Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the subject of Adam and Eve, Freewill and that...

One of the other tenets of most Christian Religions is that of hell.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression God gave me free will.

Therefore, who is he to punish me for exercising said free will?

The Bible is very deep you know. You are trying to delve into the deep stuff and find problems when you have very little idea of the basics. It would be like saying you dont beleive in arithmetic because you dont understand quantum science.

Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.

Free will is a difficult subject to uderstand, it is existentialism and like most other existential theories and arguements secular and religious it is deep deep stuff. However put as simply as possible here are two clarifying statements: One semi-secular that can be taken with or without God, one religious and regarding to Hell:

Free Will is inherent in humans. Free will has consequences. These consequences can either help or hinder yourself and/or others. To remove the ability to make decisions that have consequences to harm is to remove free will. This can either happen pro-actively by controlling the individuals mind, or retro-actively by acting against wrongdoing, either to punish or to restore.

God gives humans free will. God made hell as a wastebin for evil. God runs a volunteer hell, it is up to you if you want to go there. A free escape pass is available to all, no fee, no charge.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And if this God is so benevolent and loving, can you kindly explain why His word has, traditionally, been spread at the end of a sword or gun? Not a very impressive omnipresent etc deity if he only spoke to one tiny corner of the world now, is he?

If you go to a football match, and some yobbos also do who beat up the other teams supporters and local grannies. Do they represent your team? No. Dont blame God for his fan club. In fact you will find that He will likely disown many of them.

Anyone who says "convert or die" at the point of a gun is by defination of action not a Christian. "You will know them by their fruit." In incidentally you can mix all I have written here together, so someone who butchers in the name of Jesus can himself repent and be considered holy.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And, at the end of the day, since Evolution proves that the Earth was not made by God,....

Ok. Nice bit of ignorance there. Atheism has hijacked evolution, as and of itself it says nothing about God. The concept of Intelligent Design has risen to say essentially 'Evolution is a tool of God', now we have a better idea how he does things. I do not consider this a necessaary defence. God is. If you study the Bible a lot is not as it appears.

Creation in seven days? Elsewhere (wont find quotes right now) it says to God "a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years". The number thousand isnt even exact, it is refeed to also mean 'a lot'. Also God existing outside of spacetime need not do things in a chronological order, yes Genesis 1 is taken from His perspective (whos else is there?).

I believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but define literal? Literal does not mean face value.

After all a lot of the unthinking will say. 'I beleive in the seventh day advent.'
I say (un)to them; 'Then do you beleive in the literal word of God.'
Normally they say yes.
Therefore; 'Suffer not a witch to live.' (there are many equally harsh bits elsewhere, but this one is well known)
Should you go burn heretics?
They of course rightly say, no its not to be taken literally that way, this is a prophetic type*
So you beleive in interpretation?
Good. Now interpret Genesis in a non literal way, it is not heresy to do so.




* A discussion ofr another time.

God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.

Not benevolent or caring in the least. According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?

So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?

What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.

AgeOfEgos wrote: You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes faith is a virtue.

Well, I think you can have a rational discussion about faith ( actually religion.... dogma, ethics, theodicy, eschatology, whatever) just not about empirical methods to prove the existence of God or the spiritual nature of man. Religion, by definition, requires some degree of faith on the part of the believer, as they are *believers* after all.

Orlath, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.

The bottom line is that Orlath, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.

What I want to know about people who are vocal about their atheism, and start these sort of arguments, is what do you stand to gain or what are you trying to prove? Do you really enjoy having constant doubt? My way of thinking about it is that at this point, I'm perfectly willing to believe something that may not strictly be "fact", in the sense that it is consistent and repeatedly observable, in order to have peace of mind, if I only could.

Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.

Not benevolent or caring in the least. According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?

So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?

What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.

That is only one interpretation Grotsnik. You're completely overlooking Universalism there. Also, there is a less, well, universal, blelief that is similar. I believe it is called Natural Christianity...I need to look that up again. Basically it is the belief that other gods are visions of the real God to those who have not been exposed to scripture ( or possibly versions of the Christian Satan). Essentially it is a Christianized version of Universalism.

Also the belief that those without faith are invariably hellbound is not universal for all Christians, or even the majority of Christians. Your hard-liners on that one tend, in this country at least, to be Baptists and Pentecostals.

And because they are non-scriptured, all reference to them was destroyed as much as possible, their believers called heretics, and forcibly converted?

I do not believe, and most likely never will.

But like I mentioned earlier....Faith is a good thing. It gives those who need it most strength, even if it's a simpe faith that things cannot get any worse. But Religion...thats organised...thats malicious.

Catholic Church recently produced 7 new Deadly Sins, one of which is Obscene Wealth....hypocrites much?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.

Again you maker this mistake of jumping ionto the deep theology to find fault without having any grasp of the basics. If you take the Judeo-Christian religions yes. Things have to start somewhere.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not benevolent or caring in the least.

A sweeping statement oblivious to the central most basic tenets of Chritianity. The sacrifice on the cross is hardly an uncaring act.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?

Here we get to the deep waters, remember it is plain from your prior comments that you cant swim and should not this far out yet, as an informed atheist apologist or as a theologican.
Anyway here goes.

Nominally yes.

However we do not know about those who died without a chance to hear the faith.
The Book of Romans says that "The Gentiles are judged by their own consciences, sometimes condemning them, sometimes even commending them." However this verse has multiple meanings and it is pushing it at best to indicate it permits salvation for the unreached.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?

There are strong indicators that this may not be the case. The first is found in the book of Hebrews, there the salvation of the old Testmanet people was explained. Simple They beleived God and God accredited them with righteousness.' Meaning they beleived God had some plan for their salvation even though the plan was not yet in existance. They got into Heaven on credit.
Now the question is how far do you take this?
Abraham is mentioned, asd is David. What about Naaman the Syrian, clearly an unbeliver and a Gentile who turned in repentance. Once you start adding Gentiles into the mix you open the doors to anyone who would beleive that God has a plan for their salvation but do not know what it is.

The second more pointient example comes from the Book of Samuel. David's son is dying, as a result of David's sin with Bethsheba. David puts on sackcloth and weeps for his son, asking God to relent. God does not and the child dies. David, rather than mourn his son gets up and puts on his Royal clothes. Because he knows that while his son cannot join him, he will in time join his son. the child made no expression of faith or beleif, yet here is one verse that indicates infant salvation.

You might at this point ask whether God was cruel by killing the child. In a way, but look where the child was going. To go to heaven is like winning the lottery, its nice when it happens, whatever the age. Also God alone knows (meant literally, not as a point of phrase) the child might have grown up to be evil, and gone to Hell. Others of Davids sons may have had that fate; but scripture tells us not to assume on the spiritual status of others in this respect: Repentance is easy.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.

Fair question. This is where I have to be carful and respectufkl of the follower of another religion. They may well feel as strongly as I do that they follow the one true faith. On thisd end I respect the Moslems evangelists I met who tried to tell me that the way to Allah was through submission to his will as taught by the prophet Mohammed. Likelwise when a Jehovahs Witness, or a Chritian scientist , or a Mormon comes to your door. Dont get angry. THEY ARE TRYING TO DO YOU A FAVOUR.
Deaspite all this I am convinced they are thoroughly wrong, and they might think likewise of me.

