 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
>> ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
>> accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
>
> You're assuming to start with that marriage has something to do with
> religion, then saying "we shouldn't have marriage because it has
> something to do with religion." You are, in short, begging the question.
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have marriage," I'm saying that Civil
government should not get involved with it. As a consequence, legal
matters such as inheritances should not be based on marriage, either.
> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
> visit?
I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I don't
think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the hospital.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
>> is a significant demand for one without the other?
>
> Well, yes. That's why we have religious marriages and secular marriages.
>
> I'm not sure why a "religion" has anything to do with contractual
> obligations of the state and its regulated service providers.
My main point is that, even if it is Civil, when you call it "marriage"
you bring the religious nuts out of the woodwork.
So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Its membership, not the Church itself.
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
Well, that's disappointing. It's the first time I've heard of them
supporting specific legislation, and I was active in the church for more
than 25 years, as well as studying a great deal of their history.
> And, really, if bunches of mormons voted for it, even tho the church
> leaders didn't explicitly say to, don't you think maybe it was the
> teachings of the mormon church that caused it?
The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself supporting
it, are two separate things. Historically, the LDS Church has never
been about telling people what to specifically do (ie, how to vote), but
rather how they should live their lives, and letting members apply those
teachings appropriately.
One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need to
be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar with
the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring out
how to live a moral life.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That's a bit like arguing that a union didn't take an official stand on
> an issue, but its "members" voted to go on strike....
What's wrong with that?
The Union itself may or may not take an official stance on an issue, but
its members most like share a number of characteristics (median income,
living conditions, work environment, etc) that make them more likely to
vote the same way.
It's not the same thing.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I'm not saying "we shouldn't have marriage," I'm saying that Civil
> government should not get involved with it. As a consequence, legal
> matters such as inheritances should not be based on marriage, either.
There's a whole raft of stuff that goes on. You have a bank account shared
between two married people. One of them dies. What happens to the bank
account? You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother dies. Dad
remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid? Husband spends whole
life providing for wife. Wife has no career outside the house. Husband dies.
Who gets husband's social security payments? Who inherits the husband's
money if the husband made no will? Say you get religiously married, but
before you tell the insurance company, you get in a car accident. Is your
wife covered?
All of these things *could* be contractually determined. However, you still
need defaults for when they haven't been and the event occurs, just like you
have laws saying whether or not the store is required to refund your money
for stuff you bought broken when the store hasn't expressed a warranty policy.
What's the reason you are thinking for not having the government collect a
set of rights and privileges together and saying "this goes to people who
say they're married"?
>> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
>> visit?
>
> I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I don't
> think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the hospital.
OK. When you're hurt in an accident and unable to make decisions for
yourself. Who says who is allowed to make the medical decisions about
whether you get a blood transfusion, an operation, etc? Who gets to decide
if you donate organs? Who is allowed to give consent for medical treatment?
Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have to
honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If they had honestly been defending marriage
Well, it was all BS. I have no idea why "marriage" would need defending. The
only threat to anyones marriages were coming *from* the "defense of
marriage" amendment.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
> organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
Yes, but then the religious nutcases don't want that either. That's the
point. It's not *about* marriage, it's about punishing sinful gay people.
As soon as you call it something else, it's something else, and you have 50
other jurisdictions telling you that since it isn't marriage, you're not
allowed to share in the ownership of the house, you're not allowed to adopt
a child, etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself supporting
> it, are two separate things.
I disagree.
> Historically, the LDS Church has never
> been about telling people what to specifically do
So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's not
"the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?
> rather how they should live their lives, and letting members apply those
> teachings appropriately.
Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be
repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of
satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live their
lives? Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives what
churches are *for*?
> One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need to
> be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar with
> the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring out
> how to live a moral life.
Well, unless you're black or gay, apparently.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> for word identical argument, **and not as a joke, but as a serious
> statement of belief**.
Actually, there's a web site called bbspot.com that regularly (like, ever
y
few months) manages to write a satire article that gets picked up and
distributed by actual qualified news outlets like CNN or NYT. And it's no
t
even religion.
And Edward Current is great, if you like funny spoofs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU
> Its like living in a world based on the movie Baron Münchhausen.
You know Baron Münchhausen was a real person? And there's a sickness
called
"Baron Münchhausen Syndrome" which involves someone unable to stop m
aking up
unbelievable stories about his exploits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There's a whole raft of stuff that goes on. You have a bank account
> shared between two married people. One of them dies. What happens to the
> bank account?
Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank accounts
are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner dies the
remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
passes to their estate, and the remaining funds are, of course, held by
the surviving owners.
> You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother
> dies. Dad remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid?
If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother. However,
there is room for consideration of other relatives if they were
particularly close.
> Husband
> spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career outside the
> house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security payments? Who
> inherits the husband's money if the husband made no will?
If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part. It's
not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
> Say you get
> religiously married, but before you tell the insurance company, you get
> in a car accident. Is your wife covered?
Say you're about to get religiously married, but the week before you get
in a car accident. Is your fiancee covered?
> All of these things *could* be contractually determined. However, you
> still need defaults for when they haven't been and the event occurs,
> just like you have laws saying whether or not the store is required to
> refund your money for stuff you bought broken when the store hasn't
> expressed a warranty policy.
I agree, you still need defaults. That's why I think designating a next
of kin or heir should be a simple, easy legal process.
> What's the reason you are thinking for not having the government collect
> a set of rights and privileges together and saying "this goes to people
> who say they're married"?
The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history,
assumptions and ideas that go with it. Assumptions and ideas that make
people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws &
amendments covering gay marriage.
>>> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
>>> visit?
>>
>> I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I
>> don't think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the
>> hospital.
>
> OK. When you're hurt in an accident and unable to make decisions for
> yourself. Who says who is allowed to make the medical decisions about
> whether you get a blood transfusion, an operation, etc? Who gets to
> decide if you donate organs? Who is allowed to give consent for medical
> treatment?
AFAIK, most states have "implied consent" laws. If you're hurt so badly
that you are unable to communicate whether or not you wish to be
treated, you are assumed to consent to the treatment.
Organ donatorship is usually specified on drivers' licenses as a
convenience, though I believe family is consulted as a courtesy (which
I'm personally against; if I want to donate my organs, I don't want my
family taking that away from me after I've kicked the bucket).
> Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have to
> honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
What kind of contract? What would you be specifying in it?
You can't just put anything you want in a contract and expect it to be
binding.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself
>> supporting it, are two separate things.
>
> I disagree.
Fair enough.
>> Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what
>> to specifically do
>
> So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's
> not "the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?
If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
much more restrictive. All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.
Here's what the Church says:
Don't drink alcohol.
Don't drink tea or coffee.
Don't eat too much meat.
Get plenty of fruits and vegetables.
Exercise to stay in shape.
Everything else in moderation.
Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.
> Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be
> repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of
> satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live their
> lives? Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives what
> churches are *for*?
I think you have a different church in mind. The LDS church never said
"gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and
black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."
Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:29:03 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
>> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
>> membership.
>
> Its membership, not the Church itself. As a rule the Church itself
> stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."
Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself
is credited for donating just over $55,000. That's in the Church's name.
That doesn't include Church-owned businesses or individuals with a lot of
pull.
> In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
> statement to the congregations reminding them that
>
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote. 2) Church facilities may
> not be used for political purposes 3) The Church does not endorse any
> specific individual OR piece of legislation
> 4) You should vote.
