Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige
Posted on: March 20, 2006 - 2:38pm
Offline
Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marraige
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause.
Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.
- Login to post comments
I agree that it isn't lying unless the person saying it is false. If a kid wrote on a test at school that 2 + 2 =5, or spelled "cat" K-A-T , the teacher would just mark the answer wrong, not send him to the principal for lying.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Common usage, yes, but as we've seen above, the primary definition for 'lie' includes 'an intentional falsehood', which allegories, fictions, and fables are. They're simply not malevolent lies.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
And again, as has been stated time and again: no, errors are not 'intentional falsehoods'. Fiction is. That doesn't necessitate malevolence or fraud, only falsehoods.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Sir, please fill in the blank from earlier where I asked you to supply the proof of your God.
1-I have no idea if you are a fanatic or not as you haven't revealed enough to make a conclusion. So far all I really know is that you believe in a God and it's not Al-lah.
2-How have you arrived at the conclusion we wouldn't "know a religious state if it bit him in the ass"?
3-Which religious state in the Middle East do you mean?
4-As to laws in the U S based on Christian beliefs perhaps you have missed the 10 commandment issues in the press? Or all the "blue" laws around the country. Or marriage laws. Or Laws against victimless crimes.
5-Abortion has little to do with whether the US is Christian or not, many atheists think abortion is not a good idea and are against it. Some consider if intelligent life is rare, perhaps killing possible life is a bad idea. Atheists like Christians have diverse ideas on abortion, you can't generalize us all. Many Christians have abortions in fact they are likely to be the largest percentage group as purported Christians are the largest number of people in the US.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Did Balone scutter off? I had been looking forward to responding to some of his bologna before it got chewed up and spat out by others.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
By the way, is there a reason you segue from the truth of the bible to the evidence for the existence or nonexistence of an ambiguous god? You might begin next time by presenting a coherent argument. -You were trying to make an argument, right?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I am well aware that there are religious states in the Middle East. Why do you want to bring one here?
Never said I did want one here. This is the US and our Constitution states that one religion shall not be dominant.
It seems that all the things that you list as bad "over there" those politicians who are beholden to your side want to make happen here.
Never listed anything as bad or good about it.
We don't need to list them as "Judeo-Christian" laws here. It's a given.
What specific laws would that be. Do you believe you should be allowed to kill others? Is stealing OK to you?
Sharia law is not universally followed in Islamic countries - just the ones that want God to rule them. Does this seem familiar to you? If it doesn't, you don't have a grown-up interest in the news.
Once again lack of moral fiber due to...well you figure it out, has posted an insulting and offensive comment.
Quote:I would stop my communist regime, but I don't have one.
You kinda just stopped and didn't take the whole thought. Manipulation in immoral.
George Washington's farewell address:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—
Perhaps, but there are still others of us awaiting responses. You claim a Christian state could never be guilty of heinous, "unchristian" acts. So you then assert that Spain, from the Reconquista until the middle of the 19th century, was not a Christian state?
That the papal agents who conducted and oversaw torture sessions intended to elicit confessions from 'heretics', and forced conversion of jews, were not acting under a Christian authority granted them by the Pope?
That the Conquistadors who raped and pillaged the "New World" were not doing so under papal sanction?
That the Catholic priests and monks who followed behind, destroying everything they could of the natives' religious records and structure, to the point where only 3 accounts of the Popol Vuh survived the purges, were not doing so with the full approval of the Holy See?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Get ready for a No True Scotsman.
No doubt. I'm also waiting for him to address the 'is the Bible 100% literally true?' issue from reply #12, or the 'go ahead and demonstrate how you can label this mythical' challenge from reply #19.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Some small number of examples, since I know you'd really like to know:
1-The forced belief in Catholicism in Europe during the Middle Ages.
2-The forced conversion of Jews and Muslims in Spain as in Convert, Leave or Die by Isabella & Ferdinand.
3-The Inquisition in General.
4-The Crusades in general.
5-The invasion of the New World and forced conversion of the natives.
6-The forced conversion in England, back and forth on Catholicism and the Church of England.
7-The execution in Salem of innocents claimed to be witches or in alliance with the Devil.
8-The 18th amendment banning alcohol.
9-All victimless crime laws. Prostitution, gambling, drug laws, Blue Laws of all kinds, pornography laws.
10-Attempts to block gay marriages or civil unions.
11-Use of Public airwaves to disseminate religious values of a specific religion.
12-Laws to teach ID or Genesis as real in Public Schools.
13-In God We Trust on Money.
14-Under God in the Pledge of Alligience.
15-Practice of swearing on Bibles in courts. This has ended nearly everywhere, but it was practiced for years.
16-Religious displays on taxpayer public property paid with public funds.