I wont try to get you on a straight right/wrong level here based on Bible study. Because this question at least is one that demands frank and careful answer, and using one scripture against another set of scriptures is not fair.

However There are some interesting additional pointers.

Jesus is the name above all names. Consequently 'evil' uses it as a swearword. Noone swears 'oh Krishna' or 'oh Allah' except as a form of prayer. But many people say 'oh Jesus', or worse, usually worse as a direct profanity. I remember an Aliens comic where Jesus was the central character, or at least one could assume he was because his name appeared more an any other.

Signs and Wonders. There are plenty of examples of Christian healing. Sadly because of TV preachers after money and other conmen, and twisted lieing testimonies, many of the real cases get missed. Many of the miracles are quite profound. I am yet to hear of anything comperable in the name of Krishna or Allah, Rama or Buddha. Though some of the Buddhist mediation techniques can be quite impressive, and levitation is real.

there are others, but I dont want to turn this into an essay.

Orlanth wrote:
Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.

Sorry, small nitpicky detail. There were other sons and daughters besides Cain and Able. They just didn't quite get the fame in the bible that their big brothers did.

Orlanth wrote:
There is plenty of ancilliary evidence, and the journey of light is a linking factor. Not all were on their backs with hospital lights in their eyes when it happened. Now some might be lying, others might have tunnel of light because it is well known and dreamed it, but all? Your faith in no-God is quite strong you know to go that far.

I had this in my original reply, I assume it was missed;

His pupils were dilated due to oxygen starvation and allowed 100 more times light to enter his eyes than normal.

This does not require high intensity light and has been clinically observed in a hypoxic (dying) body;

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps, but Amerindians used the dream pipe to good effect, and they claim the visions were often prophetic and useful.

Yes, this is called confirmation bias. This is not unlike reading your horoscope and then making the situations of your day fit the generally broad context of the horoscope. I have yet to see one controlled study of a person telling the future. Randi has a million dollars if you can (He hasn't had to pay out yet);

http://www.randi.org/

Orlanth wrote:
Friendly, and I met him twice now, but he is not a friend per se. I met him first in '94, and very briefly about two years ago.

But yes I do have a link:

http://aglimpseofeternity.org/content.php?folder_id=1

I got the duration wrong, sorry about that. He was dead for 15 minutes (IIRC it takes three to completely irrevocably cabbage the brain). Eight hours must have been someone else, there are quite a lot of resurrection stories about. In any event he had several times the lethal dose from Box Jellyfish venom.

There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?). Which really is not 'that' much of a stretch considering he was receiving medical care. He should be thanking 'goodness' of the medical staff rather than 'God'. Personal stories of near death experience are no more measurable, verfiable or less 'true' than someone who is taking a recreational drug.

What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?

On the subject of other faiths, I once had the privelege of working with a number of very intelligent men (all Doctors) who happened to Muslim.

I was struck by their humblness about their faith, and how willing they were to talk about it openly and plainly.

Certainly a million miles from the spankers you see on TV using it as an excuse to cause trouble.

Grignard wrote:

Orlanth, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.

How true. The answer for everyone, inclusding myself is a declaration of Paradigm. no matter what we say or how we dress up our beleifs we are all biased. scientists, priests and theologicians all have that same human quality, which is belief.

Though one comment, I have not felt my views at any way under 'attack', honest debate and critique is welcome.

The trouble is those in religion who think all those who think unlike to them are heretics to be stamped on.

The trouble is all those who think that scientific method is truly impartial. Just looking at how theories are defended, and how people have their favourites. It is not a pure logical process. Science has its own heretics and fanatics, and many will not listen.

Grignard wrote:
The bottom line is that Orlanth, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.

We should not arrogant enough to think any one of us has a monopoly on truth. In fact I am sure that somewhere I am wrong, quite often in fact. Theology is theory, even in my ownn field there are other honest men of God who draw different conclusions to me. The declaration of Paradigm helps here, I know either once of us could be right, or we cluld both be wrong. It is when we both say we are rigfht that scisms develop. Some of the great schisms causing terrible loss of life has stemmed from disagreements as trivial as those on this thread. Albeit twisted by politicans in the religions for their own power play - which has nothing to do with real faith in God.

Grignard wrote:
Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.

Trade 'truth' for piece of mind. Perhaps this is honest, perhaps it is dangerous. It reminds me of the Pythagorean Brotherhood. An ancient Greek society of open minded philosophers who lived in a commune. The key to its demise was a student of Pythagoras who asked the great man what the square root of two was. his number is one of the unending numbers like pi. To Pythagoras who believed in an ordered structure to the universe beginning with maths, an iregular number at the heart of his theorems was too much to bear. So he ordered his student killed.

Pilate, a most misunderstood man asked 'What is truth?'. So often it is put as a sort of politicians wishy washy get out by many preachers. I do not beleive so. If you read between the lines Pilate was impacted greatly by Jesus. Jesus never answered him, but earlier at the last supper her said to his disciples "I am the Way and the Truth and the life." But took me a long time to undetrstabnd those words, it was not as glib saying but a confidence booster telling his followers before he was gone, where they couldp lace their trust.

I have found my way. Good fortune in your search for yours.

thesuperiorninja wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.

Sorry, small nitpicky detail. There were other sons and daughters besides Cain and Able. They just didn't quite get the fame in the bible that their big brothers did.

True, but they were afterwards.

Grignard wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote: You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes faith is a virtue.

Well, I think you can have a rational discussion about faith ( actually religion.... dogma, ethics, theodicy, eschatology, whatever) just not about empirical methods to prove the existence of God or the spiritual nature of man. Religion, by definition, requires some degree of faith on the part of the believer, as they are *believers* after all.

Orlath, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.

The bottom line is that Orlath, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.

What I want to know about people who are vocal about their atheism, and start these sort of arguments, is what do you stand to gain or what are you trying to prove? Do you really enjoy having constant doubt? My way of thinking about it is that at this point, I'm perfectly willing to believe something that may not strictly be "fact", in the sense that it is consistent and repeatedly observable, in order to have peace of mind, if I only could.

Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.

This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.

Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action. As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And because they are non-scriptured, all reference to them was destroyed as much as possible, their believers called heretics, and forcibly converted?

I do not believe, and most likely never will.

Here the churches owe you an apology, and to many many other sceptics. Denominations start with a handful of people who love God and want to do His will. A generation later they grow and their sons take over who love god-ish and try to do His will. A generation later the denomination is getting quite strong and their sons are now in charge. They sort of believe and do Gods will if it is convenient to themselves. a generation later and the denomination is powerful. It is controlled by a politicians who takes advantage of its huge size who may or may not beleive in God, but will use the religion for his own ends anyway.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But like I mentioned earlier....Faith is a good thing. It gives those who need it most strength, even if it's a simpe faith that things cannot get any worse. But Religion...thats organised...thats malicious.

This iterates my point and vindicates your criticsim of the church. by all means hate the scum that give religion a bad name. But dont hate God on account of them, he is a nice guy and a reliable friend.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Catholic Church recently produced 7 new Deadly Sins, one of which is Obscene Wealth....hypocrites much?

