Religion & Morality

[conversationpc]

In your Opinion. Which you are entitled to. By the way what is it it?

You know I meant to write it is. English is my third language. The same can't be said for you though, who don't even know the difference between your and you're. .

She used "your" correctly here unless I'm missing something she said earlier.

[artist4perry]

In your Opinion. Which you are entitled to. By the way what is it it?

You know I meant to write it is. English is my third language. The same can't be said for you though, who don't even know the difference between your and you're. .

She used "your" correctly here unless I'm missing something she said earlier.

I used it correctly. You're means you are. So why would I say "In you are opinion"?

And Parfait I was not trying to make fun of you when I asked what is it it. I was trying to understand what you were trying to say, I was not sure what your sentence was driving to. I was pretty sure it was a typo.

I was not trying to belittle you in any way. Anybody can make a typo, or error in writing. I was trying to understand your sentence.

[Duncan]

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the old testament stuff wasn't true.

I don't remember Ginger or any other believer here saying the "Old Testament stuff" wasn't true. It depends on what your interpretation of what it says is whether we think that's true or not.

No I didn't. And Duncan reads and understands only what he wants to read and understand. Duncan, again I was not born here, I was born in LA. And you don't live in Arkansas so commenting on the lifestyle of Southerners when you don't live here and have no actual knowledge about the south shows you stereotype as insults. So are all Britain's ugly and have bad teeth? Should I assume that about Britain's because it is a stereotype? Seriously you just want to stir the stink and not engage in a real discussion.

Either if your believing in the bible or evolution, man somehow started by breeding within families. And yes I was guessing when I have no written confirmation about how it went down that long ago. I do know after a period of time God required it to be stopped. I am sure he was aware it had to be that way for a time considering he made one male and one female.

"Duncan when Christ was crucified on the cross the old was done away with."


What did you mean by the above then?

[Don]

A bit off topic but I didn't know that Richard Dawkins is married to Lalla Ward, Tom Baker's old girlfriend. Catching up on some old episodes of Dr. Who and just made that connection.

[verslibre]

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the old testament stuff wasn't true.

I don't remember Ginger or any other believer here saying the "Old Testament stuff" wasn't true. It depends on what your interpretation of what it says is whether we think that's true or not.

No I didn't. And Duncan reads and understands only what he wants to read and understand. Duncan, again I was not born here, I was born in LA. And you don't live in Arkansas so commenting on the lifestyle of Southerners when you don't live here and have no actual knowledge about the south shows you stereotype as insults. So are all Britain's ugly and have bad teeth? Should I assume that about Britain's because it is a stereotype? Seriously you just want to stir the stink and not engage in a real discussion.

Either if your believing in the bible or evolution, man somehow started by breeding within families. And yes I was guessing when I have no written confirmation about how it went down that long ago. I do know after a period of time God required it to be stopped. I am sure he was aware it had to be that way for a time considering he made one male and one female.

"Duncan when Christ was crucified on the cross the old was done away with."


What did you mean by the above then?

Reboot. That's the best modern one-word term that can be analogized to what she told you. That word is tossed around a lot these days, so it's to your benefit.

[verslibre]

You know I meant to write it is. English is my third language.

Really? I'm impressed. Your command of the language is as refined as any native speaker I know. English is one of the hardest languages to learn and it seems you've mastered all the manifold nuances within. Kudos, most people on their second language never quite get to that point.

I wouldn't go that far, but yes, he's fluent.

[verslibre]

In your Opinion. Which you are entitled to. By the way what is it it?

You know I meant to write it is. English is my third language. The same can't be said for you though, who don't even know the difference between your and you're. .

She used "your" correctly here unless I'm missing something she said earlier.

Yes, she did.

Then, in the same sentence, he wrote "...you though, who don't even know..."

[Duncan]

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the old testament stuff wasn't true.

I don't remember Ginger or any other believer here saying the "Old Testament stuff" wasn't true. It depends on what your interpretation of what it says is whether we think that's true or not.

No I didn't. And Duncan reads and understands only what he wants to read and understand. Duncan, again I was not born here, I was born in LA. And you don't live in Arkansas so commenting on the lifestyle of Southerners when you don't live here and have no actual knowledge about the south shows you stereotype as insults. So are all Britain's ugly and have bad teeth? Should I assume that about Britain's because it is a stereotype? Seriously you just want to stir the stink and not engage in a real discussion.