Yes, they *say* that, and that's the official stance that keeps them from
running afoul of the laws that govern their ability to participate in
politics. However if you talk to people who are members of the church,
they'll generally tell you that while the church takes no official
position, it's pretty clear which position is desirable.
My wife has a gay brother (who was married in California to his partner
before Prop 8 passed) who used to be LDS. My wife used to be LDS, and
her father is a bishop. I work in an office in Utah county, where one of
the largest conservative groups of LDS members live.
Fact of the matter is that for out-of-state contributions in support of
Prop 8, Utah ranked 1st with more than 50% of out-of-state
contributions. It's no coincidence that the LDS Church's home state made
such a large contribution - and I think it's highly unlikely that it
wasn't because of the Church pushing a socially conservative agenda.
Remember that this is a church that has repressed women since its
inception and minorities until relatively recently.
It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
polygamistic (still practiced by some sects, as much as the Church tries
to distance itself from its history and sects like the FLDS) and they
"fought" for "traditional marriage". Personally, I find that highly
amusing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:25:29 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what to
> specifically do (ie, how to vote), but rather how they should live their
> lives, and letting members apply those teachings appropriately.
That's the rather insidious part. I don't mean this as a a personal
attack, as I said, I have many friends who are members (and my father-in-
law is a bishop), but telling people how to live their lives and then
charging the membership to go forth and apply those teachings *is*
telling people what to do and what they should support.
That it's not direct direction doesn't mean they're not saying "do what
we say" - "this is what is good", and then "do what you think is right"
is pushing a particular social agenda.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:38:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> And there's a sickness
> called "Baron Münchhausen Syndrome" which involves someone unable to
> stop making up unbelievable stories about his exploits.
I think you're making that up. <scnr>
(Yes, I know you're really serious, I REALLY couldn't resist)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:06:27 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>> So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's
>> not "the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?
>
> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
> much more restrictive. All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is
> BS.
Um, no, actually, it's not, at least not according to Bishop H. Burke
Peterson, First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric in 1975. He
interpreted the D&C specifically around the logic that:
1. D&C 89:10 refers to "all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for teh
constitution, nature, and use of man."
2. D&C 89:11: "All these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving"
3. Two tests can be employed: Is it wholesome? Is it Prudent?
Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug. Caffeine is not wholesome nor
prudent for the use of our bodies. Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It
is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that
contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used." (Q&A,
New Era, Oct. 1975.)
Does this apply today? You bet. Just go to The Roof (I have) and try
ordering a caffeinated beverage. (The Roof is a Church-owned restaurant
in the Joseph Smith building here in Salt Lake City)
>> Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be
>> repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of
>> satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live
>> their lives? Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives
>> what churches are *for*?
>
> I think you have a different church in mind. The LDS church never said
> "gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and
> black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."
On the issue of blacks, I agree - though it's strangely odd that the
civil rights movement coincided with the church's "enlightenment" on
people of colour being allowed into the priesthood. O_o
And no, the LDS church never said "gay people are evil and should be
repressed" - but they do say that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is a
sexual sin violating God's "law of chastity". As a result, many people
in leadership roles in the church (maybe not in the First Presidency or
the Quorum of the 12, I don't follow it that closely) have tried to
"cure" those who are gay.
> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
Got an example of that? I've not found one myself...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank accounts
> are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner dies the
> remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it go?
> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
> passes to their estate,
And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?
>> You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother dies. Dad
>> remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid?
>
> If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother.
Why? If the government has no recognition of marriage, why would the
government let the stepmother have custody of the child?
>> Husband spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career
>> outside the house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security
>> payments? Who inherits the husband's money if the husband made no will?
>
> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part. It's
> not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the question
won't come up.
> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)
> I agree, you still need defaults. That's why I think designating a next
> of kin or heir should be a simple, easy legal process.
That's not a default. A default means "what if I don't do that?"
If you're religiously married, and your spouse doesn't have a will, and you
die, do you get any of his money, or does it all go to the children immediately?
> The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history,
> assumptions and ideas that go with it. Assumptions and ideas that make
> people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws &
> amendments covering gay marriage.
That fight has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with gay.
You're falling for the propaganda.
You know, the interracial marriage fight wasn't about "preserving
traditional marriage" either.
> AFAIK, most states have "implied consent" laws. If you're hurt so badly
> that you are unable to communicate whether or not you wish to be
> treated, you are assumed to consent to the treatment.
Unless, you know, the wife is there.
> Organ donatorship is usually specified on drivers' licenses as a
> convenience, though I believe family is consulted as a courtesy (which
> I'm personally against; if I want to donate my organs, I don't want my
> family taking that away from me after I've kicked the bucket).
>
>> Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have
>> to honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
>
> What kind of contract? What would you be specifying in it?
That the boyfriend gets to make the medical decisions.
> You can't just put anything you want in a contract and expect it to be
> binding.
Well, yes, exactly. That's why we have laws saying things like "after
marriage, the spouse can make medical decisions in an emergency, and the
spouse gets to visit the victim in the hospital, and so on."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:56:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>> Husband spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career
>>> outside the house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security
>>> payments? Who inherits the husband's money if the husband made no
>>> will?
>>
>> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part.
>> It's not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the
> question won't come up.
Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect
us from the stupidity of others, no? So in this instance, the government
would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of the
deceased. They're certainly not protecting the deceased from his/her own
stupidity: The deceased is, by definition, no longer a party to the
affairs in question.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
> much more restrictive. All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.
It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious
conversations. "Your religion is broken." "Well, theirs is broken worse,
so that's OK."
> Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.
The jewish dietary restrictions were pretty common sense for their time too.
But that's utterly irrelevant. You contended the church doesn't tell people
what to do. When I give examples of the church doing exactly that, you
dismiss them as "well, it's common sense."
Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing tobacco?
(And doesn't that rule hold from even before it was common sense?) Isn't (or
at least wasn't) it very bad for a white to marry a black? To masturbate? To
be homosexual? Isn't this telling people specifically what to do in many
circumstances?
> I think you have a different church in mind. The LDS church never said
> "gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and
> black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."
Sorry, isn't LDS the church of Mormon? Or am I confused?
OK, looking farther, I see I am mistaken. It's Cain, not Satan, that blacks
are descended from. And Cain wasn't a Satan worshiper, but rather just
someone who didn't take sides in the big battle. My bad. Hard to keep track
of all the details of all the different tales.
Of course, blacks *are* evil and shouldn't be allowed to marry whites. But I
guess being cursed by God and actually being spawn of Lucifer are different
things.
And it isn't gay people who are evil, but the act of being gay. Because, you
know, part of a person's personality being evil doesn't mean the *person* is
evil. It just means you should shun them until they get over it.
So yes, I suppose technically my statement was flawed. Thanks for that
correction.
> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
So none of these quotes are actually accurate?
http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm
How about these? Who comes down hard on the LDS president when he mentioned
that homosexuality is unholy? Or that the ERA should be opposed because it
might lead to gays getting rights too?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds2.htm
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself
> is credited for donating just over $55,000. That's in the Church's name.
They revised it later to about 4x as much, by the way. Once they were called
out on it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect
>us from the stupidity of others, no?
And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the stupidity of
our governments?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2009 22:44:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug. Caffeine is not wholesome nor
>prudent for the use of our bodies. Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It
>is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that
>contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used." (Q&A,
>New Era, Oct. 1975.)
Out of interest and to my relief ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:55:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>>protect us from the stupidity of others, no?
