IAP Political Forum

RF indicated in another thread that he's ok with killing homosexuals under certain conditions. (If bestiality and adultery were also punishable by death he'd support killing homosexuals)

The Bible supports killing homosexuals. How many Christians here agree with it? If not than why?

The Old Testament under Mosaic law was in favor of it.  I have yet to see anything in the New Testament that shows death is the only outcome.

Would you prescribe the death penalty for pedophiles?  I know some atheists that would.  It doesn't mean that the entire belief system of atheists would accept the idea of killing homosexual pedophiles as acceptable within their belief system structure.

There is a big difference between a pedophile and a homosexual Baldar.... Don't attempt to draw a correlation.

The OT is still valid. Jesus said so.

This thread isn't about Pedophiles. That can be another topic.

I narrowed the view.  And there is a big difference between a homosexual, and a homosexual pedophile (just as there is between a heterosexual and a heterosexual pedophile -  my point was that it was stated "under certain conditions", so I displayed what some of those conditions might be).

I suggest you reread.  As to your view of the Old Testament validity, it may or may not be.  The fulfillment of the law came at the end of the life of Jesus, and if you can point out to me post resurrection where Jesus specifically stated as much, I will acquiese to your attack.  Otherwise you have no real case beyond your interpretation.

Old Testament said you had to be circumsized and yet we know that revelation was revealed to Paul et al... That this was not the case (and it is specifically mentioned).  So your blanket statement is wrong, in error, and of course written in your usual ignorance of the testaments.

Other than that, I am sure you consider it "scholarly".   ::)

Amazing how quickly a straight question isn't answered....

"The Bible supports killing homosexuals. How many Christians here agree with it? If not than why?"

Anyone seen anything relevant yet?

No.

But I'm not really interested in anything Baldar has to say. I'm looking for posts from RF, JIMP and any other fundies.

Where does it say that?




Ahk

Amazing how people ignorant of classical texts disregard the context in which those texts are prepared.  I suppose its a bit too academically rigorous for the likes of Callum and Delta, who both pretty much have the same depth of thought and the same level of bigotry towards belief systems that are not their own.

Boys, let me know how it is to live in your special madras system ;)

Eagerly awaiting your explanation of 'the context'.

Sigh, the context in the New Testament makes no mention of homosexuality and the context establishes that many of the old rules no longer apply.  It is obvious, except perhaps to a bigot who only cares about attack and not dialogue.

Passage Leviticus 20:13:

    13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.




If Christians follow the 10 commandments from the Old Testament then they logically should abide by all laws within the Old Testament. Or show where Jesus cherry-picked what parts of the O.T. to follow. Either all of the Old Testament is part of the faith or none of it.

That's funny because it's not what my Bible says. Not that I have it handy actually.

Are you sure you have the right kind of Bible? I have a Java Bible and my Mom has a cooking Bible...

I'll ask this question once more, what does Christ say specifically about homosexuality?


 

A pedophile is a pedophile. There is no reason to denote homosexual or heterosexual. One is no more wrong than the other.

Actually some pedophiles are homosexuals, and some pedophiles are heterosexuals.  A pedophile can be exclusive to either one.  I am not saying either is worse than the other, however I want to be concise since he brought up homosexuality, and if a homosexual (like a heterosexual) were a pedophile (or pederast or that matter), then some stringent punishment including death has been proposed.  It shows a certain inconsistency in his all encompassing statement.

That type of front to back reasoning is incorrect.  However feel free to tell us what Christ stated in regard to homosexuals since his is the final arbiter of decisions for christianity.

He didn't say anything about homosexuality so all we have to go on is the OT.

This thread is supposed to be about Fundies who think we should kill gays.

Ahhh, so in other words, you don't know.  And so you defer to the Old Testament which we already have established did face changes based on the fulfillment of the Mosaic law.  You make a concrete claim when in fact it is only your supposition.

What this thread is about?  Before you make the statement about "fundies" you should perhaps take a look at your own "fundie" position.

Perhaps you should shut your pie hole.  I don't care what you think. 

I've been trolling internet forums off and on for almost 15 years.  I know damn well and you know damn well that you troll this forum.   You're not fooling a whole lot of people around here. 

- Edited by Abraxas

I previously answered the question in context and straight when IamMe asked it properly framed.  D9 took that answer here and twisted the context and you ask why Christians avoid D9's question?  That's precious.

So is there any scenario where you support killing gays?

LOL, thats your retort?  You cannot factually counter the question raised so you in effect call me a troll?

Lets see the troll question?


Looks like you are the only one trolling here.

What the hell are you talking about.  I did answer your question.   Christ didn't say anything about homosexuality.  If you were paying attention the first time you may have seen it.

Don't try and out troll me little man. 

You apparently don't realize your own question was answered.

the time where Noah and Ham(his son) have sex after getting out of ark,,, this is Jew testament,,,


Generally homosexuality called a sin in Torah,,, Bible took all of it from it's origin and added more cruelty towards homosexuals because it's been written exact the same time as Romans and Greeks were ,,, let's say having sex all around them ,,, so it quite obvious that sexually challenged freaks who later became priests would love to fight something they could never get,,,

- Edited by Abraxas

Yep sounds like a 14 year old.  Oh the boy wants so hard to sound grown up.  ::)

So care to tell us where in the New Testament, or where Christ said kill jews 14 year old boy that wants to sound all grown up?

