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.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?

Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think his point is that while the Bible may have its opinion on homosexuality, that's not necessarily the reason that Christians today oppose it. Have you seen that study where they gave Christians a test and found that they got 80% of Bible content related questions wrong? A lot of Christians have never even read it.

"And Jesus did overturn the tables of the money lenders profaning the temples with their greed. He turned to them and spake thusly 'All your temple are belong to me' and the money lenders did flee before him with much wailing and gnashing of teeth they did cry 'Someone set us up the bomb!'" - Jesus and the money lenders Jeff 6:9

 xole wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?

Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.

Hmm... I'm at work so I can't view the video, but you should be able to answer the question with the Bible on which Christianity is based.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think his point is that while the Bible may have its opinion on homosexuality, that's not necessarily the reason that Christians today oppose it. Have you seen that study where they gave Christians a test and found that they got 80% of Bible content related questions wrong? A lot of Christians have never even read it.

"And Jesus did overturn the tables of the money lenders profaning the temples with their greed. He turned to them and spake thusly 'All your temple are belong to me' and the money lenders did flee before him with much wailing and gnashing of teeth they did cry ' Someone set us up the bomb!'" - Jesus and the money lenders Jeff 6:9

Nice try though

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

So it's self-signed. All you have to do is trust the signature.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?

Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.

Hmm... I'm at work so I can't view the video, but you should be able to answer the question with the Bible on which Christianity is based.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

I suppose I should be able to answer the question of whether or not all scripture is inspired by God. You know what? For fun, I'm going to go with yes.

Well, at least one piece of clothing you own is made out of two different kinds of cloth, so I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worked on the sabbath, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worshipped one of the hosts of heaven, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever committed Blasphemy, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever struck or cursed at your parents, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you were a stubborn or rebellious son(but not daughter), I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If your father finds you to be a drunkard and/or a glutton, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
I think I'm missing a few things...oh well. I think these should cover just about everyone I think.
And then there's a whole host of other things I'm only morally obligated to exile you for.

Admittedly, I'm not sure I'm the one who's supposed to be doing the killing on all of these. I think I may need to get a priest involved at some point, or parents. And if they disagree with the sentence, well, I'm morally obligated to kill them.

So...can we get a line going? I think this may take a while.

 xole wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?

Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.

Hmm... I'm at work so I can't view the video, but you should be able to answer the question with the Bible on which Christianity is based.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

I suppose I should be able to answer the question of whether or not all scripture is inspired by God. You know what? For fun, I'm going to go with yes.

Well, at least one piece of clothing you own is made out of two different kinds of cloth, so I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worked on the sabbath, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worshipped one of the hosts of heaven, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever committed Blasphemy, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever struck or cursed at your parents, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you were a stubborn or rebellious son(but not daughter), I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If your father finds you to be a drunkard and/or a glutton, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
I think I'm missing a few things...oh well. I think these should cover just about everyone I think.
And then there's a whole host of other things I'm only morally obligated to exile you for.

Admittedly, I'm not sure I'm the one who's supposed to be doing the killing on all of these. I think I may need to get a priest involved at some point, or parents. And if they disagree with the sentence, well, I'm morally obligated to kill them.

So...can we get a line going? I think this may take a while.

Don't forget shellfish of any kind! Clams, crabs, lobster, shrimp, mussels....

Well I'll just pop off and do myself in, I've done most of that in addition to being a filthy pagan.

In this thread:

1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".

Strange, I don't remember being an atheist.

Edit:Oops.

And I'm not a Jew, unless that definition has changed, yet I am expected to follow OT law.

 Orlanth wrote:

Intolerant radicals wrote:

All my faction wants, as far as I can tell, is a level playing field*. I want to live my life free from your influence, because I find what you believe to be preposterous, insofar as it relates to your ideology as motivator for doing/not doing something. Now, I'm a straight white male, living in the UK, so I can pretty much live my life free from your interference. However, if I was someone else living in almost all of the <insert nation name here>(correct me if I'm wrong here, chaps), then your belief system would impact upon my life even if I rejected its teachings completely. That is completely unfair. It makes me sick to my stomach, as do the people who defend such a situation. I despise them utterly. Furthermore, rival organisations should receive absolutely zero in terms of subsidies or tax-breaks from the state. If an institution can stay open on it's own, then fine. If not, sell it and turn it into something else. In fact, I refused to go to a gig last year because it was being held in an unclean venue.** The problem I have is that some rival belief state buldings in England are using ideas like this in order to bring funds in, so they can stay open. I'd rather see them closed, and I would suggest all my fellow believers boycott such events.