>
> And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the
> stupidity of our governments?
We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
"wow" us.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2009 22:44:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug. Caffeine is not wholesome nor
>>prudent for the use of our bodies. Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It
>>is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that
>>contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used."
>>(Q&A, New Era, Oct. 1975.)
>
> Out of interest and to my relief ;)
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
Interesting, though it didn't do anything for my dad (though arguably he
drank decaf....)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:46:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing
> tobacco?
Yes, this is true as well.
I have a friend who did some consulting work for the Church, in fact -
apparently to get to the server room, he had to go through a part of the
facility that is restricted to church members only. When they discovered
he wasn't a member, he was quickly escorted out, but not before they
grilled him on how to fix the problems they were having with their
systems...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:47:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church
>> itself is credited for donating just over $55,000. That's in the
>> Church's name.
>
> They revised it later to about 4x as much, by the way. Once they were
> called out on it.
That doesn't surprise me. I just was going by the numbers reported
through sfgate.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6 Jul 2009 00:12:41 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:55:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>>>protect us from the stupidity of others, no?
>>
>> And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the
>> stupidity of our governments?
>
>We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
>"wow" us.
>
Doesn't seem to work. If only God could do something ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6 Jul 2009 00:13:57 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Out of interest and to my relief ;)
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
>
>Interesting, though it didn't do anything for my dad (though arguably he
>drank decaf....)
>
Since it is the caffine that does the protecting ... :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug. Caffeine is not wholesome nor
> prudent for the use of our bodies. Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It
> is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that
> contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used." (Q&A,
> New Era, Oct. 1975.)
He can write whatever he wants. You can drink a can of cola at every
meal without it being considered a sin.
Individual people have considered it a sin, but that's irrelevent. As I
said before, the LDS church tries to limit how specific it is about
people's behavior.
> Does this apply today? You bet. Just go to The Roof (I have) and try
> ordering a caffeinated beverage. (The Roof is a Church-owned restaurant
> in the Joseph Smith building here in Salt Lake City)
Well, that's their choice. They don't have to serve anything they don't
want to, and many members of the Church believe that Caffeine is a
harmful substance that shouldn't be imbibed.
> On the issue of blacks, I agree - though it's strangely odd that the
> civil rights movement coincided with the church's "enlightenment" on
> people of colour being allowed into the priesthood. O_o
I wouldn't necessarily call it "the church's 'enlightenment,'" as the
Church's position was always that people of color would one day be able
to receive Priesthood. There was some significant debate about when it
would be, of course, and noone knew for certain.
According to the leaders of the Church, 1979 (oslt... I forget the exact
date) was when God told them that it was time. It came as quite a shock
to some of them, too; one in particular had been quite vocal about his
opinion that it wouldn't happen until after Armageddon.
> And no, the LDS church never said "gay people are evil and should be
> repressed" - but they do say that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is a
> sexual sin violating God's "law of chastity". As a result, many people
> in leadership roles in the church (maybe not in the First Presidency or
> the Quorum of the 12, I don't follow it that closely) have tried to
> "cure" those who are gay.
I remember one quoting some research where counselors reported a success
rate of "curing" homosexuals that was approximately in line with the
success rates for depression. I don't think the research went anywhere,
though (either noone wanted to try replicating it, or noone replicated
it successfully), so it's not a commonly held position amongst mental
health professionals.
>> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
>> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
>> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
>
> Got an example of that? I've not found one myself...
Not specifically, though I've seen it happen for other things.
Generally, you can say whatever you want about your own opinion, but as
soon as you start teaching a class or speaking from the pulpit, the
Church gets quite sensitive about doctrinal claims.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
>> much more restrictive. All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.
>
> It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious
> conversations. "Your religion is broken." "Well, theirs is broken
> worse, so that's OK."
Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was certainly pointing out that
Jewish dietary restrictions are more strict, but I was not claiming the
final "so that's OK."
>> Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.
>
> The jewish dietary restrictions were pretty common sense for their time
> too. But that's utterly irrelevant.
You're absolutely right. Whether or not they're common sense has no
bearing on whether or not God asked His people to follow those laws.
It's worth noting, however, that I was not offering the "common sense"
statement as a justification, but as an explanation. Most of the Mormon
dietary law (known as the "Word of Wisdom") is, indeed, common sense
about health. That makes the majority easier to remember.
> You contended the church doesn't
> tell people what to do.
No, I don't. Here's what I said:
"Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what
to specifically do (ie, how to vote), but rather how they should live
their lives, and letting members apply those teachings appropriately.
"One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need
to be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar
with the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring
out how to live a moral life. "
I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I
should have been more clear.
Because of our natural weakness, God pretty much has to be pretty
specific at times. Whenever possible, however, He avoids it, letting us
choose for ourselves how to live appropriately.
If enough people start nitpicking commandments, looking for loopholes
and ways to get around them, then God gets specific. But He also gets
annoyed by the necessity.
> Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing
> tobacco? (And doesn't that rule hold from even before it was common
> sense?)
Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time, as did the
injunction against alcohol. Members at the time had to take it on faith
that God had their best interests at heart when He asked them to abstain
from those substances. It was only later medical research that backed
up their beliefs.
> Isn't (or at least wasn't) it very bad for a white to marry a
> black?
Was it a sin? No.
But you would be excluded from certain rites if your spouse were unable
to participate.
The understanding was always that Blacks would, at some point, be able
to participate, but noone knew when the change would be made.
> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
> Isn't this telling people specifically what to do in many circumstances?
Yes, it is. As I explained above, God gets specific when He needs to,
but He'd rather not have to.
>> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't
>> the majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts
>> saying stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
>
> So none of these quotes are actually accurate?
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm
I recognize some of those statements, but not all of them. Bruce R
McConkie, in particular, was well known for being quite opinionated...
and later being shown to be wrong (for instance, he was quite vocal
about his idea that the Blacks wouldn't receive the Priesthood until
after Armageddon). In fact, he wrote a series of books titled "Mormon
Doctrine," which are really just his opinions on a variety of topics.
Because of things like that, the Church has had to specify: When the
Prophet stands at the podium, and says "Thus saith the Lord," then his
words are doctrine. Everything else is personal opinion, no matter who
it comes from or when you hear it (including if you hear it from an
Apostle or Prophet). Every member is encouraged to pray and ask God His
opinion of the teachings they've heard, and if what they've heard is
correct.
> How about these? Who comes down hard on the LDS president
Well, you'd have to go up the chain of command.
Once you get to the President, the next level of the chain is God. He's
the one chastises the President.
> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?
What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy? Whether or not
you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the
LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That it's not direct direction doesn't mean they're not saying "do what
> we say" - "this is what is good", and then "do what you think is right"
> is pushing a particular social agenda.
True, but in most (not all) cases there's enough room for interpretation
that members can (and do) take different sides in debates.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself
> is credited for donating just over $55,000. That's in the Church's name.
Like I said, I was active for more than 25 years, and that's the first
time I heard of them taking a stance on a specific piece of legistlation.
> Fact of the matter is that for out-of-state contributions in support of
> Prop 8, Utah ranked 1st with more than 50% of out-of-state
> contributions.
That doesn't surprise me. A large portion of the population of Utah is
comprised of active LDS members, and the LDS Church (as opposed to, for
instance, Catholicism) has always inspired more activity than other
churches (for instance, the practice of going to Church on Easter and
Christmas, but avoiding it the rest of the year, is rather uncommon
amongst Mormons, despite being near-epidemic amongst Catholics).
