(July 7, 2013 at 3:34 am)Consilius Wrote: As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.

Strangely enough, those that were fighting for slavery also thought god was on their side, and in their case they actually had explicit scripture telling them it was okay to own slaves.

I mean, I'm sure there were religious folks on both sides of the issue, given that religion is multiple choice that's almost a guaranteed thing, but let's not go about pretending that these religious texts are a source of morality that led them to the morally correct outcome, least of all in situations where the actual words therein say the exact opposite.

Quote:Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

What else would you conclude from that fact, though?

Quote:Well, I ALSO believe in gay marriage AND polygamy, so we have the same views here.
Of course, though, if gays are doing it for fun, it's far more disturbing to the Christian community than it is for others. I'm sure atheists never lifted a finger over the issue. We can say the CHRISTIAN community's gay ethic is changing.

If we all agree that we should lie to each other and betray our friends, it does NOT become OK. I feel that is a very dangerous thought. If it takes 50,000 Americans breaking the law for anarchy to reign, it is only because legislation can be changed at the will of the people. With morals, it is not the same. Why didn't the abolitionists think that slavery was OK when all of the slave routes were good and running? Slavery was never OK, no matter how many people thought it was for however long, and someone needed to put a stop to it and get us back on track. Human morality is like a self-repairing system.

As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.
Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

OMG! are you kidding me? why are we repeating the same thing again and again? I'm done with the slavery thing ok? People thought it was right, if you don't think it's right, that's your business. You cannot pretend as if everyone thought the same way as you do. Slavery was never OK? In whose point of view? Your god thought it was ok, it's in the bible. You are the one who doesn't think it's ok. People thought it was ok, that makes it ok for them.

I, again, am confused at what point you're trying to make. I said that an act that does not benefit the society, will eventually die out and be considered "immoral", despite everyone believing it was moral when they were doing it. You said I was wrong that everyone knows. But now you admit that they thought it was OK, but that because you don't think it's ok, then slavery was never ok for anybody?

And here you go again, you said religious texts, but now you're stretching that to all "religious people". This is not an acceptable stretch, because religious people can be influenced by things other than their religion. To pretend otherwise is also too simplistic a worldview. Plus, you'll have to answer for those who fought for slavery, as esquilax said, if religion wants to claim the responsibility. I did not say chinese old testament, I was referring to philosophers and thinkers that chinese quote like you christians quote the bible. Please read properly.

No, reading the bible allows me to conclude that your bible condones gender inequality.

The only thing, that has any power over what is moral and what is immoral, is evolution. Because if you do something that doesn't benefit the whole, that act cannot last long. Evolution is the one that has the final say. Not your religion.

It's also very interesting how you did not address the point i brought up about muslim countries, which are religious, by anyone's standards.

(July 6, 2013 at 9:25 pm)Consilius Wrote: We thought the gays were gay on purpose, and were just messing around with us. Their persecution became socially acceptable, and still is in many parts of the world. Generally, those who have been informed of science confirming that gays are born gay, accepted them and apologized. If their not doing it on purpose, people who are different can be accepted as equal, and that is moral.

The issue of whether being gay is biological or a choice has only ever existed because Christians feel that they are entitled to discriminate if gay people do it by choice. Even if people choose to be gay, there's no rational justification for discriminating against gay people or denying them the rights you enjoy. Doing so is immoral.

(July 7, 2013 at 11:07 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 7, 2013 at 3:34 am)Consilius Wrote: As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.

Strangely enough, those that were fighting for slavery also thought god was on their side, and in their case they actually had explicit scripture telling them it was okay to own slaves.

I mean, I'm sure there were religious folks on both sides of the issue, given that religion is multiple choice that's almost a guaranteed thing, but let's not go about pretending that these religious texts are a source of morality that led them to the morally correct outcome, least of all in situations where the actual words therein say the exact opposite.

Quote:Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

What else would you conclude from that fact, though?

The slavers used the Bible as a defense of slavery. It was not an incentive or a factor.
The curse of Ham (Genesis 9:25-28), a common defense, wasn't valid. The curse was on Ham's son, Canaan, ancestor of the Canaanites, who were enslaved by the Israelites. The people of Africa are said to descend from a later son of Ham, who was not cursed.
Slavery in the Bible as a whole is a wide topic. In general, slaves were either hostile peoples or people who became slaves to pay off debts. St. Paul told Roman slaves to be content as they were and care more about their spiritual lives than their political status (1 Corinthians 7:21-22). That's all I'm going to say on that.

