely it is wrong. We cannot be 100% certain it is wrong, but the odds look real bad for each particular one of them.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 10:08:35 AM
Quote
White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.
So, you agree that the reason was purely political, and anti-communist.
Also, if you read up on Gen. Vlasov, you will see that 100s of thousands deserted the Red Army and fought in German units exactly because of the anti-stalinist message that was circulated. These guys certainly were not "White Russians" in the counter-revolutionary sense of the word (some confusion possible with "Belorussians" which is an ethnic group).
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 10:23:58 AM
Quote
This one baffles me. I caught the "long run" qualifier, but still, Germany declared war on us. What did you expect to happen?
A valid point, but don't start the book in the middle. Comrade Roosevelt had been doing everything he could to support the British and the Soviets long before Hitler declared war on the US in December 1941. Funny that he ran for reelection on a promise not to send a single GI across the Atlantic, while he did everything he could to provoke Germany into declaring war since 1939. Read up on the 50 destroyers he gave to the Brits in 1940, the American escort of British shipping, the HUGE lend-lease program to arm and equip both the Brits and the Soviets, starting March and June 1941, respectively. The second round of lend-lease for the Soviets started in October, two months before Hitler declared war on the US.
Also read up on Tehran and how Comrade Roosevelt was Uncle Jo's buddy while leaving Churchill and Europe isolated. Finally, the "unconditional surrender" nonsense that extended the war by years, decimated Europe, and delivered half of it to the stalinists, was ultimately Comrade Roosevelt caving in to Uncle Jo.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 10:41:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Now, whether he believes in any religion at all, he can certainly look at the claims of various religions and determine whether one is more "true" or "correct," (what are those quotation marks doing there, anyway?) than some other, by testing whether their factual statements mesh with objective facts.
Not true, for the exact reason I just outlined. By your standard, if I include more true facts in my FSM religious tract than there are in the Bible, FSM becomes more true than Christianity.This is the same problem that exists in intelligence/counterintelligence. Unless you already know what's true and what's not, it's impossible to (reliably) take a statement and separate it into truth and lies. The standard way of evaluating information is to weigh the benefit to the author if the information is false against the cost to the author of all the prior true facts (bona fides) he's provided. Since writing a book filled with facts is a cheap endeavor, and getting a mass of people to follow your religion can provide tremendous value, it's ridiculous to believe in a religion just because parts of its founding book happen to be true.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 10:46:36 AM
Most religions ultimately deal with the immaterial, and thus nobody cannot disprove that final immaterial component by material means. However, we materialists believe in probability descriptions of a random process. Since we have no objective material way to ultimately test one religion against another, we have to content ourselves with assigning equal probability of correctness to each religious worldview, because being right is not a democracy and thus is not decided by popular vote.
Thus if we have 100 competing denominations, and assume for simplicity that they are mutually exclusive, then each has a chance of 1% at best of being correct. Thus if we are asked to assess any particular religion, we have to say that it is overwhelmingly likely it is wrong. We cannot be 100% certain it is wrong, but the odds look real bad for each particular one of them.
Thus if we have 100 competing denominations, and assume for simplicity that they are mutually exclusive, then each has a chance of 1% at best of being correct. Thus if we are asked to assess any particular religion, we have to say that it is overwhelmingly likely it is wrong. We cannot be 100% certain it is wrong, but the odds look real bad for each particular one of them.
Did you put that together with a random word generator? I'm not talking about moral teachings or theories of what a soul is. I'm talking about the objective truth claims that can be tested - historical facts, scientific accuracy, etc. For example, if Mohammed says that God is one and there is no trinity, that's not so easy to prove or disprove. On the other hand, when he says that Christians worship Mary as a part of the Trinity, we can look back at Christian writings up until that time and demonstrate that this is false.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 10:58:57 AM
Nice opening sentence. How was your lunch?
Read tyme's response and think about it. No amount of objective truth validates a religion, because any contemporary can insert such facts. At best, a religion can discredit itself by maintaining objective fallasies. Simultaneously, no amount of cross-reference to other religions increases the credibility of either or any, because all of them can be wrong on that particular point, and TRUTH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Another way to think about it is that a religion is a set of statements, say from A to Z. Just because B, H, and J are historically correct does not obtain that P, W, and Y are correct as well. In this belief alphabet, there invariably are mystical/immaterial statements that cannot be proven or disproven, and thus are unacceptable to a non-believer or an else-believer. Because a religion is to be taken in its entirety, the inherent uncertainty inevitably and permanently puts the religion in question as well.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
it's ridiculous to believe in a religion just because parts of its founding book happen to be true.