Wealthy is not a sin in itself. But it can be a curse. If you have more, more is asked of you. You can be rich and go to heaven, its just harder to get a decent seat.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the subject of other faiths, I once had the privelege of working with a number of very intelligent men (all Doctors) who happened to Muslim.

I was struck by their humblness about their faith, and how willing they were to talk about it openly and plainly.

Certainly a million miles from the spankers you see on TV using it as an excuse to cause trouble.

I remember a Tv program of a jornalist who went accross the middle east, visiting all the hot spots. West Bank, Iraq, Iran etc to see their view of life and to tell their story. This was in the late 90's when it was quieter than it was now.

He mentioned in his editorial how he was so impressed with a quiet Moslem scholar he met, and if anyone got close to convince him to turn to Islam, it was him.

Its the quiet ones who live by example who make the mark. Sundar Singh was an Indian Christian mystic, who lived as a traditional sadhu (yellow robed travelling holy man) in the early 20th century. He beleived that he could be Indian and Christian both, not as multi faith but disgarding western trappings of Christianity. He used to go looking for an obscure sect, of Christians, that lived in secret. Apparently they were descendents of the first Indian Christians who had remained since Thomas first evangelised India.
Their MO was not to preach, never to preach, just to live honest lives, and when asked by someone they had been with a while, "how do you gain your strength to do good". Then and only then would they tell them. This made sense in a way, but different from the Roman tradition. It took Jesus words to heart that you are what you do, not what you say. They are still out there in India, somewhere.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?).

That was an honest mistake from memory on my part. I heard this testimony in 1994. Blame me alone for that innacuracy, not the testimony itself.

AgeOfEgos wrote:What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?

Taking your words at face value I would be worried. Not all words from God are nice abnd sunny, some have an 'or else' attached. However they are there to avert trajedy not to bully. God does not gloat.

Orlanth wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:
There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?).

That was an honest mistake from memory on my part. I heard this testimony in 1994. Blame me alone for that innacuracy, not the testimony itself.

AgeOfEgos wrote:What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?

Taking your words at face value I would be worried. Not all words from God are nice abnd sunny, some have an 'or else' attached. However they are there to avert trajedy not to bully. God does not gloat.

I wasn't blaming you for error in claim, I was more pointing out how these stories are started/built upon (Each version just a bit more incredible). When you fact-check the source however, you find dull, realistic details.

I find most of "Gods" words of the 'or else' variety. I apostrophe God, as given the errors/changes in the Bible..who the hell knows right? Would you also accept the words of a pastor who tells you; God wishes you to kill your child as a show of faith...?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.

ABORTION
Ok. Abortion was a grey area, not it is a rights area. I prefered abortion to remain a grey area because sometimes abortion is more justifiable than for others.
the dogma you are fearing is countered by another possibly more dangerous dogma. Political correctness.

Abortion became a 'human rights' issue, a hotbed of twisted dogma as dangerous as militant fundamenatilsm. In fact is is fundamentalism, just without a God. The rights of the mother become all. The rights of the child became nothing.

I prefered when it was a grey area. Aborting a deformed kid, or if you were the victim of as rape, or if the mothers life was in danger. That was fine, though as you would correctly say, not in the eyes of some relgious persons.

Here in the Uk two dogmas reared their heads together. Abortion became a human right, fox hunting became illegal. Both grey areas. While less grey for cruel sports when you compare what minorities can do because it is their culture, it becomes unfair to abolish a way of life seen normal in the countyside because it offends the majority in towns.

So you get the position now where it is klegal to kill a form of a child (being neutral innmy wording) as a result of your pleasures, but a crime to kill a fox as a result of your pleasures. it was better when this was a grey area.

STEM CELL RESEARCH
This has been yoyoing in parliaments and courts worldwide. The controversy is in what you do with the embryos. It would be very hard to find a relgious reason to consider it murder, but there are very good reasons for conscience groups, of which the churches are key, to be concerned where this is leading. Frankenscience is not alwayas a good thing.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Homosexuals can get civil partnerships, marriage as practiced in the western world is not a secular agreement. It has its roots firmly in the church. You are asking churches to themselves budge where they would and should not. Other religions have thier own marriages accepted by the state, if you want gay marriages make a gay faith, but dont force the church to change its standpoints because they are inconvenient to some. It makes as much sense as demanding Obama be made next leader of the Republican party.
It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.

No I am not homophobic, far far from it. But that story is for another time.

JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.
This one makes me as upset as it does you. Hardcore preachers who call for what is essentially a crusade against Islam. A lot of that stems for a lot of hardcore Zionism in some Christian communities. They take the Israel is holy line fromm the Bible too far - it is true, but you should read the small print. However to them nearly all actions by Israel is justified, and critique of them is heresy and of course by extension most arabs are evil ad should be purged. Israel takes advantage of this, and from what I have heard considers the Zionist Bible belt preachers as nus but useful tools.
This is only a problem in the USA fortunately, though sadly there are individuals in churches in the UK who beleive this outlook. I have met some myself two were in my church, some are reasonable kind and educated people until you disagree with them on this issue. It was like a switch going on, like a cylon trigger, eventually I left that church.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action.

I hope I have been recognised as demonstating open minded disagreement with you here AgeOfEgos. My posts have been extended a bit to make sure I was clear in what I write to all these difficult questions and comments.

I must warn you (not in a fire and brimstone way) not to consider others as closed minded as a blanket statement. It proves closed mindedness, but not on their part. To show example repeatedly on this thread I have been careful to point out positive outlooks from interactions with people with whome I am in complete disagreement in terms of doctrine.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.

Ok. I am no Moslem and I dont beleive in Islam. In fact I consider it dangerous even without Al Quaeda. However not all, in fact not even a majority of devout Moslems are 'evil'. If I can admit that, having no common ground, what of you?

Also in the UK the church forsaw the rise of militant Islam. But wheras in the past the church was listened to by the state in recent years it has not been. churches understand religion better than secular politicians. we can tell when a denomination is about to go bang. Why was this not listened to: Political correctness, a dogma of multiculturalism = good, established church culture = bad.

Orlanth wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.

ABORTION
Ok. Abortion was a grey area, not it is a rights area. I prefered abortion to remain a grey area because sometimes abortion is more justifiable than for others.
the dogma you are fearing is countered by another possibly more dangerous dogma. Political correctness.

Abortion became a 'human rights' issue, a hotbed of twisted dogma as dangerous as militant fundamenatilsm. In fact is is fundamentalism, just without a God. The rights of the mother become all. The rights of the child became nothing.

I prefered when it was a grey area. Aborting a deformed kid, or if you were the victim of as rape, or if the mothers life was in danger. That was fine, though as you would correctly say, not in the eyes of some relgious persons.

Here in the Uk two dogmas reared their heads together. Abortion became a human right, fox hunting became illegal. Both grey areas. While less grey for cruel sports when you compare what minorities can do because it is their culture, it becomes unfair to abolish a way of life seen normal in the countyside because it offends the majority in towns.

So you get the position now where it is klegal to kill a form of a child (being neutral innmy wording) as a result of your pleasures, but a crime to kill a fox as a result of your pleasures. it was better when this was a grey area.