I'm not so sure that Jesus was entirely silent about it


This is definitely up for interpretation, but from what I read, I get the impression that Jesus didn't really think it mattered. Seems to me that the point was that Jesus wasn't judging people based on whether they were homosexual. It was other criteria that the men were judged on.

This seems inconsistent with a belief that they should be killed.

The context of that scripture was the end of times and the figurative was people, not men, and more to the point it spoke along the lines of half the population dying.

The next scripture references two women grinding together.  Now was it speaking of lesbian tribadism, or was it speaking of grinding wheat.  The morons in the audience might believe it was the former rather than the latter.  You need to look at the overall chapter and the context.  Something many people leave out.

No commentary towards anyone in particular on this one.  Just thought I would toss it out there.

Good job mods, another top notch thread.

Accurate commentary, Baldar.



Wrong.

As mentioned, Christ has the final word in Christianity(hence "Christ"
in the title). Are we to ignore the OT? No.

As to falling back on the OT, again, Baldar is correct. People here seem to
be using Matthew 5:17-18 as proof of Old Testament Mosaic law still being final.
That's an error, as it refutes the claim.

Look at the text:


Roughly paraphrased, the law & prophets will remain as is until one of two things happens:

- The earth comes to an end.(hasn't happened)
- The law is fullfilled.(has happened - Christ's death on the cross)

This applies to the burning of witches, killing homosexuals, not eating certain meats, etc..



Now, to answer D9's ridiculous question, should homosexuals be killed? Well that depends..
Did the homosexual commit 1st degree murder? If so, & the state where the crime
was commited has capital punishment, then yes, he should be killed.

Is the homosexual a child rapist? Yes?....Then he should be killed. Mind you, this is
my own personal belief.. that anyone who sexually assaults a child should be put to death.

In otherwords, his being or not being a fudge packer is irrelevent.

BTW, I don't want this to turn into a capital punishment thread. I struggle with
my stance on that, consider myself on the fence, & feel it's between God & myself.




 

Your interpretation of the bible differs with many Christians. I guess thats what makes you Christian. Pick and choose whatever sounds nice. Start your own sub cult. Claim everyone else is wrong.

Back to the topic.
I'd like to hear from the fundies when its ok to kill homosexuals. I don't really give a crap what you and baldar think. You're not delusional enough to support killing gays, we know.

My imagination of is delta trolling?

Ample evidence has been provided and yet claims some vague group of christians see things as he sees them.  Yeah, sure.  ::)

From your first post, Delta:


I'm a Christian. I gave you an answer to the question YOU asked, Einstein.

To which you respond:



You're as much this forums chew toy as you were at IAP 1.0.

I don't know any Christians that would take exception to the statements above.


To repeat what you took out of context in starting this thread I paraphrase here:

It once was lawful for the state of Israel to put homosexuals to death.  It no longer is since the conditions supporting the law are now changed.  It is very unlikely (I would say impossible if I thought I was clairvoyant) that conditions will be such that capital punishment for such moral indiscretion is appropriate again. 

Therefore it seems silly to contemplate such a scenario.

Many Christians belief homosexuality is a sin and still follow the OT, preaching from it all the time. Clearly, they don't believe their own bullshit and cherry-pick whatever they want based on whatever sect/group they belong to. That's the problem with a vague bronze-age textbook with a million splinter-groups interpreting it.

All in all, it's irrelevant in practical reality since many Christians still believe the nonsense, whether you go yabbering on about context or not. Moreover, the fact that the Bible which you claim to be so moral of a text advocated killing people for arbitrary crimes such as homosexuality in the first place, regardless of the NT altering it (if we assume it true), is condemnation enough of your God. Jesus is God, God allowed it to begin with. Therefore, Jesus is still the same sadist, but in a newer, fuzzier form.

Christians are inconsistent, basically. They routinely quote the OT whenever they want to cherry pick something out of it, but then rush and go LOLZ CONTEXTORZ!10l!!!! when you call them on consistency. Either you adhere to the Old Law, or you do not. You don't get a free ride to cherry pick, son. 99% of Evangelists quote the OT regularly to condemn shit like wicca or homosexuality.

No problem.

Most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. As I mentioned before, a
sin no greater or lesser than any other.
& Most Christians 'preach' from the entire Bible. Continue to ignore this, if you like.

While we're on the subject, which groups believe homosexuals should be put
to death, specifically? ...Since that was the topic of the OP.

<awaits Westbury Baptist reference>

BTW, has anyone else noticed the irony in people here calling out Christians
for "cherry picking" certain Biblical texts, when in fact they're doing the
exact  same  thing? 



If by yabbering, you mean answering the question asked of us, I apologize.
We'll limit all future answers to a simple "yes" or "no".


That's an interesting stat. What is it based on?

