I’m not accusing you of anything. I asked two questions. Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being homosexual?Silent Hunter said:
Deuteronomy 22:25-29 contains two cases of “forced” sex. One is punished with death and the other is punished far worse; the man must marry the girl ! LOL.
What an excellent imitation of lighthouse . . . totally first rate (minus the name-calling). You’d be surprised what you will deny (or affirm) for your life in return.
I think so . . . since I have yet to meet a Christian who isn’t hypocritical in SOME way concerning his/her “beliefs.”
. . . say that a bit more subdued . . . they’re listening . . .
How can you know them (the moral precepts) if they aren’t recorded somewhere? How can you make a claim of moral superiority without them?
Excellent! Way to set your own moral standard (see underlined). I commend you.
Ok, how does that apply to "good people" being compelled to do "wicked things?" Are you saying that God (who is the only one who really is good) is compelled by religion to this thing that you think is wicked?
Me either. But the fact is everyone of us deserves Hell - every single one of us is that evil. The reason that we can't see it is that we have never seen holiness. It's like those detergent commercials where they show a sock that looks white and clean until they put it next to a sock that really is white and clean. It's like that on steroids.
I have never met anyone who isn't. Well, at least I know where I stand in your estimation. That simplifies things.
I’m not going to re-hash something that has been hashed enough so recently on another thread simply for your convenience.Silent Hunter said:
Some words are used regionally, which is similar to pop, coke, and/or soda being used to describe a carbonated soft drink . . . so, no, “likening” isn’t on my list of words when “similar” and “akin” are so much more usual for me.
Don’t ask ridiculous questions.
Are you saying Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were “good men?” I’m certainly not. Evil people will do evil things. For good people to do evil things requires religion.
You haven’t “refuted” anything. You are relying on a faulty premise to justify a faulty conclusion given you have no idea of the theological beliefs of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. What if I told you Stalin was a Catholic or that there are more people in US jails who believe in a “supreme being” who have murdered than don't? What about the Taliban, Muslims and the various Catholic genocides? Wouldn’t that substantially skew your “numbers?”
David, the King of Israel.
The invisible sky spirit of the Bible chose him to rule Israel (surely you’re not going to argue with “him”).
He committed adultery with another man’s wife and had the man murdered.
David, the King of Israel upon the laws of Deuteronomy.
I never said Christianity specifically; I said religion. I suppose the genocides of the Bible were/are acceptable because “god” ordered it. If so you have an odd standard of what does and does not constitute genocide.
Sure I did but your “likening” was before this statement not after.
I like TH and enjoy his insights so you be nice when discussing such a noble fellow around me.
Ahem, reading a book is not the same as someone “speaking” to you. Do the letters sort of “dance around” as you read them?
. . . and wasn’t meant to be . . . It was a reflection on your “argument.”Silent Hunter said:
It’s surprising how a man who prides himself on content fails discern it on occasion.
. . . as if yours IS the ONLY “perspective.”
. . . an assertion on your part made without evidence can be dismissed on my part without evidence . . .
Don’t fault me . . . I’m only working from your “established” standard . . .
How I choose to refer to your chosen deity is not meant as disrespect on my part and shouldn’t be used to negate a reasonable response on your part. That you are offended is your problem since I rarely refer to the Judeao/Christian/Muslim deity in any other way.
I see. So your definition of “sexual immorality” includes “rape.” Thanks for clearing that up.
Belief in an invisible sky spirit on your part does not demand respect for a non-existent invisible sky spirit on my part (though I am in no way being intentionally “disrespectful”).
. . . and chess is a sport . . .
If you are going to bat the term about, at least make an effort to understand its meaning in the context of this dialog.
Someone has actually said something. I have been quoting that Someone. You just don't like what that Someone has to say. :squint:
So far, so good, no?
Your own delusions that you are actually thinking rationally in the absence of a Truth-Maker.
Interesting take . . . and almost atheistic except for the JC mention.Silent Hunter said:
Legal? Christianity is nothing if not about legalities.
It can be argued they “live shortened lives” because of where they are (and the color of their skin) as opposed to what religion they practice.
LOL, No?
. . . as long as you’re nice to bybee . . .
Duh! LOL.
Exactly! And as such it fails to be an absolute (objective) moral standard as some (Christians) assert.
Then you missed it. I wasn't discounting your set out of misdeeds done in the name of God, only expanding an unreasonable focus that led you to an errant position. I broadened the consideration and suggested that the problem is self evidently in man and not in the ideas he uses to justify his excess, will to power, and blood lust.
Rather, I was nudging you to be a little less vague or broad and make a more particular point. You appeared to be condemning the "kill the homosexual/bring back Leviticus/the law" crowd. I made an inquiry based on that and instead of disclosing more fully you offered what appeared to me an even less particular objection with the "attitude" line...and so my comment.
That would be damning had I said or inferred it. I didn't though. Just pointing out your declaration was only that. It isn't an argument or a fact. Having designated your belief system I was left to assume you meant it as one or the other and silence in the face of that would be assent.
Which works well for any posit regarding the foundation of reality, though there isn't an absence of evidence for Christendom, only an absence of objective proof, as there is for any posit on the subject.
Not faulting--clarifying.
So if you were black and I began an address with the N-bomb because I liked the sound of it and meant no offense...
Rather, it's yours if you want an answer. But continuing to ask questions in a manner that precludes my participation and then declaring any sort of victory or inability on my part to answer will look like the thing it is and not the thing you declare. Suit yourself on that count.