All of the above are immoral as they are manipulation which you claim to be against. Are you against manipulation? Or just against manipulation that you don't see as your justified right to preach the word?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
1. If you want to hear my life story I would be gald to tell you.
2. Because you all suggest that all the laws in this nation are Christian based. That is not your fault though, since christian beliefs are Moral and so are the laws in this country I can see how you can confuse that.
3. Egypt, Iran, Saudi Aribia..you take your pick.
4. Did not know there was a law stating that the ten commandments should be promoted and displayed..maybe you can show me that one. Marriage laws..just because a person does not think two men should get married that does not mean the person is a Christian..you see RATIONAL THINKING is a perspective as well. there are people who think a man and a woman in a marriage is logical and rational and same sex marriage is not. You are guilty there of generalization of Christian beliefs. Victimless crimes..you mean like when a Christian is jailed for referencing the bible at a gay march under the laws of peaceful protest, or hate crime which is completely against the first amendment. As for the BLUE laws I come from NJ and there is a town called Paramus which still follows the blue laws and its not because its a christian thing its because the town just dont want the traffic and the headaches for 7 days a week. they need a break from it. There are 3 or 4 big malls in the area plus on RT17 which runs through the town there are an extensive amount of stores for like a 7 mile strip. The people in the town just want some peace for 1 day a week.
5. Abortion was brought up to debate whether this is a government is following a state religion, is was not meant to be a christian or athiest or scientific generalization. AS for it being Christians getting abortions..I agree 100% the country is 80% Christian and they should be ashamed of themselves and will have to answer to God for it. If it was a Christian state you would have to carry a card with you, like in Islamist countries, declaring your religion. And if you go into a religious facility that is not associated with the religion on your card, your executed. Or what is happening now in Pakistan. Two christian girls get abducted. the kidnappers file a petition with the courts to obtain legal custody because they claim the girls converted to Islam and so the rightful parents have no right to them anymore. I could go on but time I do not have.
George Washington:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—
Christianity is not moral and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with abortion under any circumstances.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I see no one has touched that yet. Someone here stated that because there is no physical evidence of a God that he does not exist.
Riddle me this: Science says Dark matter exists even though there is no physical evidence. It takes up no space, has no mass and cannot be seen.
What is the difference in beliveing in dark matter and believing in God?
what if dark matter is God?
Balone wrote:
Huh? Oh, what the hell!? I'll even take sloppy seconds!
HUH? what are you talking about?
Balone wrote:I say the bible is full of lies. Well, not literally full. I'm sure some of the things written in the bible are truthful or were intended to be truth within the fictional narrative, but in reality insects do not have four legs and the first woman was not created from either dust nor some bloke, Adam's, rib.
Once again says you. Science has contradicted itself more times in the last 30 years than the bible has over the last 2000. One example that is current is Water Flouridation. Dental association says it it preveting us from having our teeth falling out of our heads and yet the other side is Flouride is poison and can harm you greatly. You should not give a child 2 and under more than 4 ounces of water a day or it could kill them. Yet science tells us we need(not totaly positive about this number) 8, 8ounce glasses a day.
Balone wrote:I am me. But, of course, you likely meant what authority do I have to make an assertion about the truth of the bible? Well, I won't put words into your mouth. You can tell me if that is what you meant and then I'll answer the question.
You obviously know what I meant by that. so you are just being antagonistic and immoral.
Balone wrote:These things I know not to be true and, indeed, they can be proved to be untrue. I can do that with quite a number of things from the bible. I'd rather not play at semantics though, so don't bother correcting me by posting the definition of a lie... again. The fact is that those things, above written and contained within the bible, are not true and there is evidence to the contrary of an assertion of their truth.
You lack the belief in the supernatual and therefore could never truly understand all that is in the Bible. In the supernatual realm anything is possible. You(not staing any one particualr person) science freaks have something similar called Theoretical Physics which can prove an elephant can hang from its tail tied to a flower, over a cliff.
Balone wrote:You don't have physical evidence (What other kind of evidence do you suppose there would be, or were you being redundant for fun?) that there is a god -presumably you mean the Christian god- because such a god is a logical impossibility as it is defined by contradictory terms and broken concepts. You are, of course, correct that I have no evidence of the absence of your god's existence, you'll appreciate, due to the very reasons that you do not have physical evidence of its existence. But, then, in this case the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence by necessity.
By the way, is there a reason you segue from the truth of the bible to the evidence for the existence or nonexistence of an ambiguous god? You might begin next time by presenting a coherent argument. -You were trying to make an argument, right?
When I look out the window at the sky and the trees and the flowers and a child's smile and etc. I see God, that is all the proof I need. Once again here you are being antagonistic which is immoral.