STEM CELL RESEARCH
This has been yoyoing in parliaments and courts worldwide. The controversy is in what you do with the embryos. It would be very hard to find a relgious reason to consider it murder, but there are very good reasons for conscience groups, of which the churches are key, to be concerned where this is leading. Frankenscience is not alwayas a good thing.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Homosexuals can get civil partnerships, marriage as practiced in the western world is not a secular agreement. It has its roots firmly in the church. You are asking churches to themselves budge where they would and should not. Other religions have thier own marriages accepted by the state, if you want gay marriages make a gay faith, but dont force the church to change its standpoints because they are inconvenient to some. It makes as much sense as demanding Obama be made next leader of the Republican party.
It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.

No I am not homophobic, far far from it. But that story is for another time.

JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.
This one makes me as upset as it does you. Hardcore preachers who call for what is essentially a crusade against Islam. A lot of that stems for a lot of hardcore Zionism in some Christian communities. They take the Israel is holy line fromm the Bible too far - it is true, but you should read the small print. However to them nearly all actions by Israel is justified, and critique of them is heresy and of course by extension most arabs are evil ad should be purged. Israel takes advantage of this, and from what I have heard considers the Zionist Bible belt preachers as nus but useful tools.
This is only a problem in the USA fortunately, though sadly there are individuals in churches in the UK who beleive this outlook. I have met some myself two were in my church, some are reasonable kind and educated people until you disagree with them on this issue. It was like a switch going on, like a cylon trigger, eventually I left that church.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action.

I hope I have been recognised as demonstating open minded disagreement with you here AgeOfEgos. My posts have been extended a bit to make sure I was clear in what I write to all these difficult questions and comments.

I must warn you (not in a fire and brimstone way) not to consider others as closed minded as a blanket statement. It proves closed mindedness, but not on their part. To show example repeatedly on this thread I have been careful to point out positive outlooks from interactions with people with whome I am in complete disagreement in terms of doctrine.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.

Ok. I am no Moslem and I dont beleive in Islam. In fact I consider it dangerous even without Al Quaeda. However not all, in fact not even a majority of devout Moslems are 'evil'. If I can admit that, having no common ground, what of you?

Also in the UK the church forsaw the rise of militant Islam. But wheras in the past the church was listened to by the state in recent years it has not been. churches understand religion better than secular politicians. we can tell when a denomination is about to go bang. Why was this not listened to: Political correctness, a dogma of multiculturalism = good, established church culture = bad.

I get this alot...as it usually takes 15 minutes to figure out how a particular religious person views their religion (It varies from person to person, a faith is not reasonable). This would be my point. If you have views based on your faith then you cannot critique others on their faith based beliefs--as there is no measurement of accuracy.

Also, I did not say Muslims were evil. I said Muslim extremists were morally bankrupt..not unlike Christians that bomb abortion clinics and harass staff/patients. They have no basis for their views other than blind faith. You cannot simpy discount dogmatism when it fails to agree with your specific dogma....the 'faith' is the problem. You have no religous right to tell those whom ban all abortion, all homosexual unions or advocate the war to bring on the end of times...as you have no firm ground to stand on...it's their 'faith'. Curious though, how do you stand on the issues?

Homosexual marriage; There are churches willing to marry them, law should provide they have that opportunity. Agree or disagree?
Abortion; Mothers should have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason they choose. Agree or disagree?

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I get this alot...as it usually takes 15 minutes to figure out how a particular religious person views their religion (It varies from person to person, a faith is not reasonable). This would be my point. If you have views based on your faith then you cannot critique others on their faith based beliefs--as there is no measurement of accuracy.

So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Also, I did not say Muslims were evil. I said Muslim extremists were morally bankrupt..not unlike Christians that bomb abortion clinics and harass staff/patients. They have no basis for their views other than blind faith. You cannot simpy discount dogmatism when it fails to agree with your specific dogma....the 'faith' is the problem. You have no religous right to tell those whom ban all abortion, all homosexual unions or advocate the war to bring on the end of times...as you have no firm ground to stand on...it's their 'faith'. Curious though, how do you stand on the issues?

I gave my opinions on those issues, however if I read your post correctly you switched off from reading them part way through hence the "I get this alot" start to your reply.
Gorbachev had a wonderful quote. "a statesman is made not from the ability to speak but the ability to listen." Paraphrased from memory. Sometimes it is difficult to read through or listen through to someone when you already belive in your own mind that they are wrong. it is a challenge to overcome.

However I had not answered you on bombing abortion clinics and victimisation of staff. That is 100% not acceptable. I am yet to find any Christian who thinks otherwise, though I know many who are very firm on their beliefs on abortion.

As for psersuading peiople not to have abortions, that is just another form of preaching, which might or might not be welcome depending on how it is done. Of itself I have no problems with that, but harassment of people by picketing clinics is not helpful because it does not reflect the compassion of Jesus. Remember he didn't throw that stone at the 'sinful woman', so neither should we if we claim to be good.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Homosexual marriage; There are churches willing to marry them, law should provide they have that opportunity. Agree or disagree?
Abortion; Mothers should have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason they choose. Agree or disagree?

Disagree on both counts, but with clarification required.

Gay marriage. This should be a civil marriage under law, the same as any other secular marriage, so tax breaks ansd legal rights etc all apply. However churches that marry homosexuals are in the wrong. Homosexuality should not have an active part in the church, yet the church gets sued by gays for not including them. Its is like me suing a mosque or synagogue for discrimination for not letting me become a rabbi or an imam.

Abortion. This was best left as a grey area. Women did have abortions for any reason they chose, but didn't have this as a human right. As a Christian I beleive in God given conscience. Even with no fundies with placards around I do beleive most people who have abortions get a guilt trip; just like most people who do wrong do. The PC angle is an angry backlash saying "we are not doing wrong, you are for not agreeing with us." It tries to shift the blame.
Also this is a dripping tap attack, the maximum age of abortion is slowly drifting up and upm, and abortion groups are asking for more and more time. when at the later stages of the legal abortion limits there is no doubt the dead thing that comes out is a child. have you seen what trhey look like.
Morning after pills I have little problem with.

You ask for agree/disagree, but these are not yes/no issues except to the unthinking, but grey areas with good reason on each side. Law society and morality if FULL of grey areas, honest dilemma is a part of life. The churches are part of the guides that steer society through them. You might not like it all the time, but a lot of what you consider good in society also comes from the church's cultural influence, though it may be invisible to you, you might even think it part of the secular state. In some cases it is now part of the secular state, and the church has been disenfranchised, often to a detriment in standards. Education is a good excample.

The trouble is you might think, to remove religion is to gain freedom from dogma. Please dont be naive. Dogma is regretably part of the human animal, and as Cicero said "man is a political animal." If narrow minded priests leave your scene equally narrow minded PC accusers, politicians, demagogues and popular scientists replace them. So long as people remain unenlightened (i.e. always) there will always be someone trying to rabble rouse or stir up a good scare. In the meantime decent people who love God and do no harm get lined up with all the rest and labelled by the latest brand of fanatic trying to build their own powerbase. it has happened before, and it will happen again.

It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.

There is no right to enforce your view of a LEGAL institution (which is what it becomes, when it is regulated by a government, no matter its origin) on other people. A church, as a religious entity, may decline to perform same-sex marriages; the government, under a basis of equality, has no right to deny the legality of it.

