Page 5 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

cosmiccat
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,504
Location: Philadelphia

29 Jul 2007, 12:40 pm

Quote:
and they parade around with their "superior morality" Rolling Ey
es

In contrast with the more acceptable parading around with superior immorality? :wink:



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

29 Jul 2007, 1:00 pm

UnrelentingHorror wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
calandale wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder..


I'm not quite sure how this got here
(ah, I've been following but my brain
doesn't hold too much lately), but
why is there a problem with oppression
and murder again? Is there some reason
people recoil from these things?


How are they right?


I think it was a joke lol.


Not at all. I don't see where morals come from.
Following the school of anthropologist Dr. Marvin
Harris, I would argue that standards of morality
are really a matter of preservation for societies.
But, that doesn't point to any absolute right or
wrong. The preservation of some Nazi society
might not be 'right' at all. Nor might the preservation
of say the Aztecs, with their ritual sacrifice. Even
though these societies would have had their own
views of the matter.

Quote:
But if you want to take the new fangled moral relativety route....

Calandale could easily turn around and say "how are they wrong? the only reason you question me is because it is based on your societal values.


Please do. These decisions are subjective in nature.

Quote:
I posit this possibility, in a vacuum outside of cultural influence the opression and murder of other 'packs' or tribes of humans, especially for ones own benefit.
Is actually in keeping with the natural order of things, predator and prey. Certainly ur predations may take forms different than others in the animal kingdom but that doesn't mean its wrong or unnatural plus it weeds out the week."


A way to put it. Still, humanity seems to have a pack
mentality. One which has been transformed into something
too large to really be applicable. Murder, when taken as a
killing without cause, is pretty clear. But, murder WITH cause
may actually be doing society a favor.

Oppression, on the other hand, has been a norm throughout
most of humanity's history. It's not clear to me that this is
a 'wrong' at all. Ah, my own feelings are a guide in another
direction, but I'd not allow them to do more than direct my
own actions.

Quote:
Thats simply a devil's advocate view though


No, I don't think so. I really fear people who seem to just
KNOW what is right and wrong, and impose it on others.
Now, making an argument of why something is valuable
to society, and that such a conglomerate should defend
itself, regardless of the underlying good, might not be
a bad choice. Since action OR inaction should be equally
culpable, IMHO, it might even be necessary to accede
to this imperative, in light of no better guidence.


Quote:
I went waaay off topic didnt I? Sorry about that. :oops:


It happens in conversations.
Makes them more interesting.



UnrelentingHorror
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 225
Location: The county of oranges, California.

29 Jul 2007, 6:49 pm

The search for knowledge is soo interesting isn't it Calandale? :D



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Aug 2007, 7:36 pm

The answer to this topic is yes Christians should have sex, in marriage.

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: let her name be Woman because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh.



kt-64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 767
Location: Who cares?

06 Aug 2007, 1:51 am

No christians should not have children.....

Because if they dont, in a 100 years we wont have so many problems.

And I'm being funny, but serious too.



Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

06 Aug 2007, 2:19 am

Once again, have sex when it pleases you to have it.

Don't let rotting books and screaming preachers lead you like sheep, be a goat!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Aug 2007, 8:34 am

What problems does Christianity cause? Since when is your belief transmitted through sex? How does the age of a historical document lessen it's meaning? As for preachers I don't care for the ones I've seen either, most of them don't even believe the book they're quoting from so why listen to them?



kt-64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 767
Location: Who cares?

06 Aug 2007, 1:29 pm

No sex means no christians. That was what is was getting at. I'm just saying that one less religion means less problems in the world.

And to answer your question about age invalidating the bible. It does, it was written in a time when ignorance was rife. People thought the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

06 Aug 2007, 3:11 pm

kt-64 wrote:
And to answer your question about age invalidating the bible. It does, it was written in a time when ignorance was rife. People thought the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.


How do you know current views won't look just as stupid to people 2,000 years from now? The time when we think we know it all is a Dark Age. Most of what we "know" keeps changing from century to century, and will never stop being proved wrong.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


kt-64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 767
Location: Who cares?

06 Aug 2007, 6:55 pm

Well most books written in this era, if science progresses enough, wont be ridiculed as much as things from the dark ages.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Aug 2007, 8:49 pm

Many Christians during the first two centuries were murdered off before they had kids. The Roman government made Christianity illegal and punishable by torturous death. Many of the spectators converted because these Christians loved God and His Son more than their life.

How much modern science do you need to record human events? Or enumerate years, or use a calendar? The Bible doesn't teach cosmology or geography, the flat earth view held by the catholic church was modern science for many years, stemming from the philosophical Greeks and not the Bible.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2007, 11:32 am

Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

The word Circle is from the Hebrew חוּג "chûg" which means to encompass or surround, not necessarily meaning a circle. If the Bible were to be teaching science then "stretcheth out the heavens" would refer to the stretching or expansion of hyperspace, which we have only just discovered. "Spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" we're just sending probes out now, we haven't even got a base on the moon yet.

Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Job lived in the northern hemisphere and how is he supposed to about gravity and orbits? Most religions taught something like the earth being on the back of a dead giant or a turtle, or some other mythological thing they made philosophically significant.



Mitch8817
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Aug 2007, 4:53 am

Everyone should have sex if/when they can, as long as it is safe, sensible, informed and of course consensual. If you disagree, then you disagree with our underlying biological/life function. You disagree with our ingrained humanity. Religion likes to do this.


_________________
"Pray...NOW!" -Auron, before Bushido attack


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Aug 2007, 10:22 am

You can do what you like for yourself.



Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

08 Aug 2007, 10:26 am

Mitch8817 wrote:
Everyone should have sex if/when they can, as long as it is safe, sensible, informed and of course consensual. If you disagree, then you disagree with our underlying biological/life function. You disagree with our ingrained humanity. Religion loves to do this.


_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Aug 2007, 11:10 am

Flagg wrote:
Mitch8817 wrote:
Everyone should have sex if/when they can, as long as it is safe, sensible, informed and of course consensual. If you disagree, then you disagree with our underlying biological/life function. You disagree with our ingrained humanity. Religion loves to do this.



Who should decide what everyone should or should not do?