Sex outside of a marriage bed isn't sanctified even when voluntary.
Fortunately I've already told you what the practice accomplishes for you, both with me and along the margin. So I'm left to conclude that as you aren't ignorant of it and aren't lacking in intelligence or vocabulary its a matter that time will likely cure.
Or a musical, but only when capitalized...
lain:And in this she misapprehends both the nature of heaven and the measure of joys to be had in this life.
:jolly: It wasn't "incoherent" enough for you to take umbrage at it.
Prove to me that you represent the seminal thinking of ALL atheists.
Pick anyone who claims cultural relativism and then declares he lives by some moral code which bears no cultural relevance.
And "all atheists" became YOU because YOU disagreed with what I said.
"Tolerance", nowadays, means to accept and support the beliefs of another, even if those beliefs are antithetical to one's own beliefs. In the olden times, we called that "hypocrisy" or "apostasy."
And there are examples of murder and deprivation done in the name of a secular state and often with the intent to rid that state of its religious element (see: China and/or the former Soviet Union under Stalin). Like I said to the late Dodo, the problem isn't religion or communism, whatever you may think of the ideas, but men who use them as a means to power. It's historically true on either side of that great division.
Wouldn't the better parallel be the zealous convert who wants atheism stamped out and every man brought into an understanding with God? It appears you've chosen a comparison that serves your purpose without being entirely fair in the selection.
I'm with Patton. Let the other fellow die for his cause. Live for yours.
What they thought they were doing is far less important to me than what they accomplished, which was the intentional killing of defenseless men and women who were not attempting to physically harm them. That's murder no matter who does it or why.
Not if your premise is correct. And who gives a fig for morality absent an absolute standard and a means of correction? If there is no God and no moral absolute that relates to Him leave things to civil and criminal violation and penalty. Absent God morality is nothing more or less than peer pressure aimed at a social conformity to support this or that power structure.
First things first. Using that sort of descriptive only convinces people who aren't inclined to cheer you on that you lack maturity, so if your point is to move the margins or give anyone else pause it's a poor approach and runs contrary to your aim. And I don't know any Christian parents who approach the religious instruction of their children in that fashion, though I know a number of atheists who routinely run to the illustration.
See, when you suggest a standard by which Stalin can be considered a better man than, say, C.S. Lewis, you only end up looking like the sort of unreasoned fanatic you appear to be arguing against a bit too broadly. That, in turn, calls into question your judgments, process and conclusions. I think you'll grow out of it, but at present it's having an impact on how people see you and how seriously they take you...and before you declare your indifference (should your age move you to that) let me add that will only secure the impression and that it's a bit at odds with the point of posting on an internet forum.
:e4e:
Some people are good, and some people are bad. Religion and religious influence can make people believe that normally socially unacceptable concepts (thought-crime, torture, death for a choice of some description) as righteous.
Of course people do not only just do wicked things on behalf of religion. I was giving an instance where religious influence can distort morality and present the wicked as righteous.
It is often a belief held by evangelicals that the fallen will depart to everlasting torture. Whether or not this torture is done by God, satan or inflicted by the fallen themselves (a fool notion) - many Christians of this persuasion have directly cheered what they believe to be the inevitable prospect of the fate of the fallen.
Because it projects itself in Islamic (and sometimes from Christian people) nations, where people believe that what God tells them to do is more important than what another individual would like to do. It is a symptom of the greater problem.
This is the masochistic belief, certainly, that you have.
What a silly analogy. Do we torture said socks for eternity? Or do we ask ourselves why the said sock is actually dirty?
Simple. You live in a free country which holds torture and thought-crime in contempt and yet you believe in God that holds both of those ideals as wonderful, and inevitable.
No, you have directly stated that what I say is irrelevant. You will always consider me an inherent liar because you believe the scripture does, and will always accurately describe every atheist that has ever lived and will live. Your attitude will never convert anyone to your cause because you refuse to listen to them.
And what part of what I have said precisely confirms that?
It is possible to respond to something that you understand, but believe to incoherent and missing some lines in an argument. Otherwise no-one would ever be able to point out any non-sequiturs.
I don't. But that was never my point. I said directly, that I have never encoutered an atheist that literally claims to live by no rules, to answer no man or God and to do as they please. The onus is upon you to provide me with an example of some atheists that actually say that.
This.. makes no sense, and has nothing to do with your original point. Living by a moral code with or without cultural relevance is still a moral code.
Sure.
Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!Silent Hunter said:
My queries and/or answers need not be specific to substantiate my position that “evil” exists within religion because of the doctrines of religion. Religion “teaches” people to treat his/her fellows in ways inconsistent with itself.
It was a rhetorical statement made for the same reason you outline here.
There is no absence of evidence Christianity exist only an absence of evidence for its basic foundation . . . and reason enough (on my part) to reject it in total.
Clearer now. . . as mud.
People are offended by what they choose to be offended by. Now that you “know” there is no offense offered you have no excuse for your perceived taken offense.
Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.
I reasonably doubt you “waited” for marriage before you had sex the first time though I suspect you will deny it. Either way the mere appearance of impropriety makes you seem hypocritical.
Sorry my friend. Either develop a thicker skin or answer the question. As you are now (from my perspective), one way makes you look dishonest the other makes you look evasive.
Stay on topic . . .
I never claimed such a thing. You read way too much into my statements.