I'm Christian and do not favor killing anyone merely for their sexual persuasion.

I think its hypocritical BS...or just revenge.

Didn't the Romans feed the Christians to the lions?  And I know the Romans were on the flimsy wrist side on occasion.  So its gotta be either some deep seeded hatred or hypocritical BS.

Either way, the fact that Christians still practice such disdain for someone's sexuality because of some ancient vendetta is completely ridiculous.  If you think killing homosexuals is OK because they are a homosexual then you are a NUT JOB.  Period.

No argument there.

No, Christians cherry pick whatever they find useful at the time, using "interpretations" that are as fluid as water so they can milk out the conclusion they want given the argument. This is why Christians insist the OT doesn't count when they don't want it to count, but then go right back to quoting genesis, the ten commandments, deuteronomy, leviticus, etc to condemn shit they don't like. You, like they, talk out both sides of your mouth. "OT doesn't apply, except when I want to use it to attack gays and promote the ten commandments!"

E.g. Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, etc.

The idea that homosexuality is a sin stems from the Old Testament, and its fucking stupid, since they are doing nothing wrong. It's a purely arbitrary fucking rule



Of course 99% is hyperbole. The point is that the majority of them are, and that's based on an accurate observation of evangelical protestant behaviour. Have you watched evangelical networks lately? They are fundamentalists. Not one sermon goes by that doesn't have quotations from the OT, leviticus, deuteronomy being their little favourites.

Over 50% of Americans literally believe the genesis story, which means they take the OT seriously still, yet again. They also believe in Noah and his impossible flood.

This really isn't something to boast about.

Someone email this to Phelps!

I'm atheist and don't think the majority of Christians (aside from Fred Phelps and the like) would like the idea of all homosexuals being rounded up and slaughtered. Whatever lack of intelegence leads you to that conclusion reflects poorly on yourself and gives other, more rational atheists, a bad name.

D9, you're disgustingly uneducated and horrendously one-dimensional.

That is not to say they disagree with homosexual sex and homosexual marriage... but killing them all is stupid and even Christians (;)) know this to be true.

Of course not all Christians want to go out and kill people. The problem is that they worship a God who promoted it, allowed it, and think that he's simultaneously a good being. It's a classical case of disjointed thought, isolating contradictions in data. They hold two contradictions as both true. God is responsible for mass murder, encouraging the death of innocent gays, witches, blasphemers, yet at the same time, Christians call him loving and benevolent and promote the Bible as a bastion of morality.

They also claim not to follow the OT, but the "NT" yet at most evangelicals have no problem quoting from the OT whenever they feel like it. 

Beware of the radical fundamentalists who claim to follow the Bible. The Bible, like the U.S. Constitution, is open to interpretaion and can mean many things to many people. That is why there are so many different denominations.

OswaldTheOsprey

Why should anyone follow the US Constitution apart from americans?

Because they have been invaded by americans is a distinct possibility.

I was using it for an anaslogy. You could substitute any other work that would work better for you. All I meant was that all great works are open to interpretation of the person reading them. One hundred people could read the same text and get 100 different interpretations.

OswaldTheOsprey

Only when the Constitution is ignored! :laugh: ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

The idea of 'killing homosexuals' is so stupid that i won't discuss it at all, i'll just say that before that be should better discuss if we should start by killing the heterosexuals first.


I may say that it's amazing for me how can a religious person support the death of anyone. I mean, isn't god and not a person who has the right to choose who lives and who not? Christians think that it's god who brings people to life, so, shouldn't be god and not any of you who decides who lives and who not? Please explain it to me because i don't understand that. Maybe it's because i'm an atheist that i don't understand it?

Social order sometimes requires life and death choices.  Christian doctrine holds that God delegates to political authorities that decision.

We are not talking about a war, where you defend yourself from the enemy in order to survive. We are talking about killing in cold blood as a revenge, does it do any good? No murder is justice.

The only thought that i can get from what you say is that, me, that i'm an atheist, i'm infinitely more moral than those believers who at the same time think that killing in cold blood is justice, moral, right or just not a murder. Some peaple here have sometimes raised the argument that those who are atheist can't actually be moral. Well, you see, they are wrong as you can see. You can see it, but i guess you just don't wanna see it (just guessing, i hope to be wrong).

The Bible does not promote revenge killing or clod blooded murder.  I don't know any Christians who support it. 

I don't know you or your moral values other than from what you say, but I do know several atheists who share many of my moral values. 

Wrong. The Bible and Yahweh promote murder, genocide all the time.

Personally, i don't know any atheist who think that state murder is  justice, but your experience may differ, as in fascist america (with fascist america i mean the United States of America) state murder is legal (although as of now there's some controversy). Anyway, the point is that an atheist can have a better or a worse set of moral values than a believer: to be moral you don't need to be religious, morality doesn't have come from a religion.

Really?  Well over 70% of the atheists I know support abortion (the leagal but intentional killing of an unborn human baby).  If the state supported and legal killing of a convicted murderer is murder in your mind than you make a special pleading if you suggest abortion is not murder.  I'll go either way on this point.  Either Capital Punishment and abortion is state sponsored legal killing or they are both murder.