The above reads equally true for any fanatic creed.


*yeah, right.

Wow, where to start?

Yes, as a secularist I want an equal playing field. The fairest de facto setting is for religion to play no part in public life, in order that no religious view be privileged over any other. By the same token, religious people should be absolutely free to worship which ever god/s they choose, and should be free from discrimination or persecution. Look at it this way - I pretty much detest your religion*, but I would defend to the death your right to practice it in your private life. It's nobody's business but yours. I don't want religion brutally stamped out. It should be allowed to wither on the vine naturally.

All of this business is you just being hysterical. Play the victim and you will be blamed. You know the rules 'round these parts!

*Not strictly true, actually. There are philosophical aspects of Christianity that I admire greatly. It's all the 'Sky-Dad' stuff I have a problem with.

 d-usa wrote:
And I'm not a Jew, unless that definition has changed, yet I am expected to follow OT law.

I thought you wanted to. I mean, that's what the hate for homosexuality is about right? Because the Old Testament tells you to?

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the old law, after all. And you follow Jesus, right?

Or are you choosing to follow the parts that allow you to dislike what you don't like and ignoring the parts that would affect you?

(For my personal perspective, I have nothing against Jesus. I have a lot against the old testament, some of the letters and other church writings.)

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".

4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.

Irony, we love you.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".

4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.

Irony, we love you.

5. Profit?

 xole wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And I'm not a Jew, unless that definition has changed, yet I am expected to follow OT law.

I thought you wanted to. I mean, that's what the hate for homosexuality is about right? Because the Old Testament tells you to?

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the old law, after all. And you follow Jesus, right?

Or are you choosing to follow the parts that allow you to dislike what you don't like and ignoring the parts that would affect you?

(For my personal perspective, I have nothing against Jesus. I have a lot against the old testament, some of the letters and other church writings.)

Can you point me to the part where Jesus tells the Gentiles that they have to follow Jewish law?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".

4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.

Irony, we love you.

5. Prophet.

Fixed.

1) Profit Prophet - pay me and I will tell you what you want to hear.

 Albatross wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".

4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.

Irony, we love you.

5. Prophet.

Fixed.

Ah damnit. Why didn't I think of that

Well played sir. Well played.

 Orlanth wrote:
This might explain why it took a considerable time for most major religions to turn from an initial benign stage to one where the religious movement was subverted for political ends. With the atheist state the people behind the religious preferences descended into savagery almost immediately. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.

I think your argument there hinges on a really, really strange idea of a benign state, and the nature of early religions and society.

The reason societies like Maoist China look so barbaric is because they are contrasted to modern liberal democracies of the time. While comparing such states to early religious bodies doesn't make any sense, of course, that doesn't mean we should just pretend that they used to be benign, pleasant organisations.

I also think you might have your history more than a bit confused when mentioning the Communards. Their revolution was relatively bloodless (more of a confused, accidental coup really), and it was only when they were defeated by the army and many executed that you see real brutality. The only religious oppression that occurred was when the government inquest into why the communards come to power concluded that it was a lack of belief in God. Perhaps you are thinking of the Jacobins?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Yes, I find this to be quite notable. As someone who's an atheist that was raised without any religious background stressed upon me by my parents (my grandparents were quite religious, and my grandfather was and still is an incredibly bigoted religious old coot, but their impact on my beliefs is negligible), and I find myself to be much more tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others than other atheists I knew who grew up with religion in their lives.

Yeah, they are, ironically enough, very similar to born again Christians in that regard. Folk who've been atheist all their life folk who've been Christian all their life tend to just let it be. But converts, either to atheism or religion, well there's nothing like a new believer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The CF wrote:
I understand that. As an example, take me. I never had anything religious in my life. atheist/agnostic parents, atheist/agnostic country. I'm not even baptized and have never had any virtues instilled on me by religion, and yet I've always been caring and nice towards everyone. And that's not because I'm an atheist, hat's because I have values regarding human kindness, influenced by humanism and utilitarianism. But those commandment have nothing do to with atheism, it's just about being nice. Atheism is not about being nice, it's simply about not believing in god.
And if someone really needs to have ethical virtues to follow because they can't be nice if they're atheists, let them be humanist atheists.

Thing is, though, lots of people aren't happy just figuring that they're caring and nice to other people so that's okay. Maybe they don't find it that easy to be caring and nice, or maybe they think that might not be enough. Discussing ethics and virtues is a good thing for them, and providing such conversation for people who aren't in a religion is a good thing.