> Remember that this is a church that has repressed women since its
> inception and minorities until relatively recently.
? You mean the Church whose members were the first to extend the right
to vote to women? (Utah gave suffrage several decades before the rest
of the nation).
> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,
Still practiced by excommunicated members. There are no "sects" of the
LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered
practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The video isn't attacking the bible. It's attacking the interpretation of
> the bible that includes "God has something to do with the appropriateness of
> any given marriage".
If that was true, then they would have said "your interpretation of the
bible is wrong" as their conclusion to the posed question. However, that
was not what they are saying. They are saying that the divorce rate is
indicative of God not existing.
I don't even understand why you are arguing that all they are doing is
questioning some people's interpretation of the bible, while it's quite
clear that they are questioning the entire christian religion and the very
existence of God.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> How about, judging the entire thing based on only its flaws is as bad as
> what you accuse it of doing, by having any in the first place? All such
> lists are flawed, because there will be people stating that a) well it
> doesn't apply to the ones "I" consider to belong to the group it talks
> about, b) such and such group doesn't include X idea, and I don't
> imagine Y or Z does either (which just shows a lack of imagination imho
> lol), or c) it really is, in this one case, a bad argument, whether the
> rest is sort of accurate or not. So... point out where its inaccurate
> and be "specific" about who its inaccurate about. Don't presume that
> because you find it inaccurate that its "not" accurate for the group
> "they" where talking about, even as a general example of the sort of
> issues that crop up.
The entire reason I wrote my response to the video was precisely to
point out that their arguments are flawed. I'm not even claiming that
they are wrong in not believing in God (or even that *I* believe in God).
I'm just pointing out that their arguments are invalid.
People here seem to argue that their point is "you are interpreting
the bible in the wrong way", even though it's quite clear that their
point is "God doesn't exist". It's a direct attack to all christianity,
not just a specific group inside it.
(And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
ie. de-emphasis.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
> > seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
> > majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
> > moral code.
> Atheists aren't attacking the bible: how is your argument going to affect a
> book?
Now you are nitpicking on words. You know what I meant.
> They're attacking the belief that the bible applies to those who choose not
> to believe it. Those who try to apply the bible's morality to those who
> don't believe it are exactly those people who believe it's a universal moral
> code.
Atheists seem to do a quite good job at showing that they have some kind
of universal moral code as well, when they criticize the bible.
> > That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
> > moral code accepted by the majority.
> But many people believe there is, and many people believe they know what it
> is, in spite of the fact that many of those people disagree with each other.
Atheists included. (At least those who point out how the moral code in
the bible is wrong.)
> > Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
> > code is wrong?
> Not only are you going to tell them it's wrong, you're going to MURDER THOSE
> PEOPLE who you believe is wrong. You're also going to lobby to prevent
> life-saving medical research from being carried out because you erroneously
> think your holy book says it's evil.
You are constantly side-tracking. I'm not talking about the moral code of
religious people. I'm talking about the moral code of atheists who attack
christianity and criticize the bible for having the wrong moral code. You
probably understand this, but you are still deliberately side-tracking.
My point is: There is no such universal moral code, and atheists who seem
to assume there is, and based on this imaginary universal moral code
criticize the bible, are being hypocrites.
> > Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
> > that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?
> You're missing the point.
No, it seems that you are. I'm talking about the atheists who criticize
the bible. I'm not talking about religious people.
> >> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
> >> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
> >
> > Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
> > they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
> > all prayers.
> He doesn't answer the prayers of the unfaithful. If you're willing to starve
> your child to death because you have the assurance that Jesus will resurrect
> him, I'm pretty sure you have faith.
Now you are using a different meaning for the word "faith" than I am.
You are talking about a psychological phenomenon, while I was talking about
a theological one. Those are two wildly different things.
> See, I'm explaining that the video is addressed to the religious fanatics
> who think God talks to them daily and if he doesn't talk to you, you're
> going to burn in hell for eternity, and that it's their job to help you get
> there. You're arguing "not all Christians are like that." Sure.
If that's the case, then the video does a very good job at hiding the fact.
It just looks like its point is that God doesn't exist, period. After all,
count how many times it says "God is imaginary". Also count how many times
it mentions that people who believe in God are delusional. (They are not
saying that people who interpret the bible in a certain way are delusional.
They are saying that people who believe in God, period, are delusional.)
> > Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
> > listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
> > just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
> > provocative.
> No, I honestly think it's more like "we've heard all 2000 answers to this,
> and they're all full of crap, and if you think about your answer, you'll see
> why it's likely full of crap." It's not like the same arguments aren't on
> interactive forums also.
Are the answers "full of crap" because they seriously listened to them,
considered them, thought about them, and then came to the informed conclusion
that they make no sense whatsoever, or was it because they are prejudiced and
automatically dismiss *all* answers which do not conform to their views?
It's quite easy to use the word "rationalization". It's a very strong word,
and it sounds intelligent, and it's very hard to counter. If your answer is
dismissed as a "rationalization", then how do you respond to that? "No, it
isn't" just sounds childish and doesn't convince anybody. It's a very clever
word, and it can be abused to dismiss anything you don't like.
> Wait. So if God tells his chosen people to go to a country, murder everyone
> but the young virgins (including women, infants, the infirm, etc), and then
> take the young virgins home as slaves... Is that moral? Or is that immoral?
> Is God telling you to do something good?
If we assume for a moment that God does indeed exist and the bible is
telling the truth, then all that it is saying is that God did order for
that nation to be eradicated, for whatever reasons God saw fit. The passages
are not taking a stance of the moral reasons or consequences, besides
usually mentioning that the eradicated nation had reached a level of
depravation that God wanted it removed.
> > It's not giving permission for the readers to
> > go and murder someone.
> And phrases like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are indeed giving
> permission for the readers to go murder someone, yes?
Do you have the right to judge who is a witch and who isn't?
The problem is not the laws and commandments. The problem is people
making themselves judges and executioners, without authorization. They
are putting themselves into a position they don't have a right to.
That's not how it worked in the old testament, no matter how popular
that view seems to be. As an example, the person who broke sabbath was
not stoned right there. He was brought to justice, for the people in charge
to judge. The people who caught him breaking sabbath did not kill him right
there because they understood law and who was allowed to impose it.
(Please skip on nitpicking on whether it's morally right to execute someone
for breaking the sabbath. That's not my point.)
> > You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
> > stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
> > whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
> I don't think you're getting the point of the argument.
> If God's will is by definition good, then sometimes genocide, rape, and
> murder of infants (like the first born sons of every family in an entire
> country) are sometimes good.
Is death penalty in the US "by definition good"?
> > Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
> > people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
> > what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
> > do any such thing.
> It's giving permission to the historical people to do that historical act.
> The act itself is either good or evil. You must admit that God either
> ordered something evil to be done, or that genocide is OK if God says to do it.
Is putting someone in jail "good"? Is death penalty "good"?
There are reasons why people are put in jail and executed, and that doesn't
necessarily have to do with whether the act itself is "good" or "evil". It
may be something that simply has to be done for a purpose.
> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
Different cultures have different ways of insulting and cursing others.
It's quite typical for semitic cultures to have really strong cursewords
and expressions to insult others. If you like, try googling for the worst
insults in different cultures. They can be quite harsh and extragavant.
In western cultures among the worst insults are those who question the
purity of one's mother, or the death of the person being insulted. In
eastern cultures there are even worse insults than that.
But cursing is intended to offend, not necessarily to be taken literally.
