(March 3, 2014 at 9:06 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Now if you want to discuss something far more tangible and not subject to hearsay and a myriad of internet links, I will consider that.

Are you an atheist?

(March 3, 2014 at 9:06 pm)discipulus Wrote: "It is the peculiarity of the Church of God‥to endure blows, not to give them; but yet you will be pleased to remember, that it is an anvil on which many a hammer has been broken."
[1853 G. De felice Hist. Protestants of France I. II. v. 156 (tr. Beza to King of Navarre, 1562)]

I'm not sure why anyone would think it only took blows, without dishing any out.

(March 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, I'm done trying to have an honest discussion about religion with you because you're not discussing anything honestly. However, I can't resist setting you straight on this point:


Well then, you haven't spoken with very many people on the subject, at least none outside the prudish and hypocritical circles of Christianity.

Lust itself isn't bad nor is acting on it between consenting adults necessarily bad.

True, there are bad stories you can tell about lust, ones that involve for example stalking, harassment, deception or callousness. This only means that stalking, harassment, deception or callousness are bad. The logical fallacies here are over-reliance on anecdotal evidence and assumption of correlation proving causation, a.k.a. "post hoc ergo propter hoc". In this case, the latter fallacy is expressed as, "Here are stories about lust and deception; therefore lust involves deception"

Let me personal about this. I've had what I've called "dear friends", and have since learned that the colloquial is "friends with benefits." At all times that I've indulged in casual sex or in sex with friends-but-not-a-committed-relationship, whatever you call it, I've always made sure to use protection, avoid deception and respect the rights of the other.

On one occasion, the "lustful" sex was quite therapeutic for the other. She was a divorced woman. I didn't ask the details but I gathered it was a nasty one. She was not ready for another relationship and made that clear to me. We kept in touch as friends by email for a while afterwards. She told me how I showed her such a romantic time and helped her to heal. Last I heard, she was getting married having found a better man than before. I was happy for her and wished her well.

The rules I follow in and out of the bedroom are simple:
1. Act with integrity
2. Respect the rights of others
3. Take responsibility for your actions

These are simple rules of morality. Stay within these bounds and you can lust all you like.

Rational enough for you?

You and I will disagree on this and that is fine.

I have much to say on the subject and may do so in a separate thread if I have time.

How does one have sex without lust?
Christians take natural biological urges and invent negative ways of viewing such urges.

No, we shouldn't act on every urge, but lustful urges are biological. Nothing to be ashamed of as the Christian "church" would want us to believe.

Lusting after other people's significant others can be wrong and unethical but again, we can have urges yet control them.

Sex is a natural act and only religious people attach unnecessary stigmas to it. This has done more harm than good, and has caused a lot of unnecessary hang ups and issues for Christians surrounding sex.

Christians have the highest divorce rate, considerably higher than atheists and higher than other religious groups.

Inconvenient truths that even the best of apologists can't quite explain.

(March 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm)Chad32 Wrote: That's not something I contemplate often. What of it?

I think you should contemplate it and I think until you can come to the place where you can say: "Yes, I choose to believe this..." or "No, I choose not to believe that..." then you cannot justifiably denigrate the beliefs of others.

After all, maybe we don't choose what we believe. Maybe our beliefs are by-products of socio-biological evolutionary processes.

(March 3, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah, one death. Your deity, sacrificing himself to himself, to save us from himself. He cursed us for something we didn't do, created hell for those who don't follow him, and I'm not even sure an all powerful being can even lose anything. To become less powerful. He is far from the central figure of the human race, and far from being conclusively proven to have existed at all.

And let's not forget those witch-hunts, inquisitions, crusades, genocides of native populations and other mass-scale religious torture and murder. If Jesus is who Christians say he is, it means he watched over all of it from Heaven.

Let's give his god a pass on the whole problem of evil and accept the feeble "free will" defense just to be charitable. Let's also overlook all the suffering caused by natural disasters. We'll be generous and call it all a "test" or something and move on. Let's also gloss over all the peripheral institutions supported by Christianity over the years, from slavery to the divine right of kings.