You are wrong. There's no difference between state sponsored legal killing and murder. State sponsored legal killing IS the definition of state murder.

What you wanted to say, but you didn't manage to, is that abortion is as immoral as state murder of a convict. Well, i differ with you in that because i have a different definition of what is a living human being than you. AND i won't discuss with you that definition because it's pointless. I tried to discuss that kind of things with you in the past and i'm sorry to say that you are  unable to follow the debate. You lack of logic in your reasonings in that kind of debates.

Since I haven't done either, you're assumption is false & one can
only conclude you're talking out of both sides of your ass.

& calling homosexuality a sin isn't an attack, it's an acknowledgement.
All men sin, including myself.

 
To you, no. To Christians, yes. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Most biblical law stems from the OT. Much of it is mentioned in the NT.

Which reminds me, why did you put NT in quotation marks? Is that a
sort of implication that it isn't relevent? The Bible is a complete
book containing both old & new testements.Christians deem the NT as
being pretty important seeing as the subject(Christ) is the basis for
the entire belief.



Not one? That sounds like hyperbole again.

Continue to 'cherry pick' early OT scripture, BTW.
Ignore the rest of the Bible as long as it suits your needs.

You end with "All men sin, including myself.". Yes, you might think that but you say that homosexuals sin because they are homosexuals, and that heterosexuals sin but not because they are hetero.

Firstly, not all men sin, only those who are christians sin. Those who are not christians don't acknowledge what's behind the concept of a 'sin'.

Secondly, for you, the so-called sins are things that are bad. So, you acknowledge that you think homosexuality is a bad thing for you. That's like saying that jews are sinners because... they are jews, or that black people are sinners... because they are black. It's a discrimination against people because of race or, in this case, sex. Maybe, the sinner is you!

Fortunately, you are wrong when you say that in order to be christian you have to believe that being homosexual is a sin. Here, in Spain, 99% of christian people that i know would say that the statement "homosexuality is a sin" is reactionary and racist/sexist. Yeah, it may be written in the 'holy' book, but there are soo many things written in that book that you must not consider literally nowadays...

I'd to believe that most of americans do not think that homosexuality is a bad thing or a sin, but, taking into consideration that they have supported crazy things like america becoming a police state... well i don't have so much hope left for that wish.

When you say things like this, your credibility tends to just fly out the window.

That states the obvious. Christians believe all sin, atheists don't.

Not even remotely close.

Ethnicity isn't a sin. It isn't a behavior. It isn't willful disobedience.


I'll ignore the racist implication in your babble from here out.

No, not maybe. I thought I'd already addressed that.

Cripes, first technocrat, now you....

How can I be wrong for saying something I didn't say? Feel free to scroll back
over the past five pages & point out exactly where I said that.

Here's a tip; when you level an accusation at someone, make sure you have proof
of what you accuse them of. It helps in these matters.


What statement isn't reactionary?

..& kudos to that 1%. At least someone got it right.


Indeed. Just the other day, I saw the queer-mobile out rounding up some local homosexuals.
They likely be hanged by their feet, beaten to death with rebar & displayed
in the town square where we'll all laugh & point.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've goose-stepping lessons to attend.



Findeton, I don't mean to be harsh & I commend you for the ability to
debate in a foreign tongue but Biker Dude's correct..tone down the hyperbole.

At this point, one can only doubt if you are just unaware of the facts or you are aware that so you prefer to defend the police state in order to avoid consequences. Your government is storing in their HDDs every little bit of information that enters and leaves your internet connection, watching your emails, keeping track of where your car is when you enter a highway through rfids in your tires... and then analyzing that data in order to put you in watchlists, possible terrorists lists, no-fly lists etc. And you have your 'Patriot Act I' and 'Patriot Act II'. You also allow state murder in many states since 1970 (well, at least it's been stopped for the time being). And you also have the Guantanamo bay thing and other secret prisons. And i could continue for all the day demonstrating you live in a police state.

And, yes, there's been cases of american people being imprisoned in guantanamo without having a fair trial. Yes, i'm aware of the Data Retention Directive in Europe, we are following your steps, although we are not that advanced in the police state as you are.

Finally, i don't care if you really think that stating that america is becoming a police state takes away my credibility. It's a fact very simple to demonstrate.



I haven't said americans kill homosexuals. Hopefully, you don't treat your citizens like in Iran. As a a counterexample, in Spain, we didn't kill homosexuals during Franco's dictatorship (which ended about 40 years ago) and yet, we had a police state. So that you don't kill homosexuals doesn't mean you are not living in a police state.



So now you are saying that homosexuality is willful disobedience. Willful disobedience of what or whom? The bible? As i can willfully obey or disobey, are you implying here that people can, at any given moment, wilfully change their sexual preferences? That's very laughable. So, (assuming you are an heterosexual man), when you see another man, you are willfully deciding that, as you want to be heterosexual, you choose not to feel attracted to that man¿? I just can say LOL

Ah, and a personal question... are you christian?