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
I went to Catholic grammer school 2nd through 8th grades and was forced to read the Bible and had no interest. I was an altar boy and then a lectern. at 14 I stopped everthing and became I would say agnostic, which by the way is when I left Catholic school and went to a puplic liberal brainwashing high school. Around the age of 25 I picked the Bible up for myself and read it and found God again and I am a better person for it. Just because you did not understand the concepts and ideas does not mean it is a one way ticket to atheism.
That'd be an excellent argument, if that were really the truth of dark matter.
Actually, dark matter has mass. That's the entire reason for the hypothesis that dark matter exists. And, as it happens, there is direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.
What if my dog Elvis is God? What if the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy had a love child, and it was God?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Balone wrote:
Perhaps, but there are still others of us awaiting responses. You claim a Christian state could never be guilty of heinous, "unchristian" acts. So you then assert that Spain, from the Reconquista until the middle of the 19th century, was not a Christian state?
Where did i say a christian state could never be guilty of heinous acts?
I do not know enough about spain and the time period to make any comments.
That the papal agents who conducted and oversaw torture sessions intended to elicit confessions from 'heretics', and forced conversion of jews, were not acting under a Christian authority granted them by the Pope?
they were and king charlamain(sic) never said that wasn't wrong. The pope at that time is known in the christian faith as the worst pope in history.
Look if you want to talk about history than what about attila the hun, Gengis Kahn, Napolean. you want to talk the past or present? None of those things has any relevence to today. We are a more educated and civil people today than we were 100s of years ago. And I know that is an atheist argument for why there is no god, but once agian it can be flipped and work to my advantage as well.
That'd be hard to defend. In what way is it logical or rational to allow marriage between different-sexed couples, but not between same-sexed couples? That is, assuming the rationality of marriage to begin with, why is it rational to bar one group from getting married?
And, "It makes me feel oogy inside," isn't rational.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
We got another one who knows nothing about science bringing it up. The 8 glasses of water a day thing was an urban legend. Flouride is a poison but in the levels put in drinking water you could not possibly drink enough to be poisoned. This is another woo-woo conspiracy theory.
What possible logical reason could you give to let men and women marry but not same sex couples?
Ability to have children doesn't count. Same-sex couples can do the artificial insemination/adoption thing and men and women who have no intention or even ability to have children (elderly, vasectomy/tubal ligation, physical disorder preventing children, etc.)
The Buybull doesn't count either.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
That'd be an excellent argument, if that were really the truth of dark matter.
Actually, dark matter has mass. That's the entire reason for the hypothesis that dark matter exists. And, as it happens, there is direct evidence for the existence of dark matter
I should never have said it lacked mass.
dark matter, material that is BELIEVED to make up (along with dark energy) more than 90% of the mass of the universe but is not READILY VISIBLE because it neither emits nor reflects electromagnetic radiation, such as light or radio signals. Its existence would explain gravitational anomalies seen in the motion and distribution of galaxies. Dark matter can be detected only indirectly, e.g., through the bending of light rays from distant stars by its gravity. (back in the day this would be called an illusion)
Dark matter MAY consist of dust, planets, intergalactic gas formed of ordinary matter, or of MACHOs [Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects], nonluminous bodies such as burned-out stars, black holes, and brown dwarfs; these are the so-called hot dark matter and would be dispersed uniformly throughout the universe. The discovery in 2001 of a large concentration of white dwarf stars in the halo surrounding the Milky Way indicates that these burned-out stars could represent as much as a third of the dark matter in the universe.
Christianity is not moral and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with abortion under any circumstances.
Let me approach this from your perspective. Science states that 2 piles of goo combined to form the first DNA strands which eventually became life on this planet. If someone came by our planet and said look at these two goos combining there is no life there so lets stop them from combining. the outcome would be no life on this planet. Just like an egg and a sperm cell might not be considered life thier combination starts life.
Who cares if it is/starts life. Bacteria is life. So is a worm. By your logic not having sex is immoral. Maybe even resisting rape would be (that would after all prevent the combination of sperm and egg that could start life.)
Actually it wouldn't have been immoral for someone (who???) to have stopped it as they would have no idea that billions of years later it would evolve into intelligent life. And of course preventing one life can't be compared to preventing all life on a planet. THere are way more than enough people on the planet now.
Epic Fail.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Not ALL laws in the US are Christian based, many are common sense. Killing, theft, and dishonesty date to ancient times far before Israel and Judah. Laws can be moral as in the interest of society and citizens of that society's survival. Not all Christian beliefs are Moral either.
Why leave Israel off your list, it has religious laws as well though it was established as a secular democracy.