The inconstancy of religious morals comes from changes in interpretation rather than in changing of the nature of the law itself, which can't be changed. There are some issues in how the Bible is interpreted, but much of the rest is set in stone because of things like papal infallibility.

On women in the Bible, I think that conclusions made about what the Bible says should come from biblical scholars or religious leaders rather than having ourselves as the final authority. We are all entitled to our opinions, but the Bible is still thousands of years old and has been translated and edited a million times. Chances are that you're going to run into something that's strange and get the wrong idea.
From what I know, in biblical times, especially those of the Exodus, women were easy to dominate and were in danger of being abused or misrepresented. Males would often be these offenders. This is why most homes needed an adult male around to keep women, children, and old people safe, making a male the head of a household and a representative of a family. A woman couldn't live alone because of the danger, so she lived with her parents until she had a man i.e. a husband to protect her. Keep this unique situation in mind compared to those of most women today when those Bible passages come up.

---

(July 7, 2013 at 12:59 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

Quote:Well, I ALSO believe in gay marriage AND polygamy, so we have the same views here.
Of course, though, if gays are doing it for fun, it's far more disturbing to the Christian community than it is for others. I'm sure atheists never lifted a finger over the issue. We can say the CHRISTIAN community's gay ethic is changing.

If we all agree that we should lie to each other and betray our friends, it does NOT become OK. I feel that is a very dangerous thought. If it takes 50,000 Americans breaking the law for anarchy to reign, it is only because legislation can be changed at the will of the people. With morals, it is not the same. Why didn't the abolitionists think that slavery was OK when all of the slave routes were good and running? Slavery was never OK, no matter how many people thought it was for however long, and someone needed to put a stop to it and get us back on track. Human morality is like a self-repairing system.

As for religious texts, I was referring to humanity as a whole, and possibly primary sources other than the Bible. In the face of injustice, there will always be the religious to advocate for the right. Most of the abolitionists were Christian and used Christian propaganda in the abolition of slavery.
Because you think that there is gender inequality in the Christian Old Testament doesn't allow you to conclude that the Bible says women are worth less than men.

OMG! are you kidding me? why are we repeating the same thing again and again? I'm done with the slavery thing ok? People thought it was right, if you don't think it's right, that's your business. You cannot pretend as if everyone thought the same way as you do. Slavery was never OK? In whose point of view? Your god thought it was ok, it's in the bible. You are the one who doesn't think it's ok. People thought it was ok, that makes it ok for them.

I, again, am confused at what point you're trying to make. I said that an act that does not benefit the society, will eventually die out and be considered "immoral", despite everyone believing it was moral when they were doing it. You said I was wrong that everyone knows. But now you admit that they thought it was OK, but that because you don't think it's ok, then slavery was never ok for anybody?

And here you go again, you said religious texts, but now you're stretching that to all "religious people". This is not an acceptable stretch, because religious people can be influenced by things other than their religion. To pretend otherwise is also too simplistic a worldview. Plus, you'll have to answer for those who fought for slavery, as esquilax said, if religion wants to claim the responsibility. I did not say chinese old testament, I was referring to philosophers and thinkers that chinese quote like you christians quote the bible. Please read properly.

No, reading the bible allows me to conclude that your bible condones gender inequality.

The only thing, that has any power over what is moral and what is immoral, is evolution. Because if you do something that doesn't benefit the whole, that act cannot last long. Evolution is the one that has the final say. Not your religion.

It's also very interesting how you did not address the point i brought up about muslim countries, which are religious, by anyone's standards.

If you want a few tidbits on both slavery and women in the Bible, Esquilax has my reply.
What we think is OK does not change what is moral. Slavery may have been "moral" to the slavers, but never was moral. Slavery would be very beneficial right now in today's economy, but we refuse to do it. Morality is the natural law, and has been expressed by religions and governments. Morality does not exist as a tool. It is law that we must live by and cannot be changed. When we break that law, we suffer as a species. Like we evolved to the laws of physics and logic, we evolved to morals.

---

(July 7, 2013 at 4:29 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(July 6, 2013 at 9:25 pm)Consilius Wrote: We thought the gays were gay on purpose, and were just messing around with us. Their persecution became socially acceptable, and still is in many parts of the world. Generally, those who have been informed of science confirming that gays are born gay, accepted them and apologized. If their not doing it on purpose, people who are different can be accepted as equal, and that is moral.

The issue of whether being gay is biological or a choice has only ever existed because Christians feel that they are entitled to discriminate if gay people do it by choice. Even if people choose to be gay, there's no rational justification for discriminating against gay people or denying them the rights you enjoy. Doing so is immoral.