The whole concept of having virtues in atheism is all too alien and illogical for me. Makes no sense and the guy who thought it was a good idea should be ashamed. A good idea would have been to promote humanism in atheist communities, not make atheism and humanism the same thing.

Yeah, I do think this is getting atheism to cross into humanist territory. Agreed there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.

And if people lose the word of God because of an insistance in ludicrous nonsense like a literal Noah's Ark, that ought to be a problem.

But if you don't think so, then carry on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
It's a fascinating thing to see, especially these days, how few people seem to understand the notion of unchanging, eternal truth, and how many are quick to counsel that these ancient faiths can really get with things by aping the vicissitudes of modern culture. The idea that people embrace ideals that are not subject to popular consent seems alien to many, that the popularity of a thing is irrelevant to its value.

It's far more fascinating to see how people can come to see things as unchanging, eternal truths, when we know through religious studies how temporal and changing many of these beliefs are.

The idea that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong, was simply not a factor within the evangelical community in the US at the time of Roe v Wade. There was some debate on it but it was fairly minor and mostly within the more academic circles of leadership, the real political drive within the party at that time was towards protecting the rights of their schools to teach as they please and to whom they please (remain segregated/enforce segregation within their schools).

It was only at the end of that decade, just a little more than 30 years ago, that the leadership began to make abortion an issue, recognising it as a means of allying with Catholic groups and expanding their influence.

And now, despite that change being within the living memory of most people, it is an unchanging, eternal truth.

So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?

Suggesting 'hey, given you guys should be all accepting Jesus and having people live good Christian lives, so perhaps we shouldn't insist that is as important as believing in a 6,000 year old Earth where Noah really did put every animal on a boat when the whole world was flooded' is not the same thing as suggesting atheists make some allowance for witchcraft. Especially when a very large number of Christians, both today and through history, don't think the that the old testament stories were not literal tellings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This is such a perfect reply. In two sentences* the entire argument is carved to the bone and laid hollow: those who complain about "how out of touch with the world" the principled are, have first disregarded the importance of those principles being discussed. As a simple rational proposition, such complaints would seem rather properly to be ignored.

Believing in the literal truth of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden isn't a principle, it's the product of an inability to read a book.

Recognising that presenting one's faith so that nonsense illiteracy is given as much screen time and importance as accepting Jesus isn't changing one's principles, it's recognising what your principles should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

As a side note, if the SCOTUS declares something (un)constitutional, who's going to legitimately say otherwise?

Andrew Jackson?

A different Supreme Court 20 years later?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.

The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.

There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.

Palindrome wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.

The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.

There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.

Perhaps not during our generation, but it could certainly happen in the future.

Given how in the UK most people who put "CoE" on the census don't practice religion in any way, I think we are heading to an atheist majority within a couple of generations unless something radical changes.

I also don't see how people think an atheist country can't be stable or benighn :S

Palindrome wrote:
The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.

There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.

Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.

On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.

 sebster wrote:


Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.

On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.

Exactly

Although I would argue that secular states, certainly the UK, are not secular enough.

Palindrome wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.

On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.

Exactly

Although I would argue that secular states, certainly the UK, are not secular enough.

Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?

Most schools have a religious assembly each day.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Most schools have a religious assembly each day.

Really? Public schools? That strikes me as odd. We generally only have that kind of thing in private schools in the US.

 Hordini wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Most schools have a religious assembly each day.

Really? Public schools? That strikes me as odd. We generally only have that kind of thing in private schools in the US.

It's only in primary schools here mostly, except the RC schools

What about participation in them. Is it some sort of "everybody come here" kind of deal, or are there pretty easy options for not participating?

 d-usa wrote:

Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?

The best example is that the House of Lords has 26 Bishops, who are there purely because they are Bishops. They may not have a great deal of political power, in the scheme of things they have very little, but they do have some tangible imput into the rulership of this country.

There are also other things like state funded religious schools, prayers said at all council meetings and overtly religious content in non religious BBC broadcasting.

The UK is far from a theocracy but we will not be a truly a secular nation until there is a complete seperation between church and state. It will happen eventually I am sure, although some religious trappings may well linger simply due to tradition.

When I was in school assemblies were compulsory and always had religious content. That was in my Primary and Secondary schools, both of which had no official religious affiliation. That was a while ago though (mid 80s- late 90s) so things may have changed since.