For Example: Only marriage between two Jewish believers are allowed by the State of Israel. If one party is Christian and the other is Jewish they cannot be married in Israel. They can be married in another country and by treaty their marriage is recognized. These laws only affect Jews not Christian or Muslims. Israeli and Palestinians cannot marry as well.
There is no such law, that's the point, why should the 10 Commandments be displayed on public property at all as is being done today. The 1st commandment alone disqualifies such displays as it mentions God. Since Hindus believe in many gods and many believe in no god it's just plain discrimination.
I fail to see the issue why 2 same sex people cannot be married and have the same rights as other married couples under secular laws. If we are secular why the problem? No one says you personally have to marry a guy. Please explain why this matters at all. I'm personally not gay and I really don't care what they do. It's up to them not me.
I mean victimless crimes. You described something else, such as public disturbance of an authorized march which likely had a permit. The person interrupting the march likely did not have a permit. That isn't a victimless crime.
A victimless crime is where the only person possibly harmed by your action is yourself. Gambling is such a crime. If you bet money or play cards for cash you are violating laws in some states. Prostitution is another victimless crime. The woman is renting out her body for sex. If she can give it away free, she should be able to charge as well.
All drug use harms only the victim. Drug laws we have encourage crime and a black market. Clearly the amount of illegal drugs coming into this country means there are many corrupt government officials. If you were free to do all the drugs you wanted and the cost was minimal as a result, crime and corruption would decease substantially. This view was passed on to me by my mother who was the head of a drug/alcohol rehab unit at a state hospital. Once upon a time about 100 years ago all drugs were legal. The unconstitutional laws regulating drugs were all passed for discriminatory racial reasons. Ask this, if it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol why not Pot.
I also don't do drugs but see it as your right and a civil liberty to do so if you wish.
These laws were all passed originally to give a day of rest for religious reasons, not to reduce the traffic through a city. In many cities they use them to prevent sales of alcohol or regulate where a business may be located. Many counties in the South still ban alcohol sales altogether or it is sold in state owned stores. This is also true in Utah.
It does not need to be that extreme. People in general discriminate against atheists in this country. Prayer at public events, graduations, God Bless America sung at baseball games, and the like. As I said, the money and the pledge also are Christian intimidation of non-believers.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Balone wrote:That'd be hard to defend. In what way is it logical or rational to allow marriage between different-sexed couples, but not between same-sexed couples? That is, assuming the rationality of marriage to begin with, why is it rational to bar one group from getting married?
And, "It makes me feel oogy inside," isn't rational.
it is logical to say that a man and a woman are needed to consumate to sustain life on this planet. Same sex marriages do not. Lets go to the extreme and say one does not have to be homosexual to marry a person of the same sex which is what the marriage laws will be. the laws will not say you have to be homosexual to marry the same sex. If you listen to a judge marry a couple it is still forever and fidelity is still part of the deal. If everyone decided to marry the same sex then eventually human existence would end. It will probably never happen, but the door is open for it.
By the way i like that "assuming the rationality of marriage to begin with" i am not married and do not plan to be.
George Washington's farewell address: Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—
It's not just Southern states - other than beer alcohol is only sold in state owned stores in Pennsylvania - other than drinking in bars/restaurants on premises and wineries can sell the wine they make.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
If everyone was celibate life would end. Guess celibacy should be illegal. By the way of course the law wouldn't say you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex - why the fuck would you want to if you weren't though. You aren't making very much sense.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Here is an excellent example of the difference between the rational empirical worldview, and the purely-theistic worldview. Note the words "believed" and "may" (which are capitalized in the quoted text -- were they all-caps in the original, or are you making an editorial comment?). Note that the scientific ontology is contingent. Should evidence change, should new facts come to light, should a better explanation come along, the ontology shifts to make room for these new facts or interpretations. Sometimes old interpretations fall out while making room for the new. That's called "scientific progress."
Purely-theistic worldviews rest either on assertions made by authority (such as the Bible or Qur'an or various writings of L. Ron Hubbard, for instance), or on subjective interpretation of subjective experience (the so-called neognostics, as an example). The resulting ontology is rigid, subject only to re-interpretation of existing assertions (often completely unsupported by objective data). New data is forced into the mould of presupposition, rather than the ontology shifting to account for new data.
That is why the scientific method is a superior epistemological tool. Its goal is to rationally analyse the substance of reality. We have barely begun on this journey; there is a whole lot of which we are ignorant.
This ignorance is not an indication of God, though. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean God lives there.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The way I see it, that's half the battle right there. The next step would be to ban heterosexual marriages.
Who cares if it is/starts life. Bacteria is life. So is a worm. By your logic not having sex is immoral. Maybe even resisting rape would be (that would after all prevent the combination of sperm and egg that could start life.)