Either if your believing in the bible or evolution, man somehow started by breeding within families. And yes I was guessing when I have no written confirmation about how it went down that long ago. I do know after a period of time God required it to be stopped. I am sure he was aware it had to be that way for a time considering he made one male and one female.

"Duncan when Christ was crucified on the cross the old was done away with."


What did you mean by the above then?

Reboot. That's the best modern one-word term that can be analogized to what she told you. That word is tossed around a lot these days, so it's to your benefit.

So, was the old Testament done away with or not? If it wasn't the old testamant that was done away with what was?

[artist4perry]

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the old testament stuff wasn't true.

I don't remember Ginger or any other believer here saying the "Old Testament stuff" wasn't true. It depends on what your interpretation of what it says is whether we think that's true or not.

No I didn't. And Duncan reads and understands only what he wants to read and understand. Duncan, again I was not born here, I was born in LA. And you don't live in Arkansas so commenting on the lifestyle of Southerners when you don't live here and have no actual knowledge about the south shows you stereotype as insults. So are all Britain's ugly and have bad teeth? Should I assume that about Britain's because it is a stereotype? Seriously you just want to stir the stink and not engage in a real discussion.

Either if your believing in the bible or evolution, man somehow started by breeding within families. And yes I was guessing when I have no written confirmation about how it went down that long ago. I do know after a period of time God required it to be stopped. I am sure he was aware it had to be that way for a time considering he made one male and one female.

"Duncan when Christ was crucified on the cross the old was done away with."


What did you mean by the above then?

It means we are now to follow the teachings of the New Testament. We no longer live the way they lived under the old. When Christ died on the cross the old way was done away with. Now we still are not allowed to kill, steal, etc. Christ taught by example to live peaceably.

[artist4perry]

A bit off topic but I didn't know that Richard Dawkins is married to Lalla Ward, Tom Baker's old girlfriend. Catching up on some old episodes of Dr. Who and just made that connection.

Love Tom Baker as Doctor Who............Want a jelly baby?

[Rip Rokken]

So are all Britain's ugly and have bad teeth?

According to Deano, yes!

"Duncan when Christ was crucified on the cross the old was done away with."

What did you mean by the above then?

It means we are now to follow the teachings of the New Testament. We no longer live the way they lived under the old. When Christ died on the cross the old way was done away with. Now we still are not allowed to kill, steal, etc. Christ taught by example to live peaceably.

Her answer is pretty good. Actually though, Jesus didn't come to abolish the O.T. law, but to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), and God's will ends up being done thru the Holy Spirit living out through the Christian believer - roughly, it's the heavenly version of 'possession', and he supposedly guides you thru your conscience and heavenly thought impulses into doing good works and obeying. Too many verses needed to explain that, but I found a site which sums up what it means to "walk according to the Spirit" pretty well:

http://www.eliyah.com/walkspir.html

Now Ginger didn't do this, but some people use the whole "Old Testament is obsolete" argument to get people not to read it, or to try to excuse the horrible things the O.T. god does in them. That's a no-go... he owns everything he's ever done. According to Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion",

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (pg. 31)

The early Gnostic believers actually considered the O.T. god who created the universe to be an evil, incompetent, lesser deity that they called the Demiurge. Obviously they didn't succeed in maintaining that distinction between the O.T. and N.T. gods.

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

[parfait]

In your Opinion. Which you are entitled to. By the way what is it it?

You know I meant to write it is. English is my third language. The same can't be said for you though, who don't even know the difference between your and you're. .

She used "your" correctly here unless I'm missing something she said earlier.

I used it correctly. You're means you are. So why would I say "In you are opinion"?

And Parfait I was not trying to make fun of you when I asked what is it it. I was trying to understand what you were trying to say, I was not sure what your sentence was driving to. I was pretty sure it was a typo.

I was not trying to belittle you in any way. Anybody can make a typo, or error in writing. I was trying to understand your sentence.

The you/you're thing was more in general. Anyways; I'm still waiting for you to reply to my original post.

[Rip Rokken]

The you/you're thing was more in general. Anyways; I'm still waiting on you to reply to my original post.

You're avatar looks a lot like Christopher Hitchens.

[conversationpc]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

[S2M]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

Dave, you are SO focused on the alleged 'attack' aspect of this that you aren't seeing the actual crux of the concept.