Didn't I already agree with you? Quote from: fistful
I didn't claim that my religion is true just because of the Bible's good record with regards to historical details.
Why do you insist on accusing me of saying ridiculous things that I did not say? I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts. Quote
Not true, for the exact reason I just outlined. By your standard, if I include more true facts in my FSM religious tract than there are in the Bible, FSM becomes more true than Christianity.
Do we have reliable primary and secondary sources in which hundreds of people claim to have seen the resurrected Elvis at the same time? Did the detractors fail to exhume his body despite an obvious benefit to doing so? Has anyone claiming to have seen the resurrected Elvis been willing to die for this conviction?
Quote
The standard way of evaluating information is to weigh the benefit to the author if the information is false against the cost to the author of all the prior true facts (bona fides) he's provided.
This sounds a lot like one of arguments for the reliability of the Gospel accounts, but want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that the information is more reliable if it is embarassing or otherwise injurious to the author? A case in point would be that the Gospels portray Jesus' disciples (now the leaders of the Christian sect) as thick-headed, frightened and often faithless.
Post by: tyme on February 23, 2007, 11:55:25 AM
Quote
I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts.
and earlier...
Quote
Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others? Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct? Why can't you do that?
Are you trolling or what?
Post by: mnrivrat on February 23, 2007, 12:45:41 PM
Quote
Are you trying to convert Rabbi to your view that this thread is a proselytizing cock-fight? Sounds like it. Sounds very frightening.
mnrivrat, I think we're getting along pretty well in this particular thread without you. Feel free to participate in other threads where you can be more congenial, and understand better what other people are saying.
mnrivrat, I think we're getting along pretty well in this particular thread without you. Feel free to participate in other threads where you can be more congenial, and understand better what other people are saying.
Actualy I think your right - you can indeed get along without me .
My point was simple - You might think yourselfs literary giants expressing your superior intellect and religious knowledge, and quivel about what may be the moral religious standard , but in fact it still just comes off like a couple midget chickens clucking at each other.
Much to do about nothing & Yes - I am now finished and gone.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 23, 2007, 12:56:18 PM
Quote
White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.
So, you agree that the reason was purely political, and anti-communist.
Also, if you read up on Gen. Vlasov, you will see that 100s of thousands deserted the Red Army and fought in German units exactly because of the anti-stalinist message that was circulated. These guys certainly were not "White Russians" in the counter-revolutionary sense of the word (some confusion possible with "Belorussians" which is an ethnic group).
There was no pure sentiment against communism per se. They suffered under the soviets and wanted power. We aren't talking Barry Goldwater here. And they were hardly democratic themselves.
In any case, to hear suggested that the US picked the wrong side and should have allied with Hitler's Germany is distressing, to say the least. That wasn't a choice on the table (except among the lunatic fringe).
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 23, 2007, 05:46:01 PM
Quote
In any case, to hear suggested that the US picked the wrong side and should have allied with Hitler's Germany is distressing, to say the least.
I don't think I ever recommended an alliance. A true neutrality with an eventual "understanding" or some form of cold war until Hitler's death would have made a far better sense. But, Comrade Roosevelt was at the helm, while Churchill was still fighting WWI and was politically and strategically completely out of date.
Quote
That wasn't a choice on the table (except among the lunatic fringe).
Why not? Btw, "lunatic fringe" is a lot of attitude and little substance.
Post by: RevDisk on February 23, 2007, 06:07:37 PM
In any case, to hear suggested that the US picked the wrong side and should have allied with Hitler's Germany is distressing, to say the least. That wasn't a choice on the table (except among the lunatic fringe).
Hardly lunatic. The Soviet Union ended up killing 20-80 million civilians and enslaving a large percentage of the planet. And we faught a not-war with them for nearly fifty years. Many people pre-WWII saw the USSR as the greater evil. If you just counted bodies, they'd be right.
Personally, if I was FDR, I could have waited to see which country won, and then crushed the victor. I suppose Pearl Harbor killed that idea. Would have been better in the long run.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 24, 2007, 06:10:06 PM
Quote
I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts.
and earlier...
Quote
Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others? Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct? Why can't you do that?
Are you trolling or what?