Have no clue here what you are trying to say. Sorry.
Actually it wouldn't have been immoral for someone (who???) to have stopped it as they would have no idea that billions of years later it would evolve into intelligent life.
So we know that the combination of the egg and sperm cells do start life. You just proved my point.
And of course preventing one life can't be compared to preventing all life on a planet.
yes it can. life is life. if you do not value yours why dont you kill yourself. Not being nasty, making a point.
THere are way more than enough people on the planet now
That is extremely selfish and self centered. The problem lies in corrupt governments who use the money they get for weapons and self indulgences instead of feeding and clothing their people.
gambling is not a victimless crime. If affects the entire community. It takes money away from other businesses. gambling is a sickness...I should know.
This is irrational.
First, marriage is not about propagation of the species. If it were, both marriage and reproduction would be tied together legally. Marriage vows would concern the having of children, not the fidelity and love of the couple involved.
My wife and I have no children. We will not have children at all. (I have a child from a previous marriage, but that is of no concern to my current marriage.) We are in a currently-legal marriage, with no possibility of reproduction. (I've had a vasectomy.)
How is this any different from a same-sex marriage, with respect to your rebuttal?
I believe the institute of marriage makes sense, though perhaps it should be moved more into the realm of contract law. I was referring more to the religous overtones of marriage in our modern culture.
My wife and I had a completely secular wedding. We hung out on the beach, drank around the fire, and publically declared ourselves bound to each other in front of family and friends. It was pretty cool, really.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
How the hell anyone cant understand, "No Religious test" is beyond me. If anyone holding public office thinks swearing on a copy of Harry Potter will make them make better decisions, the only thing I will consider is the output of their term. It won't be based on worship of Thor or Ellen Johnson. When I go into the voting booth, I am concerned about food on my table. The whims of those I vote for have nothing to do with the results they produce. The actions they leave me with, have everything to do with how I will vote.
When Jesus and Allah are left to the same catigory of sports bar trash talk where nobody dies, then we can focus on more imporant issues. But as long as we focus on the Cowboys vs Redskins, Muslims vs Christians, this species deserves what it is headed for.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Gambling to excess may be a sickness, but that's not the point. Alcoholism is a sickness too but it only affects some people not all. Misuse of anything can be attributed to an individual's weakness or mental stability. If the majority of the people don't have a problem than it's you that need to learn control or just not do an activity.
*edit* added "to excess"
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Regarding dark matter...
You are wrong. We can infer the existence of dark matter because the stuff around dark matter moves like something is pulling on it. Therefore, whatever is affecting the non-dark matter gravitationally has mass. We know it's there the same way we know that ripples in a pond are caused by something breaking the surface.
I stopped talking when I did because I don't know enough about the area to answer questions. I don't know if you're mangling my position or if someone else made the no evidence -> no god argument, but what I said was "if a god doesn't exist, we cannot find evidence that it does not exist since it would not exist to leave evidence".
I also happen to believe that a lack of evidence of something existing counts as evidence against it existing, but that's a different argument.
Dark matter's existence can be inferred through observation of its effects on the natural world, like magnetism or gravity. No such luck for any god.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
We also see the irrational idea that life in and of itself has value. Comparing a person capable of thought to a blob of cells is extremely irrational.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Well, let's see... Matt wrote:
To which you responded:
Which, while it does not explicitly use the exact same wording, pretty strong conveys the 'if it was a Christian state, they couldn't get away with the things they do'.
So, you tell me? Or are you now saying heinous acts are not, in fact, unchristian? But let's continue!
Then, like dark matter, maybe you should learn something about it before you start spouting off, eh?
Oh reaaaaally? Which pope was that? We'll just stick w/the time period of the Spanish Inquisition... by the way, Charlemagne? Charlemagne? Born 747 AD, and King of the Franks from 768 AD until his death in 814 AD? Way to be off by a thousand years. Anyway, back to 'the worst pope in history'. Like I said: Which pope was that?
Here, let's take a quick look at who the Pope was while the Inquisition raged: (We'll even number 'em!)