Let's look only at the evil that has been directly done by the representatives of Jesus, by those high ranking in the "church" he established, whether these churches be Protestant or Catholic. Let's consider only the evil that has been done in his name and in the promotion of his religion. Let's first take in all the torture and mass murder done and work our way down to the effective theft of financial resources to enrich certain priests and preachers at the expense of the poor and the gullible.

If Christians are right, Jesus watched it all and did nothing.

Nothing at all.

No booming voice from the sky telling them to "knock it off". No angels commanding the pious leaders to stop murdering and torturing in Jesus' name. Such angelic interventions did happen all the time in the Bible, even in The Book of Acts of the Apostles after Jesus had left the earth. But not anymore. Not a peep from Heaven.

What would we say about a general at a "war crimes tribunal" if evidence were presented that the general knew about the atrocities being committed in his name by his soldiers, even if the general may not have directly ordered them? What if it could be proven that the general knew what was happening and could have taken action to stop it but chose not to?

The general, presented with this evidence, does not deny the charge but says, "Hey, the soldiers had free will. I'm not responsible if I wasn't there and didn't tell them to do it."

You think that defense would be accepted?

Jesus watched the Christian soldiers do what they did...
and...
he...
did...
nothing!

If Jesus is who Christians say he is, then he is the least fit being in all the universe to stand in moral judgment over anyone! The sins he would have to answer for would dwarf the ones committed by any of the worst individuals of humanity. On Judgment Day, he should beg us for forgiveness, not the other way around.

I'm not trying to denigrate people's beliefs. You can believe what you want. I just vehemently disagree with the idea that Yahweh exists, or is good if he does exist. Or that christianity itsself is a force for good in the world. I try not to make personal attacks if I can help it. I just attack the source.

(March 3, 2014 at 9:06 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Debate what issue? Why would anyone debate something as stupid and pointless as whether or not Christians do more for children?? It's going to be a futile tongue-wagging exercise full of unprovable assertions and endless rabbit trails into your religious bias.

Now if you want to discuss something far more tangible and not subject to hearsay and a myriad of internet links, I will consider that.

Are you an atheist?

No.

(March 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 9:06 pm)discipulus Wrote: Are you an atheist?

No.

Good.

(March 3, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: How does one have sex without lust?

How indeed? What constitutes "lust" exactly and when is it "just lust"? I glossed over that philosophical point to focus on the one I was making.

Love and lust aren't the same, of course, but if we define "lust" as raw sexual desire, they are catalysts of one another. I've heard therapists say that for married couples who've lost "that spark", it may be the result of unresolved resentments that have buried the feelings of love. From what I've heard, couples that can be helped to resolve these resentments can reconnect in love and thus restore that desire. Love is a catalyst for lust in this example.

I've personally found that feelings of closeness with another can strengthen desire. The reverse can happen as well. The joke I heard once is "get a man by the balls and his heart and mind will follow." I really don't know if that's true in general but it has been for me. It's hard for me not to fall for a partner with whom I've enjoyed great sex (in the example I shared, I really had to restrain my heart from getting too attached, remembering what she'd told me). On the other hand, there have been times where I really wanted to fall for someone but the "chemistry" wasn't there. Like I said, they're definitely not the same but they seem to work together well.

And when is it "just lust"? Is it possible to have such an intimate physical connection and not feel anything emotionally for your partner? Maybe not the "everlasting one and only love" kind of feeling but some sort of empathic connection? Maybe it is but I've never experienced it.

Yeah, Hitler was a big fan, too.

Quote:"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler,

Oh, and btw.... Napoleon had a fairly low opinion of religion in general and I cannot find any reference to any such quotation in his writings.

There is a claim by a British theologian....and we all know how trustworthy those fuckers are... that he made such a statement orally while dying of cancer on St, Helena.