Ya know, ya could just ask what I meant. I'm going to put this more concretely. Let's compare the Book of Mormon, and other LDS scripture, with the Bible. Which is more accurate? While we would have a hard time proving things like "x is a sin," we can evaluate both books in terms of fact. Which is more consistent with the historical and archaeological evidence? Which is better supported by manuscript evidence? This is not a matter of compiling a list of true facts in each book. Nor am I claiming that every word of the Bible is true only because of the vastly superior manuscript evidence and archaeological support. Rather, it is the case that when one book is wildly at variance with known fact, and the other is generally in line with the facts, we decide that one book is more correct than the other. If a religion is bounded by and described by these books, we can likewise conclude that one religion is more correct than the other.
Post by: Marnoot on April 24, 2007, 06:25:40 PM
Quote
I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts.
and earlier...
Quote
Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others? Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct? Why can't you do that?
Are you trolling or what?
Ya know, ya could just ask what I meant. I'm going to put this more concretely. Let's compare the Book of Mormon, and other LDS scripture, with the Bible. Which is more accurate? While we would have a hard time proving things like "x is a sin," we can evaluate both books in terms of fact. Which is more consistent with the historical and archaeological evidence? Which is better supported by manuscript evidence? This is not a matter of compiling a list of true facts in each book. Nor am I claiming that every word of the Bible is true only because of the vastly superior manuscript evidence and archaeological support. Rather, it is the case that when one book is wildly at variance with known fact, and the other is generally in line with the facts, we decide that one book is more correct than the other. If a religion is bounded by and described by these books, we can likewise conclude that one religion is more correct than the other.
... no... no... musn't... I tired of participating in online "my religion is better than your religion"-type debates several years ago. Just too pointless.
Post by: RandyC on April 25, 2007, 04:43:24 AM
My daughter's father-in-law said religion has killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille. There's some truth to that. I would probably qualify that to say "in the name of" religion.
Power corrupts and organized religion through history has proven not to be exempt from that.
And to the original question: leave 'em the heck alone. Sure they should breed. They've given us some of the greatest scientific advances of our time.
Post by: K Frame on April 25, 2007, 05:38:19 AM
Yeah? Well, my God can beat up your God with one halo tied behind his back!
Post by: Marnoot on April 25, 2007, 06:26:03 AM
Yeah? Well, my God can beat up your God with one halo tied behind his back!
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2007, 07:21:34 AM
Quote
They've given us some of the greatest scientific advances of our time.
They have?
Post by: MattC on April 25, 2007, 10:02:56 AM
Now, to be fair, there are a great number of religious people who have improved our lives through science as well. But please do not make the mistake of implying that intelligence and worth to other humans is dependent on theism.
Post by: onions! on April 25, 2007, 10:31:09 AM
please do not make the mistake of implying that intelligence and worth to other humans is dependent on theism.
Hallleeeeeluuuuulah!
>insert bowing smiley here<
Post by: tyme on April 25, 2007, 11:12:52 AM
If I write a "religious" tome with more historical accuracy than the New Testament, will you accept it and bow down to the God that I propose? And how do you feel about the Old Testament?
A while back I discovered the following. The 10 videos total 15-20 hours, so this isn't going to be immediately productive, but I would encourage everyone to get through them eventually.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=beyond+belief+2006
highlights (my personal judgement) include:
- Neil Tyson's talk at the beginning of the video #2
- Carolyn Porco's presentation at the end of video #3 (starting at 1:20)
- V.S. Ramachandran's talk at about 0:39 into video #4
- Sam Harris' brief comments at about 1:36 into video #4
- Ayn Druyan's response to some idiot's confusion over religion and science as searches for truth vs declarations of truth (1:41 in video #4
- Loyal Rue's talk at 0:47 of video #6 (just after some great comments by Scott Atran, see below)
- video #8, beginning to 0:30
- unknown (ucsd dept of medicine) at around 1:47:20 in video #9, and around 0:30:30 in video #10 - absolutely hilarious
And a few of my observations that I don't have an interest in backing up, but which I feel confident in based on my not-insignficant experience exploring science:
- Jo*an Roughgarden has personal problems, and is willing to derail the conference repeatedly to spout her religious biases and misrepresentations of modern evolutionary biology.