Homosexuality is considered sinful by Christians. However, no one outside of Christianity gives a shit about their arbitrary Iron Age morality.

I agree.


Well, that might be true there in some parts of america, but not in Spain. Not for nothing, most of spanish are christians yet homosexuals can marry just the same way heterosexuals. Only narrow-minded christians can believe that homosexuality is sinful.

No, they can willfully decide to act(or not act) on them.

A guy can pop a boner over Brad Pitt without acting on it.
I can day dream about killing my boss. That doesn't make me
a murderer.

Man on man sexual relations are sinful according to the Bible.

Note the difference.



I've already made that clear in this thread. Why do you ask?

But woman on woman relations? Well, that's different.

Yeah.

Cause that's HOT!

You have said that homosexuality is a sin, i can quote you stating that, it's just a few posts down here. Being homosexual is feeling attracted by people of your own sex, not having sex with them, that's complementary.

And?

Complimentary? Hardly.

Your definition is at least debatable.
 
My point still stands.

Whats funny about the Catholics and the Vatican is that its pretty much a gay mens club these days.  I'm sure the pope is gay.

"1. Cultural/national/religious bigotry and hate-speech, racism, excessively derogatory remarks and advocating violence will not be tolerated."

THE RULES (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=18.0)

Offensive language removed.
- Edited by Abraxas.

The problem here is Christian morality itself--that is the explanation for their bizarre, anti-humanitarian views toward others.

A. As a moral system, Christianity has little to do with maximizing the welfare of humans, making temporal life better, or minimizing suffering.  In reality, the the entire moral paradigm is based off of two concepts: Behaviourism and Obedience. As for the latter, it's the reward/punishment mechanism wherein people obey because of the promise of reward in the afterlife as well as the threat of everlasting torture. Morality is defined arbitrarily by priests claiming to speak for an unseen, all-powerful, all-knowing authority. That is intended to get you to obey by giving their views authority, regardless of what they actually are, taking advantage of the human tendency to do what they are told in the face of authority figures, especially ones bearing punishments/rewards. Combined, Christian morality basically employs Operant Conditioning for the benefit of the clergy and their arbitrary illogic.

To Recap: Christian morality is a combination of:

A. An all-powerful, yet unseen "authority" telling you what to do and you obeying because he says so, knows better.

B. A system of positive reinforcement and punishment. You are threatened with vicious, everlasting torture in burning Hells or eternal bliss in heaven. Islam plays the same little game, which helps justify their use of suicide bombers, proving that such schemes can make "true believers" do virtually anything they are told.

Applied to this issue (homosexuality), of course Christians find the practice evil, sinful. They have been brainwashed by behaviour modification that has been refined for over a thousand years by the Church. It doesn't matter if the whole concept is absolutely fucking stupid...the reinforcement scheme and attempt to "awe" them by the authority of God has numbed them to the idea of thinking for themselves. Even if they did, they are so afraid of disobeying God, not following the "true path" because then THEY might jeopardize their rewards and receive heavenly punishment. As Fred Phelps seems to indicate, anyone who doesn't mindlessly obey the Bible's precepts when it comes to homosexuality is a "fag enabler" who will likewise go to Hell. It's a deliberate attempt to control and frighten people into submission.


Furthermore, Christianity is largely anti-human, as it historically has totally devalued humanism in favour of a God-centric ethic. It has nothing to do with humanity, human welfare.  The core concept of Christianity as expressed in both Catholicism and Protestant faiths is that Humans are dirty, unworthy, sinful beings who will, no matter what they do, always be sinful and undeserving but. This is largely expressed in the TULIP doctrine as well as inherent to the idea of Original Sin. People are not saved because they are good, but ultimately by the grace of God--again arbitrary--when he gives you an undeserved chance through "faith" and "obedience."

Christian morality is founded on the idea that humans share a large number of similarities with our transcending creator who did in the past make his presence directly known to historical figures.  God endowed us with both choice and the ability to discern the difference between good choices and poor choices.  God reminds us by way of prophets what choices are good and what choices are poor.  This is the moral code.  God expects us to make good choices out of love and respect for him and fellow man but he demonstrates, by choosing a people to make an example for the rest, and also setting out law and a contract to these people, that humans are incapable of consistently choosing to always do good.

God is intolerant of poor behavior and insists that he be separated from it.  Since all humans fall short of his standard of behavior, all of us must be separated until the behavior stops and justice is served, but the price (death) is too high for any of us to clear, we cannot do it on our own.   God so loves the world that he offers a plan for redemption and any and all who accept his gift of grace by admitting our failure, choosing to accept and love him in faith with only benefit of indirect evidence, and accepting his plan are restored to his domain.  Those who choose not to accept his plan and those who do not want to accept a higher authority without concrete proof remain separated since they have hardened hearts and hardened heads who have no desire to love God without condition.  What condition do you require from God in order for you to accept his gift?

Correction: Christian morality is founded on authority of a being whom people assume exist because an ancient book said he did--which just happened to be written by priests. For hundreds of years, the clergy have been creating Gods so they can use that ultimate authority gig to manufacture obedience to their rules. That is the true foundation of Christian morality. There's no reason to follow Christian morality or see it as valid except for the appeal to God's authority and the benefits/rewards you will receive. It' consists of following laundry list of incredibly bizarre, arbitrary rules because they say so.