If gay people were gay on purpose, that would fit the qualifications for a sin. They would have to be corrected, like drug addicts or liars.
Those who are against homosexuality today seek to scold and correct them. It's about the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Few Christian communities actually discriminate against them.
And so, it's not the Christian community as a whole, but a few Christians who actually discriminate based on sexuality.

(July 7, 2013 at 3:34 am)Consilius Wrote: God has all of them. It's these three attributes, along with omnibenevolence, that make him God.

Omnipotence: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Omniscience: Does God know all currently or all that was, is, and will be? If the former: Does God know what and when he will know in the future? If the latter: What is the point of creation if God already knew the outcome?

Omnibenevolence: If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and innocent children are dying of hunger and disease... explain how this is benevolent.

Omnipresence: If God is omniscient, doesn't that render omnipresence useless?

@Consilius, ok, so your point is that what is moral never changes, and if we act immorally, even if we think it's right, we'll suffer evolutionarily? How is that different from what i've said from the beginning? You were trying to say that religious people hold this moral truth and when the rest of us do wrong, the religious are on the right side. Now you're conceding your point?

As for the rest of the thing you said about slavery and the bible. You may not want to say more about that, I'm not going to speculate on why, but since you claimed that your religion was responsible for the abolition of slavery, refusing to defend that is at your own cost. If I wanted to champion slavery, I wouldn't point to Ham either, i'd just point to all the bible chapters that teach you how to treat your slave. And to tell slaves not to care about their political status? That's a very effective ploy to keep them under your thumb.

About women and the bible, in the NT it says that women are the body and men are the head in a marriage. And that women should obey their husbands. That alone is appalling enough. Obedience is not a virtue. Believe it or not. It's marketed as one to keep people in power in power, and prevent anyone from challenging their power.

(July 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Consilius Wrote: If gay people were gay on purpose, that would fit the qualifications for a sin. They would have to be corrected, like drug addicts or liars.

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone...

We don't live in a theocracy and Christian sins do not qualify as reasons to discriminate, or to deny equal rights under the law. Christians should live their lives according their beliefs, if they want to, and leave everyone else alone. Whether or not being gay is a choice, being an asshole certainly is.

Quote:Those who are against homosexuality today seek to scold and correct them. It's about the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Few Christian communities actually discriminate against them.

Those who are against homosexuality seek to demonize, belittle, and exclude them from society to whatever extent they can get away with.

Quote:And so, it's not the Christian community as a whole, but a few Christians who actually discriminate based on sexuality.

The 'few' Christians who have, so far, successfully managed to make gay people second class citizens in America did not accomplish this in spite of the efforts of the Christian community, but with the Christian community's implicit (and often, explicit) approval and support. If there are so many individual Christians who find discrimination abhorrent, why don't they join together to make it stop?

(July 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm)NoahsFarce Wrote:

(July 7, 2013 at 3:34 am)Consilius Wrote: God has all of them. It's these three attributes, along with omnibenevolence, that make him God.

Omnipotence: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Omniscience: Does God know all currently or all that was, is, and will be? If the former: Does God know what and when he will know in the future? If the latter: What is the point of creation if God already knew the outcome?

Omnibenevolence: If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and innocent children are dying of hunger and disease... explain how this is benevolent.

Omnipresence: If God is omniscient, doesn't that render omnipresence useless?

Omnipotence: God is a supernatural being, not my pet dragon. Why would God work against himself if he wills everything he does?
Omniscience: God knows past, present, and future, forever has, and forever will. God is love, and he wanted to express this love by creating other beings to love so that they could love him.
Onmibenevolence: Countless men, women, and children stub their toes on doorsteps every day. If you're going to bring up the question of evil, you have to go all the way. Life and the world are nothing compared to a gift that God doesn't take: his always being there. Life is a path towards this gift. Suffering weans us from life, health, family, possessions, and the other physical things we rely on and show us that our lives of something else, and it has something to offer us. Some people say it's chance leading us to uncertain fate, while others take suffering as a step closer to God and his gift.
Omniprescence: God is everywhere in the sense that his love and power can be felt by people all around the world, no matter in what place or conditions they are in.
Hope this answers your question.

---

(July 7, 2013 at 5:12 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: @Consilius, ok, so your point is that what is moral never changes, and if we act immorally, even if we think it's right, we'll suffer evolutionarily? How is that different from what i've said from the beginning? You were trying to say that religious people hold this moral truth and when the rest of us do wrong, the religious are on the right side. Now you're conceding your point?