Just because you question the purity of someone's mother doesn't mean you
literally think she is a whore. Just because you wish someone would die
doesn't mean it's a literal desire.
That passage in the psalm in question is a harsh curse. The writer is
putting in words his worst feelings about the nation being talked about.
That doesn't mean he literally wants for the children to be killed. It's
just an expression.
Most jewish scholars understand this, but most western people don't.
And of course atheists just love this verse. It's so easy to understand
literally.
(Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
explanation is ever good enough.)
> >> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If
> >> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide
> >> *can* be good?
> >
> >> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
> >
> > You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.
> You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you
> want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?
To the child getting the ice cream is good, while not getting is bad.
Thus some decisions made by the father are "bad" from the child's point
of view.
> The isomorphic mapping would be that committing genocide and rape when
> instructed to do so by your God is good, even if you don't understand why.
You keep mentioning that rape thing. Did God order rape somewhere?
Just because the soldiers did commit rape doesn't mean they were given
permission to do so, or that it was acceptable. It's just mentioned that
they did.
Of course from a modern western point of view you can consider taking
wives from other cultures by force as "rape", especially if it was an
eradicated nation. You are now contrasting the modern world situation
what that of thousands of years ago, which was rather different. Think
about what would have happened to those women back then if all the men
had been killed (just assume for a moment there was a good reason for
God to order such eradication, so don't nitpick about it) and the women
left alone there, with nobody to support them.
> 1) Everything God orders you to do is good, including the things like
> widespread genocide, infantcide, rape, even if you don't understand it.
> This seems to imply that genocide, slavery, murder, human sacrifice,
> etc is not necessarily immoral.
You know, I'm becoming tired of you repeating the straw men. I don't feel
like discussing anymore if you keep doing so.
> > However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
> > the most ridiculous questions.
> Oh come on. You watch Ray Comfort convincing you God exists because the
> banana is curved and changes colors when it ripens, and you think *atheists*
> have ridiculous questions?
That's a straw man right there, plain and simple.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A question for you chaps who like to talk about religion.
Why to religions insist that you have to believe in a god before you can go to
the good place when you die? Why is it not enough to be a good person?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > In Finland, for example, you can literally
> > get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
> > cases.
> Why is that? Some bizarre reading of "human rights" or something?
The multiculturalism ideology and the "fight against racism" has gone
completely out of control in many European countries, including Finland.
> > (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)
> I find it hard to understand how to reconcile that, except maybe the way
> that it's common to consider a white person being passed over in favor of a
> black person "affirmative action" but the reverse being "discrimination."
Religions themselves have no special protection here, but ethnic groups
have (well, except for white natives, of course). The concept of "ethnic
group" has suffered a huge inflation in the last decade due to the
multiculturalist ideology. Thus criticizing islam is equalled to
criticizing muslims, which is seen as discrimination against an ethnic
group. There have been actual cases of people having been sued and
convicted for creating videos with harsh attacks against islam (technically
not because of the attack against islam, but because of the discrimination
against an ethnic group). All while equally harsh videos against christianity
get nothing.
Amusingly (or sadly, depending on the point of view), Americans are not
considered a protected "ethnic group", and thus are completely free to be
bashed. Again, actual case.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
> explanation is ever good enough.)
Oh, and by the way: Are atheists going to drop that specific verse from
their arsenal after being explained what it means? Of course not. It's way
too valuable of a straw man to be dropped. It's juicy. It makes christians
(who don't understand the verse) uncomfortable. Atheists just *love* this.
That's why they will never drop that verse, even if they silently admit
that the explanation perhaps makes sense.
In other words, atheists are outright dishonest. They are deliberately
distorting the verse for the sole reason that it makes people uncomfortable,
and they can use it as a weapon to attack them.
Most of them will just keep up the "it's just a rationalization" facade
to explain away the explanation. In other words, they are fooling themselves,
just to keep this valuable verse. They won't drop it.
Part of it might also be that publicly admitting you were wrong can be
really hard. How many atheists are going to say "yes, you are right, that
explanation makes sense and I understand the verse now, and I will not use
it anymore in my critique"?
This kind of dishonesty makes these atheists no better than the religious
fanatics. Lies and distortion, just for the purpose of attacking others.
I find it pathetic.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Individual people have considered it a sin, but that's irrelevent. As I
> said before, the LDS church tries to limit how specific it is about
> people's behavior.
How do you separate out "what the Church says" from "what the Leaders of the
Church says"? This sounds an awful lot like the True Scotsman fallacy,
except that if the President of the church isn't speaking for the church,
you have *no* true scotsmen around.
"No, that's not what the catholic church believes. That's just the pope's
decree."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
>>> much more restrictive. All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is
>>> BS.
>>
>> It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious
>> conversations. "Your religion is broken." "Well, theirs is broken
>> worse, so that's OK."
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was certainly pointing out that
> Jewish dietary restrictions are more strict, but I was not claiming the
> final "so that's OK."
OK. But it seemed you were avoiding answering the question by providing that
comment instead of an actual answer.
(BTW, sorry if I came across sounding harsh. I let stuff get to me a bit
personally yesterday.)
> I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I
> should have been more clear.
OK. Altho I must say, if the teaching of the church is that all blacks are
descendants of the first murderer and cannot be spiritually whole, it kind
of throws a wrench into the McCain/Obama "vote whoever you feel best about"
doctrine. :-)
> Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time,
Funny. My understanding from other Mormons is that everyone at the time knew
exactly why God had commanded that. Namely, that Mrs Smith didn't like
cleaning up when people missed the spittoon.
>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds like
the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about that, I'm
not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
> Because of things like that, the Church has had to specify: When the
> Prophet stands at the podium, and says "Thus saith the Lord," then his
> words are doctrine. Everything else is personal opinion,
OK.
>> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?
> What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy? Whether or not
> you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the
> LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.
Sure. But then to say "but we won't tell you how to vote on the gay marriage
bill" is being kind of disingenuous.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The entire reason I wrote my response to the video was precisely to
> point out that their arguments are flawed.
I think that to call an argument a straw man requires that you actually
exaggerate the argument the opponent is putting forth. I think arguing "not
all Christians think this way" is not sufficient to establish it as a straw
man.
> People here seem to argue that their point is "you are interpreting
> the bible in the wrong way", even though it's quite clear that their
> point is "God doesn't exist". It's a direct attack to all christianity,
> not just a specific group inside it.
Only if you believe in the same God that Fred Phelps and Ray Comfort
believes in. One of the problems is that everyone thinks everyone else
believes the same stuff. It just isn't true.
Note, by your take, it's not an attack on Christianity, but an attack on at
least every abrhamic faith.
> (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
> ie. de-emphasis.)
Yeah. Sometimes the posts are almost unreadable due to that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The video isn't attacking the bible. It's attacking the interpretation of
>> the bible that includes "God has something to do with the appropriateness of
>> any given marriage".
>
> If that was true, then they would have said "your interpretation of the
> bible is wrong" as their conclusion to the posed question. However, that
> was not what they are saying. They are saying that the divorce rate is
> indicative of God not existing.
The God that has something to do with the approriateness of any given
marriage does not exist.
> I don't even understand why you are arguing that all they are doing is
> questioning some people's interpretation of the bible, while it's quite
> clear that they are questioning the entire christian religion and the very
> existence of God.
Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.
Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the
world trade centers believed in?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.
Btw, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have never stated what
I believe in. For all you know, I could even be an atheist. I do believe
that even atheists can have a rational approach at things like the bible.