[quote
  God endowed us with both choice and the ability to discern the difference between good choices and poor choices.[/quote]

Theologically incorrect. According to the Bible, God made Adam and Eve entirely ignorant morons who, only by disobeying God because they ultimately didn't know any better (since they had no knowledge of good, evil, right, and wrong), ate from the Tree of Knowledge. It was only then that they realized the difference between good and poor choices, upon which time they were severely punished by God for daring, ironically, disobeying, thus reinforcing the plain/pleasure principle of your religion I discussed earlier. Disobey authority = punishment.



Oh, well he INSISTS does he? That's just it, in fact. He uses his power and authority to tell you what to do, reinforcing it with threats of violence if you do not, and you ought to obey because you're a peon and he is big, bad, and smarter than you (or so he says). There is no appeal to the benefit to humanity or the promotion of welfare outside his threats to you if you disobey. It's not about YOU or humans. It's about obediance. Whatever God says is Good, and then you do it because he says so.

The idea that God is a moral authority is itself ridiculous, given he's one of literature's most vile, genocidal war mongers who gets his rocks off by cruel and unusual punishments, as is evidenced in the OT. He has no room to moralize to anyone.


I am glad we fall short of his standard of behaviour. His version of "justice" and "morality" bears little resemblance to actual morality. Again, you obey out of ambivalence: you both fear him and love him for the potential punishments and rewards and are enticed to obey therefore.




Oh yea! He "loves" the world so much he decided to murder everything on it at least once and then sets out ridiculous OT punishments for minor infractions and violations of arbitrary rules. Great Guy you worship.



A. That he should exist, which he doesn't.
B. That he's not a genocidal, warmongering asshole, which he is.

I don't worship false evil Gods, sorry.

Please reread my statement again more carefully.  I said it is "founded on the idea . . . ". I have not made any statement here about the efficacy of that idea.  Furthermore, most of the writers of scripture were not theologians.  the writers spanned the gamut of human experiences.


Truth claims are difficult things to substantiate.  You have no hope of proving your claim.


You should speak for yourself.  I find very good reasons, wholly isolated from the ones you suggest.


Quite unthoughtful technocrat.  What is the deeper meaning of this tree of knowledge of good and evil and why did it exist in the garden in the first place?  Was it a coincidence?




I am sorry that you have a problem with authority figures.  If only the authorities would do as you think they should do.  This world would be a much better place, right technocrat?


Yes, your idea of what God should be like is so much more correct and that is why there cannot be a creator, because the creator is nothing like you.



I see that your problem with the Christian version of God is that you could be a much better God.  If only you could be God, technocrat, if only . . .



But you do worship yourself, right?

I don't need an absolute proof. Evidence substantiates it.  The rules are entirely arbitrary and made up by the clergy for the benefit of the organization to which they belong, and often themselves. It's no surprise that, throughout history, the clergy dominated government and had tremendous power. Their religious posiiotn was used to cultivate a crop of obedience through deference to their ultimate "divine" authority. Kings of the 16th and 17th centuries played the same game (The Sun King of France) and other divine-right monarchs who commanded the loyalty of the population by appealing to their special position and knowledge of God's orders. During predynastic period in Sumeria, the central component of the redistributive economy was the Temple and the clergy, which virtually dominated the culture.

In the Bible we see a continuation of this theme, as the clergy set up asinine arbitrary rules defying all logic that just happened to benefit them, including incredible punishments for telling off members of the holy temple. If a child mocked a priest, it carried the punishment of death.

Even in the Bible, we see the use of "religion" and "divine authority" as a justification for dominance in the temporal world. The Jews, for instance, invented just HAPPENED to have a God who they could use as a justification for stealing land from the Canaanites. God is invoked as giving them some special Lebensraum. This is a common theme among ancient cultures who had Gods who just happened to favour them, promise them tracts of land in other peoples' territories.

God obviously didn't make the rules as magic beings don't exist, nor is there a credible reason to believe they exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Consequently, the logical choice is to infer that the clergy developed all the rules they pretended 'God' did so they could sap the benefit of the divine authority.


Overwhelmingly, Christian morality itself has no basis in anything but obedience and operant conditioning. You can, however, follow it as a "cultural Christian" like many modern Christians who never read the Bible or go to Church. They simply are unfortunate products of epidemiology.


It's hardly unthoughtful. It's a clear reading of what happens. You don't like it because it's not the interpretation you were taught in Sunday School. The deeper meaning lies in the symbolism of the tree. It represents on one hand the stupidity of God as well as his ultimate irrational fear of human progress not deliberately controlled by him. Consistently in the Bible we see God as a asshole who has an irrational fear of his own creations, thus harshly punishes them for minor transgressions and creates rules that have little logic behind them. In the Eden myth, the Tree of Knowledge represents the forbidden fruit--knowledge. God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from it because he doesn't want them to attain knowledge that will put them on a similar level as himself. The theme isn't new, as it happed also in Greek Myths such as Prometheus. The serpent is an the disobedient divine troublemaker who dared to defy the Gods and promote mankind to a new level feared by those Gods, whereas Prometheus was that for Greek Man. Where one was fire, in the Bible, it's knowledge. Knowledge is important, because the ignorant are easier to control. "They are now as us" was emphasized in the Bible in this story.