If you prefer to retain the "sanctity" of marriage (although how it can be sacred when it can be done and undone in a drive-thru over a weekend is beyond me), remove its legal connotations. Push the government to only legally recognize civil unions (equality for all), and keep marriage as the faith-based state of being.

Orlanth wrote:
So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?

Don't get upset, that is not what I said and no fair minded reader would think so. What I stated was that it usually takes 15 minutes to figure our a particular persons religion, as all are based on dogma. For example, while this Christian might believe any abortion is murder and therefore bombing clinics is justified...this christian may believe abortion in cases of rape is justified, etc. What they all have in common is no rationality for their belief other than their faith. You cannot critque their faith anymore than they can yours...as neither of you have anything but blind emotion and interpretations of error laden manuscripts to fall back on. In the new age of technology, this is proving even more cumbersome for people of faith...as the desert dwelling bible beaters of old had no clue that cells, microorganisms or kangaroos existed.

Orlanth wrote:
I gave my opinions on those issues, however if I read your post correctly you switched off from reading them part way through hence the "I get this alot" start to your reply.
Gorbachev had a wonderful quote. "a statesman is made not from the ability to speak but the ability to listen." Paraphrased from memory. Sometimes it is difficult to read through or listen through to someone when you already belive in your own mind that they are wrong. it is a challenge to overcome.

I almost didn't quote this, as it basically boils down to an ad hominem but I did want to make this point. I will believe something if someone shows me evidence or rationality for my acceptance of it. I will not believe something simply because you have an emotional investment in it. That is white noise to me.

Orlanth wrote:
Disagree on both counts, but with clarification required.

Gay marriage. This should be a civil marriage under law, the same as any other secular marriage, so tax breaks ansd legal rights etc all apply. However churches that marry homosexuals are in the wrong. Homosexuality should not have an active part in the church, yet the church gets sued by gays for not including them. Its is like me suing a mosque or synagogue for discrimination for not letting me become a rabbi or an imam.

Abortion. This was best left as a grey area. Women did have abortions for any reason they chose, but didn't have this as a human right. As a Christian I beleive in God given conscience. Even with no fundies with placards around I do beleive most people who have abortions get a guilt trip; just like most people who do wrong do. The PC angle is an angry backlash saying "we are not doing wrong, you are for not agreeing with us." It tries to shift the blame.
Also this is a dripping tap attack, the maximum age of abortion is slowly drifting up and upm, and abortion groups are asking for more and more time. when at the later stages of the legal abortion limits there is no doubt the dead thing that comes out is a child. have you seen what trhey look like.
Morning after pills I have little problem with.

You ask for agree/disagree, but these are not yes/no issues except to the unthinking, but grey areas with good reason on each side. Law society and morality if FULL of grey areas, honest dilemma is a part of life. The churches are part of the guides that steer society through them. You might not like it all the time, but a lot of what you consider good in society also comes from the church's cultural influence, though it may be invisible to you, you might even think it part of the secular state. In some cases it is now part of the secular state, and the church has been disenfranchised, often to a detriment in standards. Education is a good excample.

The trouble is you might think, to remove religion is to gain freedom from dogma. Please dont be naive. Dogma is regretably part of the human animal, and as Cicero said "man is a political animal." If narrow minded priests leave your scene equally narrow minded PC accusers, politicians, demagogues and popular scientists replace them. So long as people remain unenlightened (i.e. always) there will always be someone trying to rabble rouse or stir up a good scare. In the meantime decent people who love God and do no harm get lined up with all the rest and labelled by the latest brand of fanatic trying to build their own powerbase. it has happened before, and it will happen again.

You state churches that marry homosexuals are wrong. Why do you think that? What gives you that right? Do you posses a red telephone to God ?
Once again, what is your stance on abortion. What does 'grey' area mean? Does this mean you agree with abortion until you feel it treads on your religiosity? When is abortion acceptable to you and when is it not? And why?

I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).

lord_sutekh wrote:

It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.

There is no right to enforce your view of a LEGAL institution (which is what it becomes, when it is regulated by a government, no matter its origin) on other people. A church, as a religious entity, may decline to perform same-sex marriages; the government, under a basis of equality, has no right to deny the legality of it.

If you prefer to retain the "sanctity" of marriage (although how it can be sacred when it can be done and undone in a drive-thru over a weekend is beyond me), remove its legal connotations. Push the government to only legally recognize civil unions (equality for all), and keep marriage as the faith-based state of being.

I can go with that. It is close to what actually happens in the UK. Marriage registry is a civic union, marriage ceremony is based on the religion or custom of the couple.

It has a lot of reason behind it and seems to make sense. If only it ended there.



The trouble is the bounds are then pushed further. Gay rights advocates demand equal adoption rights as part of law when most adoption agencies, even non-relgious ones believe this is not the best circumstances for child rearing. Also equal rights legislation also pushes to criminalise "sexual preference discrimination" in church units etc. Churches are worried that this ammounts to an attack, and to some extent they are right.

There were moves to prohibit preaching sections of the Bible regarding to homosexuality on 'human rights' grounds. Though this was rejected. It will come back though, just like Islamic law demands in the Uk have been ongoing since the 1980's. As the powerbase grows and the churces are stripped of their role in society the call becomes stronger. Last year they finally got to Downing Street to discuss this with the government. This year they got Islamic Law, here in England. Albeit with strong safeguards, and that in time may weaken.

Strange that this happens at the same time as the limits on the church grow and grow. I dont claim conspiracy, at least on this level. Islam and homosexualtiy doesnt mix less so than Christianity and homosexuality, though noone sues the mosques for not being into sexuality based equal opportunities.

Religions are getting increasingly pushed in the UK, and not just militant Islam. Gay rights is one of many sticks often used to beat the church. I remember a case not too many years back of preachers being arrested because their preaching 'offended Moslems'. They were preaching from the steps of the cathedral! They were placed on remand, thankfully the case was thrown out by the judge. Free speech you might say, not if it causes offense.

I remember how ten years back my church was monitored very stringently during a town outreach while some kids gave people baloons with Jesus Loves you an it, a group played songs all under the watchful eye of a town official.

Next week Al Mouhajiroun were there, they too had permission to preach there at weekends. They handed out leaflets peacfull I might add but were allowed to position themslkves centrally, we wrre told to only use the corner area to make sure we did not get in the way. I sauntered by and picked up some leaflets, they wanted me to have some but not others I just picked them up anyway.
I still have them:
Jihad angainst Israel.
Jihad againast America.
Women must wear the viel.

Yet the town council was getting picky on us and what we could do, and turning a blind eye to this..

Christians are starting to get it harder in some countries even in the west. It is way off the persecutions in China and elsewhere but the hatred will come, it is part of the spiritual climate.

Orlanth wrote:
A sweeping statement oblivious to the central most basic tenets of Christianity. The sacrifice on the cross is hardly an uncaring act.

I'd argue it was. The sacrifice was, IF God is omnipotent , entirely unnecessary. Simple "click of his fingers" and everything could have been "fixed". And we could have kept freewill.

.. unless God is incapable of of performing the logically impossible of course. But then....