(And by rational I don't mean that they accept everything they read, but
that they don't try to distort what it says for their own motives.)
> Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the
> world trade centers believed in?
That kind of expression makes it sound like "God" was an ideology, and
consequently different people could have different "Gods", ie. different
ideologies. (Maybe it is like that in reality, but that's not what eg.
christianity is about.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
>>> seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
>>> majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
>>> moral code.
>
>> Atheists aren't attacking the bible: how is your argument going to affect a
>> book?
>
> Now you are nitpicking on words. You know what I meant.
I'm not nitpicking. Try to understand why I'm giving that response, other
than just "because I'm arguing with Warp." :-)
Seriously. My point is that the bible *is* different for different people.
You don't believe in the same bible that Fred Phelps believes in. You don't
believe in the same God that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believes in. One cannot
attack the bible, but only particular interpretations of it. One cannot say
"God doesn't exist", but only particular sets of traits attributed to a
particular God.
One way people get around having no evidence for their god is to claim, when
push comes to shove, that "my god is really the laws of physics" or some
such nonsense. Just as an example.
> Atheists seem to do a quite good job at showing that they have some kind
> of universal moral code as well, when they criticize the bible.
Errr, no? What moral rules must one follow in order to disbelieve that the
bible holds a truthful account of supernatural events?
>>> That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
>>> moral code accepted by the majority.
>
>> But many people believe there is, and many people believe they know what it
>> is, in spite of the fact that many of those people disagree with each other.
>
> Atheists included. (At least those who point out how the moral code in
> the bible is wrong.)
Um, no? I suppose to the extent that people think evolution encourages
certain rules of morality, one could think there's a "universal" morality
for any given species or something. But I think arguing that there is no
universal morality isn't the same as arguing that my morality is universal.
>> Not only are you going to tell them it's wrong, you're going to MURDER THOSE
>> PEOPLE who you believe is wrong. You're also going to lobby to prevent
>> life-saving medical research from being carried out because you erroneously
>> think your holy book says it's evil.
>
> You are constantly side-tracking. I'm not talking about the moral code of
> religious people. I'm talking about the moral code of atheists who attack
> christianity and criticize the bible for having the wrong moral code. You
> probably understand this, but you are still deliberately side-tracking.
Oh. If you mean "atheists have a universal moral code" because they believe
*your* moral code is wrong, then you're having a logical fallacy moment.
It's entirely possible to say "I think you're wrong" without saying "I think
everyone thinks you're wrong."
Indeed, most times, I see it phrased as "do you *really* think that's
right?? You must be kidding me."
> My point is: There is no such universal moral code, and atheists who seem
> to assume there is, and based on this imaginary universal moral code
> criticize the bible, are being hypocrites.
The universal moral code is only imaginary to you. (Well, it's imaginary to
everyone, but some people don't realize it.) As I said, attacking a
universal moral code is only a straw man if you don't believe there's a
universal moral code.
If, on the other hand, it's not enough to say "I think homosexuality is
wrong" and instead you say "God says homosexuality is wrong, so it's OK to
murder you", then I'm assuming a universal morality based on the bible.
> No, it seems that you are. I'm talking about the atheists who criticize
> the bible. I'm not talking about religious people.
Oh, sorry. What universal morality do you think atheists believe in, and
what in that video (or other arguments) makes you think that?
>>>> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
>>>> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
>>> Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
>>> they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
>>> all prayers.
>
>> He doesn't answer the prayers of the unfaithful. If you're willing to starve
>> your child to death because you have the assurance that Jesus will resurrect
>> him, I'm pretty sure you have faith.
>
> Now you are using a different meaning for the word "faith" than I am.
> You are talking about a psychological phenomenon, while I was talking about
> a theological one. Those are two wildly different things.
Are they? That's your *assumption* based on your belief that there's
something outside your brain in the real world that is indeed God.
I'm saying that if you believe in God enough to starve your own children
with the expectation they'll come back to life because God loves them, you
have every kind of faith I can think of you having.
>> See, I'm explaining that the video is addressed to the religious fanatics
>> who think God talks to them daily and if he doesn't talk to you, you're
>> going to burn in hell for eternity, and that it's their job to help you get
>> there. You're arguing "not all Christians are like that." Sure.
>
> If that's the case, then the video does a very good job at hiding the fact.
> It just looks like its point is that God doesn't exist, period.
That's certainly part of it, yes. That's the fundamental underlying message
it's trying to express.
However, it's expressing it with argument targeted at the fanatical
believers. If someone would want to convince a moderate Christian that their
faith is misplaced, a different set of arguments would need to be used.
However, it looks like a straw man to *you* because there aren't too many
moderate Christians that get in the news or tick people off or blow up
abortion clinics or whatever.
> After all,
> count how many times it says "God is imaginary". Also count how many times
> it mentions that people who believe in God are delusional. (They are not
> saying that people who interpret the bible in a certain way are delusional.
> They are saying that people who believe in God, period, are delusional.)
Yes. The conclusion may apply to you even if the arguments are unconvincing
because you have a different set of background assumptions.
Just like trying to convince a muslim that God doesn't exist because there's
no historical evidence of Jesus rising from the grave wouldn't make any
sense. Yet take away the "Jesus rising from the grave" part and many
Christians would seriously question whether the rest of the God part made
sense too.
>> No, I honestly think it's more like "we've heard all 2000 answers to this,
>> and they're all full of crap, and if you think about your answer, you'll see
>> why it's likely full of crap." It's not like the same arguments aren't on
>> interactive forums also.
>
> Are the answers "full of crap" because they seriously listened to them,
> considered them, thought about them, and then came to the informed conclusion
> that they make no sense whatsoever, or was it because they are prejudiced and
> automatically dismiss *all* answers which do not conform to their views?
The former. There are lots of places that address things in details, as well
as a number of books. Certainly things like Dawkins' books, Sagan's
writings, talkorigins.org, and so on all actually address the questions and
don't just dismiss them.
But really, there are some questions that are so absurdly illogical you just
can't really argue against them anyway.
> It's quite easy to use the word "rationalization". It's a very strong word,
> and it sounds intelligent, and it's very hard to counter. If your answer is
> dismissed as a "rationalization", then how do you respond to that? "No, it
> isn't" just sounds childish and doesn't convince anybody. It's a very clever
> word, and it can be abused to dismiss anything you don't like.
This is true. But if you follow an argument and the person throws out the
rules of logic (as in Modus Ponens and all) before they throw out their
belief that Jesus listens to them every day, it's a pretty safe bet it's a
rationalization. When they assert they know God's will, except when you ask
a hard question and it becomes ineffable, then it's probably a rationalization.
Just like you can talk to a heroin addict and see all the rationalizations
as to why they're not off heroin. "I like the feel of the needle going
trough my skin. It itches there, and the poke from the needle makes it itch
less." I mean, there are *some* arguments you can look at and say "you're
rationalizing."
For those that you can't, there are lots of reasonable arguments against. In
the end, since religion is by definition irrational[1], arguments are going
to have to appeal to the gut instead of logic.
>> Wait. So if God tells his chosen people to go to a country, murder everyone
>> but the young virgins (including women, infants, the infirm, etc), and then
>> take the young virgins home as slaves... Is that moral? Or is that immoral?
>> Is God telling you to do something good?
>
> If we assume for a moment that God does indeed exist and the bible is
> telling the truth, then all that it is saying is that God did order for
> that nation to be eradicated, for whatever reasons God saw fit. The passages
> are not taking a stance of the moral reasons or consequences, besides
> usually mentioning that the eradicated nation had reached a level of
> depravation that God wanted it removed.
