What deism has done for the world

[DeistPaladin]

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.

What? A false death-bed conversion story? A made-up quote claiming some historical notable for Jesus in a fallacious Appeal to Authority? Oh, say it aint so!

[Minimalist]

An actual statement from Napoleon's writings.

Religions are all founded on miracles — on things we cannot understand, such as the Trinity. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, and yet is descended from David. I prefer the religion of Mahomet — it is less ridiculous than ours.

Letter from St. Helena (28 August 1817)

Doesn't seem very impressed with fucking jesus, does he?

But your point is well taken, D-P. It reminds me of the observation of Robert Green Ingersoll.

Orthodox Christians have the habit of claiming all great men, all men who have held important positions, men of reputation, men of wealth. As soon as the funeral is over clergymen begin to relate imaginary conversations with the deceased, and in a very little while the great man is changed to a Christian -- possibly to a saint.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Religious Belief of Abraham Lincoln"

[*Deidre*]

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.

Lust is sexual desire, that is how I define it, and love needn't accompany it in order to have satisfying sex with someone. From a Christian perspective, it was always conveyed to me something to stifle. One mustn't "lust" after someone. I don't believe personally in "sleeping around," but I don't see anything wrong with two consenting adults enjoying safe sex, without a commitment. If love develops, great. If not, to me, there is nothing wrong with that in principle.

I think that it's important to not use others for one's own gratification. Certainly, lust can be taken to risky and unhealthy levels.

But the term itself means little more than a natural, sexual biological urge and there's no need to make such an urge sound wrong, or dirty. Religion makes people feel guilty for just being human. :/

[DarkHorse]

And then there's the question of homosexuals not being permitted to marry, legally. Was the law that put into place that only one man and one woman be legally allowed to marry, ANOTHER "misinterpretation?"

Well with regards to this issue, I think the Bible is clear. From the beginning we see God's plan for marriage as that which is between a man and a woman. Jesus confirmed this and so did the apostle Paul as well as the other apostles. I.e. a monogamous heterosexual union.

Then why doesn't god "take it away" from them. I don't buy into the whole arguement that it's a choice, and humanity got corrupted, etc. There are christians who pray for years for god to help them overcome homosexuality, but NOTHING. I don't buy into this bullshit of the bible. Jugdemental and arrogant. I too was a born again christian until recently, by the way.

Sex was a big issue for me, as a christian, and it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that it's okay to actually feel good about it. If christianity is such a wonderful thing, why do so many of us turn away, disgusted? All it does, is make humanity feel ashamed, guilty and never good enough. How does that help your self esteem? I can only feel good about myself because some other "dude" lives in me?

[discipulus]

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.

You say Jesus did nothing at all.

I want you to prove this assertion.

---

Well with regards to this issue, I think the Bible is clear. From the beginning we see God's plan for marriage as that which is between a man and a woman. Jesus confirmed this and so did the apostle Paul as well as the other apostles. I.e. a monogamous heterosexual union.

Then why doesn't god "take it away" from them. I don't buy into the whole arguement that it's a choice, and humanity got corrupted, etc. There are christians who pray for years for god to help them overcome homosexuality, but NOTHING. I don't buy into this bullshit of the bible. Jugdemental and arrogant. I too was a born again christian until recently, by the way.

Sex was a big issue for me, as a christian, and it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that it's okay to actually feel good about it. If christianity is such a wonderful thing, why do so many of us turn away, disgusted? All it does, is make humanity feel ashamed, guilty and never good enough. How does that help your self esteem? I can only feel good about myself because some other "dude" lives in me?

I do not know specifically why you have turned away Maybe you should ask yourself why you turned away.

---

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.

Lust is sexual desire, that is how I define it, and love needn't accompany it in order to have satisfying sex with someone. From a Christian perspective, it was always conveyed to me something to stifle. One mustn't "lust" after someone. I don't believe personally in "sleeping around," but I don't see anything wrong with two consenting adults enjoying safe sex, without a commitment. If love develops, great. If not, to me, there is nothing wrong with that in principle.

I think that it's important to not use others for one's own gratification. Certainly, lust can be taken to risky and unhealthy levels.

But the term itself means little more than a natural, sexual biological urge and there's no need to make such an urge sound wrong, or dirty. Religion makes people feel guilty for just being human. :/

You love having pleasure. Thats what it boils down to. And Jesus has said that loving such pleasure if it causes you to sin, should be denied. Self denial is a big part of Jesus's teaching. If you object to that then fine. Just say so.

[Esquilax]

You say Jesus did nothing at all.

I want you to prove this assertion.

No, positive claims require a burden of proof. This is a negative claim, akin to saying "I don't believe you."

Although I'm unsurprised you're now stooping to a "prove it didn't happen!" stance.

You love having pleasure. Thats what it boils down to. And Jesus has said that loving such pleasure if it causes you to sin, should be denied. Self denial is a big part of Jesus's teaching. If you object to that then fine. Just say so.

How do you know it's causing anyone to sin?

[*Deidre*]

discipulus, that's the problem with Christianity; it teaches Christians to look down on those who don't practice it. And here I thought you might be different.

[discipulus]

You say Jesus did nothing at all.

I want you to prove this assertion.

No, positive claims require a burden of proof. This is a negative claim, akin to saying "I don't believe you."

Although I'm unsurprised you're now stooping to a "prove it didn't happen!" stance.

You love having pleasure. Thats what it boils down to. And Jesus has said that loving such pleasure if it causes you to sin, should be denied. Self denial is a big part of Jesus's teaching. If you object to that then fine. Just say so.

How do you know it's causing anyone to sin?

Premarital sex is a sin. And yes saying Jesus did nothing is a truth claim and as such whoever makes such a claim has the burden of substantiating the claim. Unless that is just their opinion to which I would say you are entitled to it.

---

discipulus, that's the problem with Christianity; it teaches Christians to look down on those who don't practice it. And here I thought you might be different.

I don't look down on anyone. In fact, the very thing you charge me with is something you have done yourself. You look down on me because I tell you that things like premarital sex is a sin. I judge or condemn no one. Nor is me telling you that premarital sex is a sin condemning you.

[Esquilax]

Premarital sex is a sin.

Right, so you've made the unjustified assumption that the sex here is premarital. So you're still operating from a basis of ignorance.

And yes saying Jesus did nothing is a truth claim and as such whoever makes such a claim has the burden of substantiating the claim. Unless that is just their opinion to which I would say you are entitled to it.

Only if you can demonstrate that Jesus existed to begin with; the claim that he did nothing is only a claim that is possibly untrue if he existed, since things that don't exist do nothing just as a matter of course. Since you haven't gotten near fulfilling your burden of proof as to Jesus' existence (and godhood, given the scope of the conversation we're having. You'd need to fulfill the burden of proof on both of those claims) then by default it cannot be accepted, and therefore no burden entails on the claim that Jesus did nothing, since his existence hasn't been established for him to be able to do anything.

So, all you'd need to do to be correct is to prove that Jesus existed, and that he was god. I'll leave you to that.

[*Deidre*]

Spare me your tone and lecture, discipulus. I've heard this nonsense preached to me all of my life. And by nonsense, I mean that a Christian will say something clearly judgmental against another person, and then when that person is offended, will back track, then stating that he or she isn't judging anyone.

Your "faith" has given you a license to insult others. I've been kind to you, explaining my position and yet you subtly imply that my view is wrong and you are right, because YOU are a Christian.

This is nothing new from Christians. They are self righteous and offensive and use their faith as an excuse to judge others.

Whatever.