I don't really expect you to answer that as such ( I'm sure better minds than ours have tried for much longer), but it highlights the fundamental problem for many with religious belief-- not just Xtian ones I hasten to add. It does require, ultimately, a person at some point just to swallow ( that.. sounds harsher than I mean, I hope you get me here) a certain level of acceptance or trust in a higher being or said being rightness "just because". To a person who lacks this, this does come across as irrational at best.

That said I think you've you've argued the rest of your points very eloquently.

I do have major disagreements with your ideas that some things are best left as "a grey area", I think you almost mean "it's easier to leave them and hope they go away" in some ways.

I also have doubts about the idea you seem to express that people always feel bad when they do a "bad thing". Certain churches are pretty strict on masturbation and premarital sex but I can honestly say I've never felt bad after either of them.

.... well maybe that one time when we... no no no.. wrong thread altogether for that sort of confession.

That all said, I'm not (honest) holding YOU personally responsible for the ills and misgivings of the entire xtian/other faiths.

Not yet anyway !

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?

Don't get upset, that is not what I said and no fair minded reader would think so. What I stated was that it usually takes 15 minutes to figure our a particular persons religion, as all are based on dogma.<snip>

I am not upset. In fact I am enjoying this thread, but being careful what I post. What I posted was not an attack, it just means that I thinkl you think, your idea of a rational opinion might differ sommuch from someone wuith a religuious mind there is no hope of effective dialogue?

I am pleased it has got this far. we have many people disagreeing on hardcore exterme issues, without trolling, on the internets!!!! Long my Dakka thrive.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I almost didn't quote this, as it basically boils down to an ad hominem but I did want to make this point. I will believe something if someone shows me evidence or rationality for my acceptance of it. I will not believe something simply because you have an emotional investment in it. That is white noise to me.

I dont get understand there, but I am thinking that is going both ways on that subject. Best to move on.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
You state churches that marry homosexuals are wrong. Why do you think that? What gives you that right? Do you posses a red telephone to God ?

I dont need a red telephone, but I speak to God, and am not alone in doing so. Nor is it strange. I standed this openly, it is up to you to beleive me or not.

Now back to the red telephone, I don't need one. I have the manual right here. The scriptures on 'homosexual offenders' are very clear. Note my specific use of term. Homosexuality it itself is not a sin, but a particular way you might be tempted. You might (or might not) be interested to know that EVERY passage condemning homosexual offender is adjacent to one condemning the fornicator. Most Christians havent worked this out yet. A homosexual who restrains is as 'holy' as any other Christian, meanwhile someone who performs homosexual acts is on the same level as someone performing extra-marital sex.
You dont see THAT preached often, but that is the actual Biblical stance.
I do my best to avoid hypocrasy on this. Now being a middle aged, overweight, player of toy soldiers it is easy, in my past it was considerably harder.

So your real question should be why marry non virgins? You would have us there, the church would have to close.. well not really.
You see first it isnt about dogma. It is made to be about dogma. in the churches we dont going around plotting new ways to make gays feel bad. Back in the day there was no gay marriage, everything was in the closet not problems. Why no problems?
Because the closet is not just for gays. It fits everyone, and is for noone.
Jesus sums it up. "If you as much as look at someone lustfully you have commited adultery with them, if you think ill you have murdered in your heart."
Guilty as charged right there. So in effect I am no better than a sodomiser in Jesus' eyes. You see the pass mark for holiness is very high, impossibly high. Bottom line we are wrong, get over it.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Once again, what is your stance on abortion. What does 'grey' area mean? Does this mean you agree with abortion until you feel it treads on your religiosity? When is abortion acceptable to you and when is it not? And why?

You are not going to let me sit this one out.
Very well.
I didnt have too much of a stance. I didnt like it and find it unbiblicval, but see worse, and do understand it. Furthermore if I was a women and carrying a child from a man I did not love I could wish an abortion myself. I dont agree on abortions for conveneicne, but for that matter many many women dont either.
Generally I stay off this issue as much as possible because I am a man, it is not fair for me to speak out. There are pklenty of women who can speak for me.

So I answered where I could. I dont like that Abortion has turned from a grey area to a definative right. partly because it adds a negative pressure, while it relieves some guilt from those who want abortions but feel they shouldnt, it helps cloud the minds of those who don't want an abortion but are not sure. It is apparently quite normal fopr a woman to fret and wonder if she was doing the right thing by being pregnant even in a stable rerlationship. It would freak me out I if were her, but again, I am a man.

Also the modern dogma deals in absolutes, just like the mediaval church, western society matured, it knew some issues were grey areas, that is to say. Officially forbid it, but allow it to continue, even under the state. Abortion being a good example. Until abortion became a human right a woman could only have an abortion ofr medical grounds. yet no clinics were prosecuted even though in the 20 years under this legislation only a fraction of the women who had legal abortions had them for medical grounds.
Grey areas are a sign of a mature society, that knows that some issues cannot be dealt with absolutes.

Again I really wish it could go back that way. it would not mean a blindest bit of difference to someone trying to get an abortion, they were avialable in the UK with good doctors in state hostpitals, but it cools the climate of abortion debate considerably. But the PC lobby would not leave alone.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).

Yes, but the spirtual is half of reality. I am not saying an even 50% we dont know where the balance is, but a study of relgiosity in all its forms which includes atheism (so there is no escape) shows how poeple react.

Humans just are not rational, the irrationality is hased on the spiritual side of man. I.e. the side not covered by logic and reason, and to some extent spitual supernatural influences. While I am NOT saying Relgion is a manifestation of irrationality, I am saying that religion is motre easily inlfuenced by and influences the irrationaility of man. Most people were shicked by sepetemeber 11th and suicide bombings. Let me tell you, many parts of the church were not. This 'spirit' within some types of Moslem was identifiable. I for one could think through their mindset, so what they did was not unthinkable, but closer to inevitable.
The irrational hatreds that the churches have documented, and at times perpetrated when they became the enemy, these follow irrational psychological and spiritual patterns. likely even with Satanic or demonic influence.

Relgion envelopes the mindset of man, so those whom underastand religiosity can see how man works as a community. Reglon in all its forms is often a very visible expression
of humnaity for good or ill. I dont know all the festivals and such, that garbage is taught in schools. What matters is how people think, what their paradigms are, what their thought processes are led to and therefore what their conclusions are likely to be.

Parallels can be drawn everywhere, the good the bad and the dowright ugly. Everyone is religious, even professor Dawkins, and that is one of the things that makes us human. What makes a difference is which God, if any, is followed? God is the wildcard in religion and what turns it into faith.

I hope this was clear, it was difficult to write.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).

I have to disagree on this one. You are making a ladder of evolution argument, and quite possibly a social Darwinist argument.

First off I believe that "our genetic ancestors still pump adrenaline through our veins" is not your most meaningful statement. I think that statement is filler, nothing more. I'm not sure which "genetic ancestors" you're referring to, as that could mean several things. We haven't been genetically that much different from our "ancestors" for, depending on who you read, 60k to 400k years. First off, we have to assume that the "Church" ( Catholic? Sunni? Baptist? Jewish Synagogue ?) is something that one "evolves" past. Are you talking about since the middle ages? 700 years is very fast for what you're talking about.