OK. But now couple that with a stance on whether God's will is always good,
and you have a problem.
>>> It's not giving permission for the readers to
>>> go and murder someone.
>
>> And phrases like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are indeed giving
>> permission for the readers to go murder someone, yes?
>
> Do you have the right to judge who is a witch and who isn't?
Isn't that what God is plainly telling people to do? Isn't that exactly what
the words are saying? I can't see any other interpretation for "don't let
witches live" other than "kill witches".
Or maybe the commandment "thou shalt not kill" isn't giving people
permission to be merciful? Doesn't "love thy neighbor" command you to do
something?
> The problem is not the laws and commandments. The problem is people
> making themselves judges and executioners, without authorization. They
> are putting themselves into a position they don't have a right to.
I agree. It always amazes me when people think the creator of the universe
and all powerful superbeing needs their help enforcing his views.
>>> You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
>>> stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
>>> whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
>
>> I don't think you're getting the point of the argument.
>
>> If God's will is by definition good, then sometimes genocide, rape, and
>> murder of infants (like the first born sons of every family in an entire
>> country) are sometimes good.
>
> Is death penalty in the US "by definition good"?
No. Why would you ask? It is by definition legal.
>> It's giving permission to the historical people to do that historical act.
>> The act itself is either good or evil. You must admit that God either
>> ordered something evil to be done, or that genocide is OK if God says to do it.
>
> Is putting someone in jail "good"? Is death penalty "good"?
No. But we don't claim that the source of all that is good in the world
flows from the US legal system and therefore you should dedicate your life
to making sure everyone from all over the world obeys it.
> There are reasons why people are put in jail and executed, and that doesn't
> necessarily have to do with whether the act itself is "good" or "evil". It
> may be something that simply has to be done for a purpose.
OK, so it sounds like you believe that God is sometimes evil. Fair enough.
The problem for many people who want to impose God's will on others is this:
if they admit that God can sometimes do evil and bad things, then they have
a hard time because then they have to rationally justify why the bit of
God's will they want to impose on you is not one of the evil bits.
If they want to say "Homosexuality is bad because God disapproves of it",
but the counter argument is "God approved of genocide", then you kind of
have to argue that genocide is good when approved by God. And then you get
into the argument where atheists go "Really? WTF are you smoking?"
>> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
>> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
>> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
>
> Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
> bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
> understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
> wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country,
killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and
raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?
You're saying that burning hail and the death of every firstborn egyptian
was just God talking smack? It didn't really happen?
> That doesn't mean he literally wants for the children to be killed. It's
> just an expression.
But the bible is full of this stuff, including things like the plagues of
egypt. Arguing that one sentence doesn't mean what it says is like arguing
that the US having the death penalty means we have no morals.
> (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
> explanation is ever good enough.)
That's a fine explanation, but you're ignoring the dozens of other genocides
that God commands and commits.
>> You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you
>> want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?
>
> To the child getting the ice cream is good, while not getting is bad.
> Thus some decisions made by the father are "bad" from the child's point
> of view.
Right. But you're arguing that even tho the child thinks they're bad,
they're *actually* good. Right?
So you're arguing by analogy that everything God commands is *actually*
good, because if we think it's bad, it's just because we don't understand
why it's ultimately good?
>> The isomorphic mapping would be that committing genocide and rape when
>> instructed to do so by your God is good, even if you don't understand why.
>
> You keep mentioning that rape thing. Did God order rape somewhere?
Yes. He tells some group of people to go off, kill all the men and women
and children, except for the young female virgins, who are to be brought
back forcefully and married off. He even gives the proper proportions of
virgins to conquerors.
Now, if having your family slaughtered and being dragged off to a foreign
country and forced to have sex with the stranger who gets you isn't rape,
I'm not sure what your definition includes.
> Just because the soldiers did commit rape doesn't mean they were given
> permission to do so, or that it was acceptable. It's just mentioned that
> they did.
No, this was commandments from God as to who they should go conquer and how.
> Of course from a modern western point of view you can consider taking
> wives from other cultures by force as "rape", especially if it was an
> eradicated nation. You are now contrasting the modern world situation
> what that of thousands of years ago, which was rather different.
But now you're being logical and reasonable. And rationalizing. "It wasn't
really rape. It was saving women whose family you had killed."
> Think
> about what would have happened to those women back then if all the men
> had been killed (just assume for a moment there was a good reason for
> God to order such eradication, so don't nitpick about it) and the women
> left alone there, with nobody to support them.
I understand. You're saying "Rape is better than death." Does that make rape
*good*? Is it morally right to kidnap and rape the young virgins?
Oh, wait, morality changes over time. Congratulations! You no longer get to
use bible verses written 4000 years ago to condem homosexual behavior today.
You're a much better Christian than Fred Phelps or Ray Comfort.
>> 1) Everything God orders you to do is good, including the things like
>> widespread genocide, infantcide, rape, even if you don't understand it.
>> This seems to imply that genocide, slavery, murder, human sacrifice,
>> etc is not necessarily immoral.
>
> You know, I'm becoming tired of you repeating the straw men. I don't feel
> like discussing anymore if you keep doing so.
OK. I'm trying to give the possibilities. Since you picked this one out as
the one that offends you, I can only guess that this is the possibility in
which you most strongly believe.
If I'm repeating straw men, then tell me what you really think about the
morality of (say) God killing the first born egyptian babies. Or the flood.
Or turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Or allowing Sampson to kill so
many police. Or subjecting everyone at the end of time to unutterable
torment unless you're saved during the Rapture.
I'm arguing against real positions that real christians actually hold here.
You're telling me it's a straw man. It's only a straw man if it's actually
an exaggeration. I point out Ray Comfort and you tell me it's a straw man,
which makes no sense.
>>> However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
>>> the most ridiculous questions.
>
>> Oh come on. You watch Ray Comfort convincing you God exists because the
>> banana is curved and changes colors when it ripens, and you think *atheists*
>> have ridiculous questions?
>
> That's a straw man right there, plain and simple.
Sorry? What's the straw man? You think Ray Comfort isn't a Christian? Or
that he doesn't actually believe what he's saying? I don't understand.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
>> explanation is ever good enough.)
>
> Oh, and by the way: Are atheists going to drop that specific verse from
> their arsenal after being explained what it means? Of course not. It's way
> too valuable of a straw man to be dropped. It's juicy. It makes christians
> (who don't understand the verse) uncomfortable. Atheists just *love* this.
> That's why they will never drop that verse, even if they silently admit
> that the explanation perhaps makes sense.
Likely true. :-) Assuming *your* interpretation is correct.
See, one of the big problems is that everyone is convinced their own
interpretation is correct. Atheists tend to look at the plain text of the
book, I think, because arguing about the history behind it doesn't work
well, exactly because many faithful assume their interpretation is the
correct and only possible interpretation, as that is what they've been taught.
> Part of it might also be that publicly admitting you were wrong can be
> really hard. How many atheists are going to say "yes, you are right, that
> explanation makes sense and I understand the verse now, and I will not use
> it anymore in my critique"?
I think more atheists would than faithful found in the same position.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Why to religions insist that you have to believe in a god before you can go to
> the good place when you die? Why is it not enough to be a good person?
Only the monotheistic religions.