1)Sixtus IV: 1478 AD (beginning of the Spanish Inquisition) until his death in 1484 AD; 2)Innocent VIII: 1484 AD - 1492 AD; 3)Alexander VI: 1492 AD - 1503 AD; 4)Pius III: 1503 AD - 1503 AD (poor bastard); 5)Julius II: 1503 AD - 1513 AD; 6)Leo X: 1513 AD - 1521 AD; 7)Adrian VI: 1522 AD - 1523 AD; 8)Clement VII: 1523 AD - 1534 AD; 9)Paul III: 1534 AD - 1549 AD; 10)Julius III: 1550 AD - 1555 AD; 11)Marcellus II: 1555 AD - 1555 AD (Not even a full month, 9 Apr to 1 May. Ow.); 12)Paul IV: 1555 AD - 1559 AD; 13)Pius IV: 1559 AD - 1565 AD; 14)Pius V: 1566 AD - 1572 AD; 15)Gregory XIII: 1572 AD - 1585 AD; 16)Sixtus V: 1585 AD - 1590 AD; 17)Urban VII: 1590 AD - 1590 AD (Really ow. This guy lasted 12 days.); 18)Gregory XIV: 1590 AD - 1591 AD; 19)Innocent IX: 1591 AD - 1591 AD; 20)Clement VIII: 1592 AD - 1605 AD; 21)Leo XI: 1605 AD - 1605 AD; 22)Paul V: 1605 AD - 1621 AD; 23)Gregory XV: 1621 AD - 1623 AD; 24)Urban VIII: 1623 AD - 1644 AD; 25)Innocent X: 1644 AD - 1655; 26)Alexander VII: 1655 AD - 1667 AD; 27)Clement IX: 1667 AD - 1669 AD; 28)Clement X: 1670 AD - 1676 AD; 29)Inncoent XI: 1676 AD - 1689 AD; 30)Alexander VIII: 1689 AD - 1691 AD; 31)Innocent XII: 1691 AD - 1700 AD; 32)Clement XI: 1700 AD - 1721 AD; 33)Innocent XIII: 1721 AD - 1724 AD; 34)Benedict XIII: 1724 AD - 1730 AD; 35)Clement XII: 1730 AD - 1740 AD; 36)Benedict XIV: 1740 AD - 1758 AD; 37)Clement XIII: 1758 AD - 1769 AD; 38)Clement XIV: 1769 AD - 1774 AD; 39)Pius VI: 1775 AD - 1799 AD; 40)Pius VII: 1800 AD - 1823 AD; 41)Leo XII: 1823 AD - 1829 AD; 42)Pius VIII: 1829 AD - 1830 AD; 43)Gregory XVI: 1831 AD - 1846 AD; 44)Pius IX: 1846 AD - 1878 AD. (1865 AD, end of Inquisition activities in the Iberian Penninsula, despite Royal Decree ordering them ended 3 decades earlier.)
So. Which one of those 44 popes is this 'worst pope in history' you're referring to?
None of them have any relevance to today? Really?
Let's see.
Atilla is one of the leaders of a wave of horse-nomads coming west off of the steppes. Ironically, without the Huns, the Roman Empire probably doesn't have the manpower to deal with encroaching turks on the eastern border as long as they manage to, while western culture slowly gels in France.
Genghis, by comparison, is responsible for the existence of Russia, as the Golden Horde's westward progress, and forcing the Rus city-states (Kiev, for example) to pay tribute and acknowledge their overlordship is part of what gets the Rus from southern Ukraine to western Siberia to begin working together, instead of simply being a scattered bunch of horse-nomads, themselves.
And Napoleon? Check the news much? Napoleon's the creator of modern Europe. He's actually the one who first (temporarily) puts a stop to the Spanish Inquisition, and creates institutions of Republican government in Spain, instead of Autocracy. His eastern campaigns unify Prussia for the first time, as well as sparking the first wave of modernization and begin the solidification of the central authority in Russia. As a result of the Napoleonic Wars, Prussia develops into a continental power (Germany) with ambitions of colonial empire, as do the Russians. That leads to the Crimean War, and the huge array of alliances and treaties that turns an internal Austrian issue (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian separatists) into World War I. WWI's aftermath includes not only the unfairly punitive measures against Germany that laid the groundwork for the Nazi takeover and WWII, but also the partitioning of the Middle East along completely arbitrary political lines that creates Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, instead of a unified Persia, combining the western Sunni territories into the Kingdoms of Arabia and Jordan, and a single unified Kurdistan (and the resultingly less contentious Turkish situation).
Congratulations on utterly failing to understand how yes, the actions of leaders hundreds of years ago really are relevant to the situation today. We may be a more civil people than we were (though that, too, is debatable), but you're definitely not showing yourself to be more educated... and your attempt to turn it around has, to the surprise of no-one, failed.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
And your point is? That's no more immoral than a pride of lions killing a wildebeest is. (And for the record, your grasp of the theories on the earliest origins of life is even worse than your grasp of history or physics.)
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
He never said he doesn't value his life.
I value my life. I value your life. I don't value potential life stored up in my testes. If you value potential life as much as you value actual life, then shouldn't you be out there trying to make it illegal for women to menstruate?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
How does gambling take money away from other businesses? Do you think the money lost in casinos isn't reinvested? By that logic, isn't banking as much of a crime? After all, saving money 'takes money away from other businesses'.