By what standards do you judge the structure supposedly provided by the church poor? What do you mean by structure anyhow?

You're making the claim that the "Church", and the culture of mind that produces such an organization, is inferior, and we have, or should, "evolve" past it. First, you're associating biology with culture, which I'm not sure is a good analogy. More importantly, you're using the model of evolution that assumes older lifeforms are inferior, and "evolve" toward a higher state, one that approaches us, or in our case, the next version of us. I believe this is the popular perception of evolution, and it is stated or strongly implied by scientists who should know better. From what I understand the only way you can talk about the fitness of an organism apropos the theory of evolution in the terms of adapting to it's environment and reproducing itself. There isn't any more meaning to it than that.

It is not certain that intelligence and self awareness are long term selective advantages, we simply don't have enough evidence. Our species has just not been around that long. It is true that technology has enabled us to pretty much adapt to any environment ( even those inhospitable to all forms of life, such as interplanetary space) but that is short term. In fact, I have read arguments that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, but rather is a matter of sexual selection, like mental peacock feathers.

I think the irony here is that you're taking, on faith, that we're going to leave all the muck of our past behind, and transcend to a heaven of peace and happiness unclouded by irrational thoughts or "magical thinking". Its an interesting idea, but it isn't evolution.

I'm not trying to get on your case but please, please don't make evolutionary ladder or social darwinist arguments vis-a-vis religion or the religious. I feel that it is insulting to religious people, and a rape of science. Or make the point that it is a belief, not fact.

Grignard wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).

I have to disagree on this one. You are making a ladder of evolution argument, and quite possibly a social Darwinist argument.

First off I believe that "our genetic ancestors still pump adrenaline through our veins" is not your most meaningful statement. I think that statement is filler, nothing more. I'm not sure which "genetic ancestors" you're referring to, as that could mean several things. We haven't been genetically that much different from our "ancestors" for, depending on who you read, 60k to 400k years. First off, we have to assume that the "Church" ( Catholic? Sunni? Baptist? Jewish Synagogue ?) is something that one "evolves" past. Are you talking about since the middle ages? 700 years is very fast for what you're talking about.

By what standards do you judge the structure supposedly provided by the church poor? What do you mean by structure anyhow?

You're making the claim that the "Church", and the culture of mind that produces such an organization, is inferior, and we have, or should, "evolve" past it. First, you're associating biology with culture, which I'm not sure is a good analogy. More importantly, you're using the model of evolution that assumes older lifeforms are inferior, and "evolve" toward a higher state, one that approaches us, or in our case, the next version of us. I believe this is the popular perception of evolution, and it is stated or strongly implied by scientists who should know better. From what I understand the only way you can talk about the fitness of an organism apropos the theory of evolution in the terms of adapting to it's environment and reproducing itself. There isn't any more meaning to it than that.

It is not certain that intelligence and self awareness are long term selective advantages, we simply don't have enough evidence. Our species has just not been around that long. It is true that technology has enabled us to pretty much adapt to any environment ( even those inhospitable to all forms of life, such as interplanetary space) but that is short term. In fact, I have read arguments that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, but rather is a matter of sexual selection, like mental peacock feathers.

I think the irony here is that you're taking, on faith, that we're going to leave all the muck of our past behind, and transcend to a heaven of peace and happiness unclouded by irrational thoughts or "magical thinking". Its an interesting idea, but it isn't evolution.

I'm not trying to get on your case but please, please don't make evolutionary ladder or social darwinist arguments vis-a-vis religion or the religious. I feel that it is insulting to religious people, and a rape of science. Or make the point that it is a belief, not fact.

I really hate to reply in such a short manner after such a well thought out post but I'm forced to as this was a simple misunderstanding.

When I speak of evolving past the Church, I am referring to the gradual process in which civilization has changed into a better/more complex form. In many cultures, religion acted as the legislation in our past. On the other hand, our Constitution for example, is secular and perhaps the best model to date of government. I consider our constitution a success due to this secularism and it's rationality. To continue using our Constitution, we have evolved it with amendments over the years so it has became a more complete document. I do not consider Church doctrine inherently open to either of those things.

As to my statement regarding ancestors/adrenaline, I'll leave it to Hitchens; "Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big". I cannot put it more clearly than that . I have no illusions about the limits of our biology in terms of evolving society. I do think we can better what we have though.


On the topic of social/group Darwinism...I don't think the thought has any merit. I do think evidence suggests a strong probability of selfish altriusm towards others though...but not for the good of the group but the individual. That's a big subject though, not sure if you want to talk that through

Sai Baba says that science can only explain what is experienced by the senses. But he's also an avatar, thinks everyone is God and rubs oils on children's genitals.

The thing is, Baba fills his plot holes a whole lot better than Christianity. It's just because he's scary looking and tends to leave magic dust lying around that he's probably best left alone. He's the avatar of gullible people.

Heh... sorry to cut in. I only just saw that my rather casual thread has taken to a nice discussion.

Orlanth wrote:
I am not upset. In fact I am enjoying this thread, but being careful what I post. What I posted was not an attack, it just means that I thinkl you think, your idea of a rational opinion might differ sommuch from someone wuith a religuious mind there is no hope of effective dialogue?

I am pleased it has got this far. we have many people disagreeing on hardcore exterme issues, without trolling, on the internets!!!! Long my Dakka thrive.

Hah, well taken and sent back. The only frustration I've received from the conversation is the limiting communication of type. We would have furthered our discussion to this point...after 5 minutes of simple conversation .

Orlanth wrote:
Now back to the red telephone, I don't need one. I have the manual right here. The scriptures on 'homosexual offenders' are very clear. Note my specific use of term. Homosexuality it itself is not a sin, but a particular way you might be tempted. You might (or might not) be interested to know that EVERY passage condemning homosexual offender is adjacent to one condemning the fornicator. Most Christians havent worked this out yet. A homosexual who restrains is as 'holy' as any other Christian, meanwhile someone who performs homosexual acts is on the same level as someone performing extra-marital sex.
You dont see THAT preached often, but that is the actual Biblical stance.
I do my best to avoid hypocrasy on this. Now being a middle aged, overweight, player of toy soldiers it is easy, in my past it was considerably harder.

So your real question should be why marry non virgins? You would have us there, the church would have to close.. well not really.
You see first it isnt about dogma. It is made to be about dogma. in the churches we dont going around plotting new ways to make gays feel bad. Back in the day there was no gay marriage, everything was in the closet not problems. Why no problems?
Because the closet is not just for gays. It fits everyone, and is for noone.
Jesus sums it up. "If you as much as look at someone lustfully you have commited adultery with them, if you think ill you have murdered in your heart."
Guilty as charged right there. So in effect I am no better than a sodomiser in Jesus' eyes. You see the pass mark for holiness is very high, impossibly high. Bottom line we are wrong, get over it.

Ahh, well we are going to hit an impasse here we cannot cross. I consider the Bible a completely untrustworthy, error laden collection of random documents. The Bible is perhaps one of the best examples of meme evolution in text we have in modern culture... There are many books on this subject...and I can certainly make a few suggestions if interested.