Buddhism, for example, says (in some sense) you have to stop believing in
God in order to go to the good place. :-)
The Mayan religions held that you merely needed to die by blood in order to
help save the world. As I ever so vaguely understand it, all the actual
gods were already dead. The sacrifices were to help keep the world going
after all the gods sacrificed themselves to make it. (Disclaimer: this was
the audio track on a tourist attraction, so take it with some large-granule
sea salt.)
It makes sense that a monotheistic religion would need much more to convince
you that their god is the right god.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.
>
> Btw, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have never stated what
> I believe in.
I believe in the past it has become clear, but that's fine. If I say "you"
here, then take it as "the person who is upset that this video is attacking
their personal interpretation of god". :-)
>> Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the
>> world trade centers believed in?
>
> That kind of expression makes it sound like "God" was an ideology, and
> consequently different people could have different "Gods", ie. different
> ideologies. (Maybe it is like that in reality, but that's not what eg.
> christianity is about.)
Well, yes, that's kind of my point.
The problem with arguing against the point "God exists" is that the argument
tends to go something like
"God does not exist."
"What if God is really just the person who set up the laws of physics,
and he has nothing to do with anything after that, and isn't even a
personality, and has no effect on the world?"
"OK, maybe *that* God might exist."
"By the way, he hates homosexuals."
By saying "you're believing in a different God", it kind of jars believers
out of a rut of thinking that since there is only one god, whatever they
believe about him must be universally true. Since we're arguing against the
universal truth of God, this is a useful tactic. It's the same as saying
"The god they believe in behaves differently than the god you believe in,"
but with a bit more of an assertion that keeps it from being dismissed offhand.
Like, when people ask me "Do you believe in God", I don't just say "No", I
say "Not the way you do." God has obvious influence in the world - just ask
any homosexuals in California. That's a sense in which "god exists". But if
you don't define "god" and you don't define "exists", then arguing whether
"god exists" is always going to lead to this sort of conversation.
The video just skipped over defining which god and in what sense exists that
it's arguing against.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
> >> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
> >> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
> >
> > Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
> > bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
> > understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
> > wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
> So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country,
> killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and
> raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?
Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?
Ok, I got tired of you seemingly having a reading comprehension problem.
You are constantly sidetracking rather than reading what I write and
aknowledging that you understand it.
It seems that all atheists have reading comprehension problems when it
suits them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
>>>> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
>>>> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
>>> Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
>>> bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
>>> understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
>>> wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
>
>> So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country,
>> killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and
>> raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?
>
> Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?
The part where I point out maybe half a dozen places (out of dozens) where
God does seemingly bad things, and you avoiding answering the question about
it by pointing out *one* of the verses isn't saying what it looks like it
might be saying.
Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if
the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against
rocks. I asked if you, the hypothetical Christian who interprets the bible
the way you argue here it should be interpreted, would feel that it's
morally good to dash out infant brains against rocks if God so commanded.
I'm talking about whether a good Christian would do things that Christian
now thinks are evil and contemptible if that Christian's God told him to do
it for reasons he couldn't understand. The question really has nothing to do
with the psalm except that I used the same wording. You're saying "it was
just an insult". I'm saying "what would you think and/or do if God actually
commanded it?"
I'm also asking about the *other* verses I mentioned.
When I say "The bible says A, B, C, and D, what do you think?" And you
answer "C isn't what you say it is", what am I supposed to concludes about
A, B, and D, other than that you're dodging the question? OK, maybe not
dodging, but you failed to answer it, and when I ask it again, you can't
reasonably accuse me of reading incomprehension. :-)
> Ok, I got tired of you seemingly having a reading comprehension problem.
Oh, I have a full reading comprehension. I fully understood your answer. It
just wasn't answering the question I'd actually asked.
> You are constantly sidetracking rather than reading what I write and
> aknowledging that you understand it.
OK. Sorry. Perhaps I was unclear there. I said elsewhere that yes, I
understood your point, but I didn't say that in this post specifically. I
see I posted it a bit later, so maybe you didn't read it before this one.
I understand your point about that particular verse being an insult.
However, I asked you about a whole bunch of verses, and how you think
someone who believed in God and the bible as you *seem* to be arguing would
address these other instances of God apparently promoting and engaging in
violence against apparent innocents.
It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been
addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be
unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we
can't comprehend, or God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be
unspeakably horrible things that really are evil. (Or God is fictional, of
course.) I'm just trying to figure out if your ideal Christian would go with
#1 there or #2. If your ideal Christian goes with #1, it seems to be
implying a universal morality, namely that which God says is good. If your
ideal Christian goes with #2, it would seem to be implying that God isn't
100% good and nice and loving and kind and such.
Of course, many argue that God isn't necessarily loving and kind, but simply
a power that must be obeyed even if he says to do something bad. But that
doesn't get a whole lot of traction amongst the only-slightly-faithful.
> It seems that all atheists have reading comprehension problems when it
> suits them.
We're both having a bit of trouble keeping on track, methinks. :-) For one
thing, we're each pulling the conversation in different directions.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> For those that you can't, there are lots of reasonable arguments
> against. In the end, since religion is by definition irrational[1],
> arguments are going to have to appeal to the gut instead of logic.
Forgot the footnote:
[1] Irrational is not necessarily bad. Love at first sight, the awesomeness
of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the cuteness of a kitten are all
irrational. Religion is irrational to the extent that it teaches to shun
evidence in favor of faith without evidence. That doesn't make it bad per
se, any more than preferring cabbage over broccoli is bad per se.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
> >>>> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
> >>>> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
> >>> Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
> >>> bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
> >>> understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
> >>> wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
> >
> >> So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country,
> >> killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and
> >> raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?
> >
> > Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?
> The part where I point out maybe half a dozen places (out of dozens) where
> God does seemingly bad things, and you avoiding answering the question about
> it by pointing out *one* of the verses isn't saying what it looks like it
> might be saying.
So you *did* understand that I was talking exclusively about that one
single verse, yet you regardless went and accused me of trying to explain
*all* the verses related to the subject with the same explanation, even
though I did no such thing.
I did not answer your question because I have already written in length
about it and I didn't want to write it again. However, I did point out
that one verse you referred to because it's one of the pet verses for
atheists when they want to mock the bible and christianity, and which
they just don't understand.
If you want to think that I'm avoiding the question, that's your
prerogative.
> Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if
> the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against
> rocks.
Does that mean I cannot comment on that particular verse, as a side note?
I really think the comment was appropriate and valid in this context.
> It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been
> addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be
> unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we
> can't comprehend
You can't comprehend, or you are not willing to?
The nazi regime and World War 2 was ended by a full-fledged attack on
Germany. Lots of civilians and innocent people died on that attack, and
one could argue that the attack was "unspeakably horrible". However, few
people would deny that in the grand scale of things it was a good thing
because it ended a reign of terror, oppression and mass killings. We can
only imagine how many lives were saved because of the attack, which killed
so many innocent people.
If 3000 years ago there was a local nazi regime oppressing a region
and God ordered for it to be stopped by force, was it a good or a bad
thing? People were killed, yes, but how many were saved?
It's easy to show outrage about some war which happened some 3000 years
ago when you don't have all the details nor the exact reasons why that
war was fought.
> or God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be
> unspeakably horrible things that really are evil.
Was the final attack on Germany an "evil" act? Technically speaking you
could say it was. However, I wouldn't say it's that black or white. It's
a complicated issue.
I think that the question you posing at least borders the false dilemma.
You assume that an act must be either "good" or "evil", even though it's
not necessarily that simple. There may be additional options.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