- Charles Harper from the Templeton Foundation is the Devil... metaphorically, of course, but I think the metaphor holds. He is very clever in his rhetoric, but he ignores the central problem with combining religion and scientific reasoning. As Neil Tyson said, people who tend to appeal to divine power have no place in the lab. If a religious person wants to lock away the religious part of himself while doing science, that could work to a degree. However, as the computational neuroscientist pointed out in one of the videos, many scientific breakthroughs occur at odd times, and if someone is being religious at those times, he may overlook the scientific significance of those thoughts.
However, lest anyone think I hate all the detractors to the Dawkins/Harris camp, I would say that Scott Atran is very smart, and that while I'm not sure of his motives or ultimate suggestions of how to deal with the irrationality of religion, he almost always makes good points that were unwisely dismissed by the other attendees. See for instance video #4 at 0:42:30, and video #7 at 1:41:15.
What strikes me the most is that the kind of people I react very negatively to, namely that political-scientist/neuroscientist that Druyan demolished, and Charles Harper from Templeton, and Joan Roughgarden (from Stanford), are very clearly dual believers and scientists. In trying to present both sides of themselves at once in a conference like that (or anywhere else), they come across to me as being just short of incomprehensible. To me, that's the best response to Harper's claim that religion and science don't conflict. When the best dual-advocates are as miserable as those three (including Harper himself) are, it's worth considering that maybe the two concepts really are incompatible.
I have no problem with people who want to lock up their religion most of the time, and devote an hour or two nightly, or on weekends, to observing it. But that's fundamentally not what religion is about. Religions tend to require you to live religion, which inherently provokes conflict with science, with rational public and foreign policy, and therefore with people like me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2007, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: Kyle
I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other.
I have not claimed that anyone must believe in my religion because the Bible has more facts. I'm only saying that the above quotation goes too far. Regardless of which religion you do or don't believe in, you'd have to say that some religions don't get very far on the reality meter, and some get at least a little farther.
If you read two books, or interviewed two witnesses, and if one is full of baloney and the other one's facts check out (or at least for the most part), then you would conclude that one book or one person is more correct. It doesn't mean you believe everything you read or hear from source number two, but it does mean that you find one to be more credible than the other.
I'll try to get to the material you linked to.
Quote
Now, to be fair, there are a great number of religious people who have improved our lives through science as well. But please do not make the mistake of implying that intelligence and worth to other humans is dependent on theism.
Matt, I don't know who you're responding to with that last bit, but at least you're keeping things in perspective. However, I must say I've always heard that Bill Gates is a puppy-eating, baby-sacrificing Satanist.
Post by: tmg19103 on April 26, 2007, 07:01:40 AM
It certainly does not seem as if athiests and agnostics have cornered the market on immorality. However, I do believe that for a person to have a foundation of morality, it comes primarily from two places - parents and school. What your parents teach you and what you are taught in school have huge impacts on children. Interesting to note that in public schools in this country, religion is not taught, so any religious upbringing is left to the parents.
I myself am agnostic - however I was raised by devout Catholic parents (and thankfully never molested by a priest). I do believe in the Judeo/Christian tenants of morality that I was raised by. I don't have children, but my sister who is also now agnostic has three kids. They were baptised under blackmail - no baptism and no college fund from the grandparents of $60k each kid which will no doubt cover college and more in all the years the money compounds interest. I find those interesting values on behalf of my religious parents.
As for my sister's kids, they are good, decent children, but then they are being raised with the same Judeo/Christian ethics my agnostic sister was raised under - even if they are not part of an organized religion. Now, how will my sister's children raise their children? One would hope with the same Judeo/Christian ethics.
However, do you have to be part of a religion to live by the tenants that allow you to be a decent, caring, giving, contributing and law-abiding person? Without religion how would people behave? It is a good question. There really is no vacuum to examine this. Hitler and Stalin denounced religion to their people, but their people behaved under the iron thumb of government rule. Hitler certainly was a madman and mass murderer who was an athiest (I believe), but he also believed in laws and an orderly society for those who were part of his master race.
I do think that religion, way back when, created a fabric that helped form society into a more well mannered group. Also realize that the Judeo Christian philosophy is relatively new. How about the Greeks and the Romans? We hear about their orgies and boy love, but how did they maintain realtively civilized societies that had laws, rules and regulations? Perhaps (and I hope not) it is just a government of leaders who wish for order and maintain it through laws and force. Perhaps, even without religion or government, the human spirit, with all of its faults, is inherently good. Perhaps it is relgion and government that are the root of all evil - and good. Religious and government leaders have tremndous power that can be used for good or evil, and has been used for both on an historical basis. One man alone, with or without religion could be good or bad. Perhaps there is no answer to this question?