Orlanth wrote:
You are not going to let me sit this one out.
Very well.
I didnt have too much of a stance. I didnt like it and find it unbiblicval, but see worse, and do understand it. Furthermore if I was a women and carrying a child from a man I did not love I could wish an abortion myself. I dont agree on abortions for conveneicne, but for that matter many many women dont either.
Generally I stay off this issue as much as possible because I am a man, it is not fair for me to speak out. There are pklenty of women who can speak for me.

So I answered where I could. I dont like that Abortion has turned from a grey area to a definative right. partly because it adds a negative pressure, while it relieves some guilt from those who want abortions but feel they shouldnt, it helps cloud the minds of those who don't want an abortion but are not sure. It is apparently quite normal fopr a woman to fret and wonder if she was doing the right thing by being pregnant even in a stable rerlationship. It would freak me out I if were her, but again, I am a man.

Also the modern dogma deals in absolutes, just like the mediaval church, western society matured, it knew some issues were grey areas, that is to say. Officially forbid it, but allow it to continue, even under the state. Abortion being a good example. Until abortion became a human right a woman could only have an abortion ofr medical grounds. yet no clinics were prosecuted even though in the 20 years under this legislation only a fraction of the women who had legal abortions had them for medical grounds.
Grey areas are a sign of a mature society, that knows that some issues cannot be dealt with absolutes.

Again I really wish it could go back that way. it would not mean a blindest bit of difference to someone trying to get an abortion, they were avialable in the UK with good doctors in state hostpitals, but it cools the climate of abortion debate considerably. But the PC lobby would not leave alone.

I really do apologize but I'm still not sure where you stand on abortion...let me try to clarify my position another way;

If a bill came across my desk stating a woman may have an abortion within the first 3 month, regardless of motivation, I would absolutely vote for it. Would you?

Orlanth wrote:
Yes, but the spirtual is half of reality. I am not saying an even 50% we dont know where the balance is, but a study of relgiosity in all its forms which includes atheism (so there is no escape) shows how poeple react.

Humans just are not rational, the irrationality is hased on the spiritual side of man. I.e. the side not covered by logic and reason, and to some extent spitual supernatural influences. While I am NOT saying Relgion is a manifestation of irrationality, I am saying that religion is motre easily inlfuenced by and influences the irrationaility of man. Most people were shicked by sepetemeber 11th and suicide bombings. Let me tell you, many parts of the church were not. This 'spirit' within some types of Moslem was identifiable. I for one could think through their mindset, so what they did was not unthinkable, but closer to inevitable.
The irrational hatreds that the churches have documented, and at times perpetrated when they became the enemy, these follow irrational psychological and spiritual patterns. likely even with Satanic or demonic influence.

Relgion envelopes the mindset of man, so those whom underastand religiosity can see how man works as a community. Reglon in all its forms is often a very visible expression
of humnaity for good or ill. I dont know all the festivals and such, that garbage is taught in schools. What matters is how people think, what their paradigms are, what their thought processes are led to and therefore what their conclusions are likely to be.

Parallels can be drawn everywhere, the good the bad and the dowright ugly. Everyone is religious, even professor Dawkins, and that is one of the things that makes us human. What makes a difference is which God, if any, is followed? God is the wildcard in religion and what turns it into faith.

I hope this was clear, it was difficult to write.

I would absolutely encourage the study of religion in our schools; as it pertains to history only. However, I don't think I fit your definition of atheist. I state there is no evidence of God, I do not declare 'There is absolutely no God'. If I made such a statement, I would need to present proof. Since I cannot prove a negative, I cannot state there is absolutely no God. However, I can state that it is very, very, very improbable....to the point of unicorns existing. Bertrand Russells teapot would be a good Google on this.

Furthering my reply, I do absolutely agree with you that religion enhances irrational thought..and I would further that it demands it. Logical things fit into boxes, God does not. Belief in God is irrational, therefore of course religion is open to irrational deeds done in his name. I absolutely agree and I'll plagarize another quote to end my post;

"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things."

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I would absolutely encourage the study of religion in our schools; as it pertains to history only. However, I don't think I fit your definition of atheist. I state there is no evidence of God, I do not declare 'There is absolutely no God'. If I made such a statement, I would need to present proof. Since I cannot prove a negative, I cannot state there is absolutely no God. However, I can state that it is very, very, very improbable....to the point of unicorns existing. Bertrand Russells teapot would be a good Google on this.

About the "very very improbable". I would take that the other way. look around you, look at the wildlife, and your own life. Look at nature look at life look at the universe.

Are you so sure that is just random. So very very sure?

Look at how from our perspective the sun and the moon are almost exactly the same 'size'. Extreme coincidence possibly, I doubt that phenomena would be commonplace on inhabitable planets. Random happenstance, or was it meant to be that way. Can you be so very very on your surity? Could you say why?

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Furthering my reply, I do absolutely agree with you that religion enhances irrational thought..and I would further that it demands it. Logical things fit into boxes, God does not. Belief in God is irrational, therefore of course religion is open to irrational deeds done in his name. I absolutely agree and I'll plagarize another quote to end my post;

I thought you would latch onto that.
Atheism is a religion.
A belief in no God is no less or more blind or irrational than anyones faith in one, or a pantheon of them.
Do not make the mistake that you are in a better position by scepticism. Untimately it is a heart choice to chose to beleive there is no God.
Like you and I agree, there is no proof either way. So there is just faith.
Where does your irrationality take you?
Where does your religion take you?

We can only steer away from absolute decrees of standing (as we both in farness to the other have done so here. And we can agree not to let our own dogmas, yours and mine both not to lead us to 'evil'. Beyond that faith is faith, while one of the other of us (or niether could be right or wrong, it would be arrogant to claim so definatively now. we can only declare what we beleive, adn if that beleif touches our lives in a positive way.

AgeOfEgos wrote:"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things."

I hear this one thrown about a lot. Dawkins likes to head his chapters with quotes like that accusing relgion of so much bloodshed. The one I remember from his book is "Politics has killed its thousands, but religion its tens of thousands". If this means nothing to you, it is a paraphrase from a 'poem' in the book of Chronicles replacing the words Saul and David with Politics and Religion respectively.

The religion of atheism is by no means innocent or excluded from this truth. Many many atrocities stems from a blind faith in no-God. This included the atrocties under Hitler and Stalin, both the Soviets and the Nazis had a very strong atheist dogma, and were far more bloody with it than any religious group we could name before or since.


Revalations 12:11 says "And they overcame (him) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony...". This refers to the ongoing struggle against evil, 'him' being the devil. The first part refers to an 'internal matter' regarding acceptance of salvation. While crucially importanht to me I will leave this out here as you might not beleive in it. I instead wish to point you to the second part of the verse which refers to the testimony of a be.leiver which is only valid if the person is worthwhile listening too. i.e. is of positive character. The Bible puts good store on the importance of how faith changes lives for the better as a pointer to God.
This of course goes both ways, and transparently unholy people professing to mbe members of faith effect the credibility of that faith. Christians have noone else to blame if the rest of the world does not believe that same way we do, and in that respect your comment against the character of relgion is valid.

Sin flies around, crushes things. Summoner collects fanbase, goes looking for powers, etc.

Summoner defeats Sin with Fayth. Summoner dies, Fayth is reborn as the Sin that flies around destroying things.