We see a similar theme in the story of Babel. Mankind attempts to reach the heavens by building a tall structure. God, seeing cooperation and human progress, becomes startled, deliberately sabotages the effort to prevent man from developing to "his level."

Note* The whole story is ultimately silly, though, because God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, yet this directly contradicts that by indicating God's a blithering idiot for putting a forbidden tree in range of ignorant humans and then telling them not to eat from it, knowing they will anyway because he can see into the future, but then getting angry when his rules are accidentally violated. That actually compounds the problem and highlights God's sadism. He knew what was going to happen before it happened, yet did nothing to prevent it, getting angry at what he failed to prevent, yet already knew.

In reality, the story transfers to the power of the clergy: they don't want you to disobey, because ultimately, a population of obedient, brainwashed morons are easier to manipulate and to control. This story is used to show what happens when you disobey while attacking the acquisition of knowledge as a trick of Satan (except for what the Church wants you to learn. That's holy, of course!).


I have no problem with authority figures. The problem is basing a morality on the authority of unworthy, imaginary characters who don't deserve authority in the first place, even if they did exist. God is clearly a sadistic, arbitrary tyrant. Hardly a moral paragon. The problem is the unthinking assumption that his authority is valid and he's a moral paragon because...the clergy tells you he says so. Nothing more. If God said baby killing was ok (and actually, he has many times), people will follow it because of the authority principle: God supposedly knows more than you, so do what he says!

 
Correct. My idea is superior, since my appraisal of his morality is based off of  his real actions as evidenced in the Bible. That's worth far more than the word of the clergy or God's own opinion of his actions. By fact, he's a mass-murdering evil tyrant. Only dogma, again based on his word, claims he's not. God has a personality cult worthy of Kim Jong Ill. He can do no wrong...because...well...because Great Leader says so! You can't question the Glorious Great Leader, afteral. It's all a system of self-reinforcing appeals to authority that are base don nothing but more appeals to his authority, degarding human intelligence, as well as threatening them with violence or luring them with reward.


My problem is ultimately that he's an evil sociopath who people wrongfully promote as a moral paragon. His actions cause significant suffering, are not based on promoting human material welfare. The morality is otherworldly, God centred.  A proper morality is man centred and based on improving welfare of people, not obedience to God and arbitrary sets of rules.


I worship nothing. There's little point. Reality nor nature care about what you want, pray for or what totems you erect. My ethics is Utilitarian and based on practical, real-time suffering and human welfare promotion, not sitting around a campfire praying to a tyrannical invisible being.

When the evidence is weak the claim is not substantiated.  It remains not validated.


I don't find any law that calls for death for children who mock clergy in scripture.


In early scripture the Judges were the political rulers while the Levites were clergy.  Political leadership and spiritual leadership was separated.



A false God cannot hand you victory.



You presuppose this.  Presupposing a conclusion is a logical error.  Testimony from eyewitnesses in good standing is a credible reason to accept that something existed.  Ability to accurately predict future events is also substantiation that the prophet has unusual abilities.


This also is a logical error.


You have made two logical errors in coming to this point.  Therefore the conclusion is not supported by your illogic.


I repeat, I find basis in things other than obedience and conditioning, as do many other Christians I know.


Sure.  Rationalize it any way you must, and whatever you do, don't make any attempt to try to understand what the writer intended.

 
Christians should be worshiping you then.

The historical evidence/precedent, combined with observations of the types of rules and the mentality of those who make them is more than adequate evidence.


Then you really don't know your bible as well as you think you do. Look harder. IF you can't find it with a day, I will provide the passage.


The influence of the clergy is immense on all ancient historical societies of the third and second millennia, and the political sphere is heavily informed by religious policy...ultimately made by the priesthood. Hence the holy crusades to take land from others using God's authority. The very concept of the "special covenant" of jews was invented by the priests to justify their genocide.

Stud the history if the Hewbrews, and you will learn the priesthood dominated the society's behaviour: they did, after all, come up with all the religious laws, rituals, etc.


False. Absence of evidence is EVIDENCE of absence. You are conflating evidence with proof. If I open a shoebox and don't see an elephant flying around in it, that is indeed evidence there isn't one there. It's not absolute proof, no. If I said absence of evidence is proof of absence, then you would be right.  You don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars. Try again.


Wrong again. I explain this more later. I am not presupposing God doesn't exist and then using that as the support for his non-existence. I simply cut out the explanation I gave in other threads, because you already heard it.