As for the rest of the thing you said about slavery and the bible. You may not want to say more about that, I'm not going to speculate on why, but since you claimed that your religion was responsible for the abolition of slavery, refusing to defend that is at your own cost. If I wanted to champion slavery, I wouldn't point to Ham either, i'd just point to all the bible chapters that teach you how to treat your slave. And to tell slaves not to care about their political status? That's a very effective ploy to keep them under your thumb.

About women and the bible, in the NT it says that women are the body and men are the head in a marriage. And that women should obey their husbands. That alone is appalling enough. Obedience is not a virtue. Believe it or not. It's marketed as one to keep people in power in power, and prevent anyone from challenging their power.

The point I've been trying to make is that religions are subject to unchanging moral codes, which are interpretations of the natural law. The irreligious don't have these, rather they rely on their natural moral compasses and governmental laws. Moral compasses can be overridden, and laws can be changed.

You can't defend slavery if you are kidnapping or buying free people. Perhaps, if you captured hostile armies in war, it wouldn't be anything worse than what's been done to them before, BUT Christ taught forgiveness of enemies later in the NT, contrary to the common OT practice. You'd be left with the people who willingly sell themselves to you to pay off money they owe you.
Slavery in the NT was Roman, so the only crime you can accuse the Bible of then was God's not striking down the Emperor on his throne and making former slaves declare war on their evil masters. Abolitionism at the time of the early church wasn't even mentioned, because sparking slave riots against the Roman Empire didn't fit the newfound Christian ideas of non-materialism and peace.
The man who said "don't worry about freedom" was the apostle Paul, a traveling preacher who earned a living making tents. He didn't own slaves, so why would he want to subjugate the small congregations he preached to? To keep them under the control of whom? The Roman government that later beheaded him?

In your Bible passage, the man is also given a responsibility, which you didn't mention:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:25-28
"7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7

As I explained, the authority of the husband in ancient households was emphasized because his wife relied on him for protection. It's like you and a police officer. The government does not make exceptions for either the officer or you, but you must respect and obey him, because he is your protector.

And if you are still going to accuse the Bible of anything, let it be inconsistency, because there is no discrimination here:
"3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

---

(July 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(July 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Consilius Wrote: If gay people were gay on purpose, that would fit the qualifications for a sin. They would have to be corrected, like drug addicts or liars.

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone...

We don't live in a theocracy and Christian sins do not qualify as reasons to discriminate, or to deny equal rights under the law. Christians should live their lives according their beliefs, if they want to, and leave everyone else alone. Whether or not being gay is a choice, being an asshole certainly is.

Quote:Those who are against homosexuality today seek to scold and correct them. It's about the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Few Christian communities actually discriminate against them.

Those who are against homosexuality seek to demonize, belittle, and exclude them from society to whatever extent they can get away with.

Quote:And so, it's not the Christian community as a whole, but a few Christians who actually discriminate based on sexuality.

The 'few' Christians who have, so far, successfully managed to make gay people second class citizens in America did not accomplish this in spite of the efforts of the Christian community, but with the Christian community's implicit (and often, explicit) approval and support. If there are so many individual Christians who find discrimination abhorrent, why don't they join together to make it stop?

Those who protest gay marriage treat it as public approval of a "sinful" act. They are angry because their "sin" is becoming publicly acceptable. They are "sinning" and doing it proudly, so they're coming down on it harder. Homophobes (those who hate the gay PEOPLE) can do whatever the hell they want. They are simply going against their Christian doctrines.
I'm defending the more moderate ones, who protest gay marriage. Christians are supposed to correct sinners, and that's what they are trying to do.

So don't go after my religion because Christians are being intolerant, go after it if you can prove that Christianity is inherently intolerant.

Thanks for not answering my questions whatsoever.

I do not care whether or not God has reason to create a rock that he can't lift. I'm asking you if he can regardless of reason.

The rest of the responses were just you tap dancing. Please bring something new to the table instead of responding like the atypical theist.

(June 21, 2013 at 4:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. In a circumstance of an all knowing being able to judge that this was fair.

2. No

3. In a scenario where you have an immortal soul

4. No

There is no possible way any rational human being could sympathize with a being that kills innocent children. This is an example of what Hitchens used to say, "Religion poisons everything." Here is yet another example of how a perfectly rational person can all of a sudden justify the killing of children from a dogmatic system of thinking centered around a 2000 year old book.

Agree with the second one, although it contradicts your first answer.

It doesnt matter how immortal your soul is if every moment of it is predetermined by a god, which of course means absolutely no free will whatsoever. This is just one of the many contradictions in Christian thinking.

Of course not that would be murder, which is obviously condemnable, unless you declare yourself an "all knowing being" that can judge all things fairly.