If a child of yours had an imaginary friend, you'd probably patronize the CHILD for a couple of years...no harm, kid's young....but if that behavior continued to manifest itself into the teen years and beyond - you'd be all over that, looking into getting your child seen by 'professionals'....To we agnostics/atheists, this is the same thing. An imaginary friend that has continued to manifest itself past the childhood years, and in certain instances, remained dormant - thus revealing itself much later in life(different issue, but in almost every instance - more dangerous). We see things as adults with imaginary friends. Again, if a child of yours manifested this behavior(an imaginary friend that is NOT 'god'), you would be eliciting the same behavior as we are, and worse....

[conversationpc]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

Dave, you are SO focused on the alleged 'attack' aspect of this that you aren't seeing the actual crux of the concept.

If a child of yours had an imaginary friend, you'd probably patronize the CHILD for a couple of years...no harm, kid's young....but if that behavior continued to manifest itself into the teen years and beyond - you'd be all over that, looking into getting your child seen by 'professionals'....To we agnostics/atheists, this is the same thing. An imaginary friend that has continued to manifest itself past the childhood years, and in certain instances, remained dormant - thus revealing itself much later in life(different issue, but in almost every instance - more dangerous). We see things as adults with imaginary friends. Again, if a child of yours manifested this behavior(an imaginary friend that is NOT 'god'), you would be eliciting the same behavior as we are, and worse....

I wasn't addressing you but thanks for avoiding the question anyway.

[S2M]

Dave, I DID answer the question....I gave you a scenario where you would act the same way. It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked. Conversely, that is ALL you and Ginger clamor about.

Also, I don't think being critical about an opposing viewpoint falls within the realm of morality, no matter how that criticism reveals itself.

[Duncan]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

I don't see how you can possibly argue with the contents of the sticker.

[Duncan]

Dave, I DID answer the question....I gave you a scenario where you would act the same way. It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked. Conversely, that is ALL you and Ginger clamor about.

Also, I don't think being critical about an opposing viewpoint falls within the realm of morality, no matter how that criticism reveals itself.

It's what people do when they havn't got a decent argument to back up any of their beliefs.

[conversationpc]

Dave, I DID answer the question....I gave you a scenario where you would act the same way.

Bringing up a hypothetical situation and asking how I'd react or surmising how I'd react is not answering the question. It's deflecting and saying "Well, this is what you'd do if..." blah blah blah, instead of directly answering the question.

It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked. Conversely, that is ALL you and Ginger clamor about.

Really? Have you been following the news lately about the media campaigns enacted by atheists where they mentioned how they are feeling attacked by the mainstream in this country?

Also, I don't think being critical about an opposing viewpoint falls within the realm of morality, no matter how that criticism reveals itself.

Being critical? No, I have no problem with that. Insinuations and accusations about lack of intelligence, stupidity, etc...That, I do have a problem with. Being critical about an opposing viewpoint is different than belittling others for what they believe.

[conversationpc]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

I don't see how you can possibly argue with the contents of the sticker.

It's not necessarily the literal contents of the sticker I'm talking about but the intent of the sticker and the person posting the picture of it.

[Rip Rokken]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

The sticker is mainly criticism of a book, and though silly in tone, it's also educational. I'm sure a good percentage of believers who read it might ask, "Where does it say all that in the Bible?". And actually, everything in the "Exposure Warning" is possible - we've seen those things happen in at least a small percentage of believers, can't be denied. Therefore, those folks are fair game for criticism. It's my personal contention that if God were real and Christianity was the truth, then those things would not occur in any believer. Instead, they'd be healed mentally, emotionally, etc. It's not good P.R. to have insane people running around representing your brand, ya know? But that would require a supernatural reality, not just personal perceptions or opinions.

Most importantly, this really isn't an issue of morality at all. It's a difference of opinion in a legitimate discussion. Speaking for myself, I never ridicule anyone for their beliefs, though I'm usually happy to discuss them, even if I use some sarcasm or humor to illustrate a point.

[Duncan]

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

I don't see how you can possibly argue with the contents of the sticker.

It's not necessarily the literal contents of the sticker I'm talking about but the intent of the sticker and the person posting the picture of it.

Oh come off it Dave. The scales of injustice and discrimination are pretty heavily weighted on the side of religion.