Fom a legal and constitutional standpoint, to answer the original question, no doubt athiests and agnostics can marry and have children. From a moral standpoint in regards to athiests and agnostics having children, my question would be, whose morality are we talking about and what gives that morality the right to judge?
Post by: K Frame on April 26, 2007, 07:37:24 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 26, 2007, 07:47:31 AM
Got to hand it to him on the troll techniques, though. He set the bait, and then just sat back and watched the confusion and recrimination.
Post by: Tallpine on April 26, 2007, 07:54:43 AM
Quote
do you have to be part of a religion to live by the tenants that allow you to be a decent, caring, giving, contributing and law-abiding person?
No
Post by: onions! on April 26, 2007, 08:25:59 AM
It certainly does not seem as if athiests and agnostics have cornered the market on immorality.
Geez,thanks.
I myself am agnostic - however I was raised by devout Catholic parents (and thankfully never molested by a priest). I do believe in the Judeo/Christian tenants of morality that I was raised by. I don't have children, but my sister who is also now agnostic has three kids. They were baptised under blackmail - no baptism and no college fund from the grandparents of $60k each kid which will no doubt cover college and more in all the years the money compounds interest. I find those interesting values on behalf of my religious parents.
It actually reads more to me like your parents did what parents(& kids too) do all the time.They wanted something & so did your sister.They wanted it more.She blinked.
Post by: tmg19103 on April 26, 2007, 02:52:23 PM
Quote
It actually reads more to me like your parents did what parents(& kids too) do all the time.They wanted something & so did your sister.They wanted it more.She blinked.
My parents wanted their grandchildren to follow their religious ideology by at least getting baptised. My sister did not go for it at first, until my parents threatened to withdrawal a free college education for the kids. I don't blame my sister for going through with it for the sake of her kids, but my question is if you have an ideology or a belief, shouldn't you want another person to either learn to accept it or come to believe in it on their own, as opposed to using blackmail to get it - or even shunning, internment, force or the threat of death as we have seen historically on a grander scale when it comes to following a particular ideology?
Yes, parents and children do this all the time. Does not make it right.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 21, 2014, 05:51:52 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on June 21, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
I still say no.
Which leads us to the obvious question: Should necromancers be allowed to have children?
Seriously -- a 7-year old thread?
Post by: charby on June 21, 2014, 05:55:42 PM
I still say no.
Why not?
Post by: zxcvbob on June 21, 2014, 06:37:15 PM
(I know it's an 8 y.o thread, I didn't resurrect it)
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 21, 2014, 06:45:25 PM
Post by: onions! on June 21, 2014, 06:50:24 PM
After taking a break for so long from this forum it saddens me to see so many founding members no longer active.Many for many years.
As to the thread title?What I believe is none of anyones business but mine.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on June 21, 2014, 07:06:11 PM
Which leads us to the obvious question: Should necromancers be allowed to have children?
I say no.
And in 7 years, I'll say no again.
=D
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 21, 2014, 07:08:00 PM
Post by: BryanP on June 22, 2014, 01:14:34 PM
Which leads us to the obvious question: Should necromancers be allowed to have children?
Seriously -- a 7-year old thread?
Of course they should, and do. They just have a different definition for children.
"Rise my children, RISE AND GO FORTH TO DO MY BIDDING!"
Post by: RevDisk on June 22, 2014, 11:19:20 PM
Of course they should, and do. They just have a different definition for children.
"Rise my children, RISE AND GO FORTH TO DO MY BIDDING!"
Actual necromancers should be allowed minions. Children can be minions.
Thread necromancers on the other hand...
Post by: fifth_column on June 23, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
As to the OP. If god "allows" a person to have children, who am I to gainsay it?
I wonder if god cares what a person believes in anyway . . .
Post by: Scout26 on June 23, 2014, 11:41:34 PM
Interesting.
After taking a break for so long from this forum it saddens me to see so many founding members no longer active.Many for many years.
Agreed, but Fistful is the barnacle to the ship that is APS.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 24, 2014, 12:26:52 AM
Post by: roo_ster on June 24, 2014, 11:59:32 AM
That won;t keep me form posting on it, however.
Post by: K Frame on June 24, 2014, 01:39:23 PM
Post by: charby on June 24, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
I think we need to call an archaeologist to examine this thread...
or a proctologist.