A. The tentative conclusion is God didn't make the rules because:
B. If he made the rules, that means he exists.
C. For God to exist, magic must exist.
D. Given the lack of evidence and evidence against magic existing, God likely doesn't exist. Thus, it's a safe conclusion he does not, which leads to the conclusion he wrote nothing. Given the evidence and far, far simpler sources of the rules, occams razor indicates people did it. We know they exist. We know they can create laws. We know they do "magic" which is an illusion, and we know they have invented many religions before. Again, I explain this in more detail later, so just combine the sections if you respond.

Nothing is absolute. It's not a proof, which you assume is necessary. I can't PROVE he didn't write it, because I can't 100% prove magic doesn't exist, which God requires to be true. It's is a tentative assumption based on the evidence and lack thereof. Perfectly reasonable--just as reasonable as if somone said he dropped a ball and it flew up into the sky, carried on the wings of magic bunnies upon which time it exploded into iced cupcakes. No would would seriously posit that was possible, based on the evidence and violations of natural laws. THere's little difference between that and a magic sky being.

As for you "eye witnesses," it's entirely reasonable to dismiss extreme claims unsupported by evidence, especially if those claims are of phenomena that violate all known scientific laws. That a bunch of bronze age primitives said they thought something has no weight at all. They were simply delusional or lying, which is a far simpler explanation that fits the known evidence of what is, is not pyossible.  Even today, eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, even when it has nothing to do with extreme claims that run contrary to all known science. Basing one's decisions on the word of primitives who believed in sky magic isn't credible in the slightest. And their predictions have not been correct either (in fact, they are worthless, especially since you're merely interpreting them ad hoc). Now stop quoting logical fallacies you don't understand so you can impress the peanut gallery God squad.


No kidding. He's not real. They just believed he was and used that as a justification. Don't be obtuse.


Incorrect. Refer to the above. I will reclarify:

1. Evidence of absence is the absence of evidence. This is not a logical error. You are misusing logical rules because you confuse evidence with absolute proof, again. That's your problem. Not mine. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist with 100% certainty to assume he doesn't exist.

2. It's safe to assume God didn't make up the rules and that instead people did because for God to have made the rules, it must mean magic exists. This is absurd. There's no evidence of magic, and in fact, all known instances of it have been falsified and explained away as the illusions they are. GIven the lack of evidence, falsification of examples, and the complete violation of natural, physical laws, we can assume magic doesn't exist based on the evidence. Can't prove it, but that's irrelevant. Occam's Razor applies. Given the aforementioned, and given we know people are capable of making laws as well a religions that sound and act similarly (scientology, pastafarianism, mormonism)
the simplest explanation that involves the least multiplication of unnecessary entities is...sorry, God.


Builshit. You can't divine the writer's intent any better. I will stick with what is the simplest answer fitting the evidence, and you can pretend you know what the bronze age primitives "really meant" (aka, whatever preacher-man told you to believe as a kid).

Perhaps in your kangaroo court.


Sorry, Technocrat.  Absence of evidence is just absence of evidence.  Your example is contrived to support your illogic, since elephants generally don't fly and don't fit in a shoebox.  However if we switch to atoms that we don't see in the shoebox, your error becomes more obvious.


There is no prescription that magic must exist for God to exist.  Magic is not a sufficient and necessary condition for God.  Your construct fails and your illogic stands.


Rules of evidence call for a different treatment.  Eyewitnesses in good standing with character witnesses and corroboration are accepted by rules of evidence.  It is in fact unreasonable to dismiss them without cause.


Eyewitness evidence today remains the mainstay of testimony.  It is not notoriously inaccurate, though it is not 100% perfect it is close.  Have a look at law statistics and you will find that your statement is false.


At least you now admit that you are assuming (presuming) he does not exist.  Presuming a conclusion is not the same as using reason and logic to come to a conclusion.


Actually it is quite true that some people are better at determining a writers intent than others.  It is also logical that one who tries to determine the writer's intent has a much better chance at arriving at it than one who makes no attempt to understand the writer's intent.   You have admitted that you are not even going to try.

For someone who claims to use reason and logic, you are doing a great job of demonstrating the opposite.

RF, regarding your "eyewitnesses". Let's try this again.  WHO are you talking about?

For example:

Can you tell me when Matthew makes an appearance in the Gospel of Matthew?

Hint: its well into the story and he is referred to in the 3rd person - as a character.



The Gospel of Matthew is ANONYMOUS. And, RF, when is the earliest complete copy of Matthew?

~200 CE years after the events supposedly happened.

So, lets face it. Matthew is NOT an Eyewitness.  Neither is John, or Paul. (we can discuss this, but it is certain as you will agree).

So we are down to Mark and Luke:

Earliest copies: ~200 CE


Luke:
The narrator does not say he was an eyewitness.  He only says that he investigated the stories that had been handed down, and is reporting his understanding of the events in the life of Jesus:



Luke EVEN SAYS HE WAS NOT an eyewitness.


So, we are down to ONE: Mark.

The ealiest mention was by Papias (~120 CE):


This is the Xian tradition but Papias based this on hearsay. Papias said "I heard it from a "Presbyter".


So, Mark was NOT an eyewitness.


That leaves NONE. Not ONE. Nobody was an eyewitness to your Lord.

These facts are important, RF. Truth is important.