[conversationpc]

The sticker is mainly criticism of a book, and though silly in tone, it's also educational. I'm sure a good percentage of believers who read it might ask, "Where does it say all that in the Bible?". And actually, everything in the "Exposure Warning" is possible - we've seen those things happen in at least a small percentage of believers, can't be denied. Therefore, those folks are fair game for criticism. It's my personal contention that if God were real and Christianity was the truth, then those things would not occur in any believer. Instead, they'd be healed mentally, emotionally, etc. It's not good P.R. to have insane people running around representing your brand, ya know? But that would require a supernatural reality, not just personal perceptions or opinions.

OK...This is the kind of discussion I'm talking about which Sean doesn't seem to be able to engage in on a consistent basis.

This begs the question, though...Just because someone claims to be a believer doesn't mean they really are a believer. I know lots of folks claim to be one thing on Sunday but act quite different the rest of the week. Now the other question is, can those things occur in people who really are believers? Sure...They're still human and God's spirit doesn't possess the person and force them to do only good things. They can still make decisions and do things which are contrary to what they believe. Sanctification isn't a one-time process. It's continuous and no one does only good things from the point at which they believe in Christ until they die.

Most importantly, this really isn't an issue of morality at all. It's a difference of opinion in a legitimate discussion. Speaking for myself, I never ridicule anyone for their beliefs, though I'm usually happy to discuss them, even if I use some sarcasm or humor to illustrate a point.

What I'm talking about is, do you think it's moral to say that someone shouldn't be belittled for their beliefs but it's OK to hold someone up like Hitchens who does do that kind of thing?

[verslibre]

The you/you're thing was more in general. Anyways; I'm still waiting for you to reply to my original post.

Improper use of a semi-colon. One demerit.

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

The "Content Advisory" warns of verses that describe or advocate stuff like sadomasochism, use of drugs & alcohol, homosexuality and lawlessness. Sounds like some people in this very thread should like a book like that!!

It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked.

Bull. Rip even goes to events that are inspired by atheists' collective reactions to anything connected to a belief system.

[verslibre]

The sticker is mainly criticism of a book, and though silly in tone, it's also educational. I'm sure a good percentage of believers who read it might ask, "Where does it say all that in the Bible?". And actually, everything in the "Exposure Warning" is possible - we've seen those things happen in at least a small percentage of believers, can't be denied. Therefore, those folks are fair game for criticism. It's my personal contention that if God were real and Christianity was the truth, then those things would not occur in any believer.

People are not automatons. (Well, some are.)

Do you understand the entire concept behind "free will"? It's not just a great song by Rush.

[S2M]

The you/you're thing was more in general. Anyways; I'm still waiting for you to reply to my original post.

Improper use of a semi-colon. One demerit.

I found this sticker inside a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room a few months ago, and it gave me a laugh...

See, this is the problem I have with some Agnostics and Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists will say that they are moral people. In other words they tend to live by the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ethos. However, it seems to be fair game to belittle, discriminate, and unfairly criticize people of faith. How does that fit into what those same folks declare as the morality they are following?

The "Content Advisory" warns of verses that describe or advocate stuff like sadomasochism, use of drugs & alcohol, homosexuality and lawlessness. Sounds like some people in this very thread should like a book like that!!

It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked.

Bull. Rip even goes to events that are inspired by atheists' collective reactions to anything connected to a belief system.

It should have been evident. I was talking about the atheists and agnostics here. Not the professional ones. I have not heard ONE whine about being attacked for his/her belief system....however the rollers do it every time.

[verslibre]

It should have been evident. I was talking about the atheists and agnostics here. Not the professional ones. I have not heard ONE whine about being attacked for his/her belief system....however the rollers do it every time.

No, it's not evident when your statement is all-encompassing, genius.

(And for the record, I have.)

It's like a gay guy saying he likes to suck on wieners. Do you assume he means Ball Park frankfurters in the cold meats aisle?

[YoungJRNY]

God exists! Tim Tebow is 5-1 as the Broncos starter! The one loss came on God's day off

[conversationpc]

It should have been evident. I was talking about the atheists and agnostics here. Not the professional ones. I have not heard ONE whine about being attacked for his/her belief system....however the rollers do it every time.

No, it's not evident when your statement is all-encompassing, genius.

(And for the record, I have.)

It's like a gay guy saying he likes to suck on wieners. Do you assume he means Ball Park frankfurters in the cold meats aisle?

But he's more intelligent than you are...