Addictive behavior is a disorder that needs treatment, regardless of the form it takes.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
None of this, however, has any bearing on the fact that the bible contains irresolvable contradictions both internally and with reality at large. Would you like to address the point that was made or will you continue to employ obvious fallacies?
I have the authority of being a critical person who is educated enough to put together coherent sentences. That, apparently, is all the authority required. Best not to debate the required authority, however, as I foresee it resulting in you committing another fallacy.
Theoretical physics is nothing at all similar to the supernatural. For starters, and this is really the only thing we need to be concerned about, theoretical physics is the application of mathematics and physics abstractions in an attempt to explain experimental data from the natural world and the supernatural doesn't exist. What you've written above is so absurd I'm not sure I should even have responded.
I am not surprised that you had no interest in the bible, it's a very boring and poorly written story.
Don't bother responding to me if you're not going to attempt addressing my points in counterargument. Also, please, learn to use the quote function.
*Penn Jillette was quoting hypothetical Elvis fans who parallelled belief in the inerrancy of the bible when he made the statement, 'Elvis never did no drugs.' The statement was meant to be humorous.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I really enjoy reading Science Fiction books and have for years. Sci-Fi allows one to escape from reality to a place that does not really exist. As with all humans I have the ability to think in the abstract and to put myself in a fantasy world (at least while I read). The Bible has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by so many for so long that fantasy and reality have merged for many that study it. Many believers require that there be "something more" than this life or they just don't see the point at all. When you read the Bible you utilize it to justify your hope and belief while I for one consider it in objective light of reality. These different paths begin in Genesis 1 and continue to separate as the story is presented. Believers are unable to see that they have accepted a false premise early in this presentation. Sci-Fi attempts the same thing by using accepted reality and adding pieces that are either beyond our current technology or assume premises that can't be shown to be real. The Bible however begins with the assumption that God was and then he made all. There is no explanation from where God originated.
Since God has not been seen recently except in several Hollywood movies, immediately there is a challenge to you to accept this assertion or not. If you accept it as real then you have taken a path that is not based on reality but on the statement of a long ago forgotten writer. If you don't accept the statement you continue to look for additional proof as you go forward in the story. As one goes through Genesis into Exodus those that have accepted God as real in Genesis 1:1 continue to accept more assertions by the unknown writer(s) of the past. Those who did not accept that God did it in Genesis 1 are still looking for anything to substantiate the claim. The problem becomes more assertions are made that contradict reality to the non-believer while the believer only sees more proof of his wonder.
Non-believers will put evidence forward to show that this God idea simply can't be true based on science, history, and archeology. Believers continue to cling to their unwarranted original acceptance continuing to build more on a foundation set on nothing.
What you see out your window only proves you probably exist, no more.
I don't understand how every time someone challenges your statements they are antagonistic and immoral.
1-God is. Why? Who? Prove this please,
2-God made all. Why? How? Prove this please.
3-God made man. Why? Prove this please.
4-Man broke the rules. What rules. How? Why? Prove this please.
5-Satan (disguised as a snake or not) tempted man to break the rules. Why? Who? Prove this please.
6-Satan & his angels fell from God and wanted to bring God's creation down too, which is why he (it) tempted man. Why? Where is this stated again? Prove this please.
7-God evicts man from Paradise. Where? Prove this please.
8-Man was turned into a mortal being (or not given eternal life). Why? What? Prove this please.
9-Man is now born with Adam's original sin (predisposition to do wrong). Why? What? Prove this please.
10-God provided a future way to be saved. Where? How? What? Where in Genesis is this, I don't see it? Prove this please.
In 3 chapters of Genesis I already have 10 major issues and dozens of minor issues that remain unsucessfully addressed. I need the first issue answered in a satisfactory rational way to progress. I have no reason to accept an unknown writer(s) word God is, so I'm stuck at the beginning or foundation. It looks like Ug and Og made a claim here that God did it. Why should Ug and Og know who this God was and write about it. Or is it gods, can't tell for sure.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
double clicked
MattShizzle said
If everyone was celibate life would end. Guess celibacy should be illegal. By the way of course the law wouldn't say you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex - why the fuck would you want to if you weren't though. You aren't making very much sense.
