chcr
Too cute for words
If any particular is wrong then the whole thing must be wrong?
Evangelical hypocrisy...now with even more gay sex
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
If any particular is wrong then the whole thing must be wrong?
Woah, missed this one. Trying to claim one can only have a moral basis if one follows a religion?
spike
New Member
Exactly and since so much deserves doubt the whole thing deserves doubt. Executing non-virgin brides seems a bit excessive.
Right, it's not fine to be practice or teach bigotry against people for there race, religion, sexual orientation, flat noses, damaged testicles, or handicaps in general though.
That includes teaching children that they are sinners, may not approach the altar of god, denying them employment that they are qualified for, etc.
I think you can see the difference between that and telling a blind man he can't fly a military jet.
Thanks for yours, but quoting misguided catholic interpretation is not really very insightful.
If in fact the the bible defines it as a disorder then it can't be helped and therefore should not be a sin. I suppose it's consistent though if the bible also encourages bigotry against flat noses and handicapped people.
Nice excuse to pick and choose but it doesn't make them any less ridiculous does it? So God had irrational laws until Jesus came along and then he decided he was wrong except they still apply to Jews?
Excellent passage to use!
1. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Sounds like God made them do it. Wow.
2. God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them
So do you believe homosexuals or people that approve of it should be put to death as the bible says?
3. That passage was actually a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship.
4. Paul wrote that who was an immoral idiot who also supported the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16).
5. The passage depends on another decree and in itself is not a decree. "Though they know God’s decree"...where is this New Testament decree he speaks of?
Oh please explain to me why Jews should can't shave and should be prejudiced against flat nosed people, handicapped, and people with damaged testicles. I'd love to hear it.
Oh no it doesn't. if Natural Law is "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" that means that two lesbians that love each other are doing nothing wrong, hurting nobody, and therefore are fine.
Prejudice, bigotry, or teaching that they are immoral would be irrational and against Natural Law.
spike
New Member
Woah, missed this one. Trying to claim one can only have a moral basis if one follows a religion?
No way, it's possible to get morals and ethics from other sources than religion?
I heard chcr likes to eat babies with ketchup
tonksy
New Member
No silly...sour cream.
If I can't pick the good apples from the bad than I would have no choice but to pass on the bushel.
With the 10 commandments and the words spoken by Jesus there is more of a ring of truth and Godliness than with the laws passed down to a 2000 year old society by 2000+ year old men just trying to bring order to that society.
This is the kicker for me....I have faith and I believe...but I KNOW that so much of the bible was concocted by men.Chic said:
If I can't pick the good apples from the bad than I would have no choice but to pass on the bushel.
With the 10 commandments and the words spoken by Jesus there is more of a ring of truth and Godliness than with the laws passed down to a 2000 year old society by 2000+ year old men just trying to bring order to that society.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
If any particular is right then the whole thing must be right?
Lame argument dude. You can beat that. I'll still disagree with it, but I know you can do better.
chcr
Too cute for words
Of course not.
Not an argument at all, SnP, just looking for a clarification of Gotholic's position because I know plenty of folks who think just that. In either direction and on either side of any debate.
No way, it's possible to get morals and ethics from other sources than religion?
I heard chcr likes to eat babies with ketchup
Mayo and scallions is nice too.
I consider religion to be made up shit, so then I might as well make up my own shit.
On a serious note, if you believe religion is the only source for morality, ...actually that thought leaves me at a loss for words.
chcr
Too cute for words
As most people do.
Which is the problem. While I profess no belief in the God of religions, I think the premise is outstanding. It is made to improve our lives, making society far more cohesive. Having a set of morals/values/traditions.rules puts everybody on a level playing field. That some chose not to adhere to those rules is reason for law.
On a serious note, if you believe religion is the only source for morality, ...actually that thought leaves me at a loss for words.
Please. elaborate. Whay do you think religion was invented for?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
freako104
Well-Known Member
chcr
Too cute for words
That only works if everybody uses the same morals/values/traditions. Which they don't because these things are strictly subjective. You don't even follow all of the same ones you yourself followed twenty years ago. Look around, this is an obvious observation whether you like it or not.
It's foolish in the extreme to mindlessly expect people who were born and raised under completely different circumstances to obey your rules just because you like em, now isn't it?I know this wasn't directed at me, but here's my take:
It started out as a way for primitive peoples to explain things they didn't understand. Then people started to figure out how useful it was in controlling people. As the threats of retribution became more obscure the ritualization became more pronounced. This went on for several thousand years until it reached a peak in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 years ago. It's been declining since and will continue to do so. Most of the religious strife of today is a reaction to the decline in religions control over the population. A few thousand years from now, maybe less (possibly a lot less but such usually things die slowly) most people will laugh at how the primitives (in this case us) all believed that some magical, benevolent (benevolent, hah!) old guy was in control of everything. Religion is for controlling people. That's why there are rules and that's why there are rewards and punishments. It has never had anything to do with improving our lives or making the world a better place (except, of course, for the leaders of whichever religion). The rules are arbitrary and frequently nonsense but you go ahead and follow them if you want to. No skin off my nose.
Hell, I haven't explained that to anyone at all in more than twenty years. Thanks, it felt good. Go on about your primitive beliefs.
Nothing to see here.Oh yeah, cohesive society????? What society are you looking at? Not the one we live in.
spike
New Member
Wrong.
"study shows major types of crime at a 30-year low"
Coincidence? No, the drop in crime is probably related to less religious intolerance.
"study shows major types of crime at a 30-year low"
Coincidence? No, the drop in crime is probably related to less religious intolerance.
chcr
Too cute for words
See Gonz, like most people, you think that every significant thing has happened in your lifetime. This turns out not to be the case. The role of religion in most of the world population's lives has been declining since the renaissance. Accelerated by the industrial revolution of course. The increase in crime over the last 100 years or so can be directly attributed to the decrease in real punishment for said crimes and the increase in population. I really doubt that there's an such a huge increase in single parenthood (more people of course, that's a given), I think that people just don't try to hide it as much (which I suspect would be just as good for you). Re the increase in "general malevolence," Jeebus H. Christmas read a fucking history book, will you?