Maybe to get by tax laws. Maybe for the hell of it. You believe yourself to be rational...is everybody else?
nigelTheBold saidThat is why the scientific method is a superior epistemological tool. Its goal is to rationally analyse the substance of reality. We have barely begun on this journey; there is a whole lot of which we are ignorant. Superior?!?!? coffee is no good for you...coffee is good for you..eggs are good for you..eggs are bad for you....eggs are good for you...alcohol is bad for you...alcohol is good for you..ON and ON and On.. i will agree science is best GUESS that is it....science holds as much weight to me as the Bible does for you. pauljohntheskeptic saidBalone wrote: Not a good argument. It affected you, you were the only real victim. If you were married it may affect your family, again it's "your family". As to taking money away from your community, it's no different than other financial choices made such as buying a Toyota not a Chevy. You could live in NJ and buy your car in Georgia and take money away from your community but spend it in another. Money you lose to someone else is spent in the economy somewhere it doesn't vanish.Gambling to excess may be a sickness, but that's not the point. Alcoholism is a sickness too but it only affects some people not all. Misuse of anything can be attributed to an individual's weakness or mental stability. If the majority of the people don't have a problem than it's you that need to learn control or just not do an activity.
*edit* added "to excess"
Have you ever been to Atlantic City or Las Vegas? The money coming in from the casinos is not helping the community, it helps the casinos and the surronding businesses that is it. Go a few blocks away fron the casinos in any direction and it turns into a third world country. Also people are willing to spend their food, clothing and childrens education money on a chance for big bucks. It takes away from the other stores and businesses in the area...FACT.
shikko saidDark matter's existence can be inferred through observation of its effects on the natural world, like magnetism or gravity. No such luck for any god.
God's effect can be inferred through observation of its effects on the natural world. Just have to open your eyes and look. But maybe that is just a grace I have obtained through FAITH.BMcD said a lot of crap
The Haidmaiden's tale is a fiction book is it not?
The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions in the name of the pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition. It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of -->canonical--> procedure and pronounce the customary -->penalties-->.
Many regarded it, as providential that just at this time sprang up two new orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans, whose members, by their superior theological training and other characteristics, seemed eminently fitted to perform the inquisitorial task with entire success. It was safe to assume that they were not merely endowed with the requisite knowledge, but that they would also, quite unselfishly and uninfluenced by worldly motives, do solely what seemed their duty for the Good of the Church. In addition, there was reason to hope that, because of their great popularity, they would not encounter too much opposition. It seems, therefore, not unnatural that the -->inquisitors--> should have been chosen by the popes prevailingly from these orders, especially from that of the Dominicans. It is to he noted, however, that the -->inquisitors--> were not chosen exclusively from the mendicant orders, though the Senator of Rome no doubt meant such when in his oath of office (1231) he spoke of inquisitores datos ab ecclesia. In his decree of 1232 Frederick II calls them inquisitores ab apostolica sede datos. The Dominican Alberic, in November of 1232, went through Lombardy as inquisitor haereticae pravitatis. The prior and sub-prior of the Dominicans at Friesbach were given a similar commission as early as 27 November, 1231; on 2 December, 1232, the convent of Strasburg, and a little later the convents of Würzburg, Ratisbon, and Bremen, also received the commission. In 1233 a rescript of Gregory IX, touching these matters, was sent simultaneously to the bishops of Southern France and to the priors of the Dominican Order. We know that Dominicans were sent as -->inquisitors--> in 1232 to Germany along the Rhine, to the Diocese of Tarragona in Spain and to Lombardy; in 1233 to France, to the territory of Auxerre, the ecclesiastical provinces of Bourges, Bordeaux, -->Narbonne-->, and Auch, and to Burgundy; in 1235 to the ecclesiastical province of Sens. In fine, about 1255 we find the Inquisition in full activity in all the countries of Central and Western Europe — in the county of Toulouse, in Sicily, Aragon, Lombardy, France, Burgundy, -->Brabant-->, and Germany (cf. Douais, op. cit., p. 36, and Fredericq, "Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae, 1025-1520", 2 vols., Ghent, 1884-96).
That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as -->inquisitors-->, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing -->episcopal--> authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional -->tribunal--> was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishop's co-operation. And if, on the strength of their papal jurisdiction, -->inquisitors--> occasionally manifested too great an inclination to act independently of -->episcopal--> authority, it was precisely the popes who kept them within right bounds. As early as 1254 Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the -->episcopal--> consent. Similar orders were issued by Urban IV in 1262, Clement IV in 1265, and Gregory X in 1273, until at last Boniface VIII and Clement V solemnly declared null and void all judgments issued in trials concerning faith, unless delivered with the approval and co-operation of the bishops. The popes always upheld with earnestness the -->episcopal--> authority, and sought to free the inquisitional -->tribunals--> from every kind of arbitrariness and caprice.
It was a heavy burden of responsibility -- almost too heavy for a common mortal -- which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life and -->death-->. The Church was bound to insist that he should possess, in a pre-eminant degree, the qualities of a good judge; that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith, the salvation of souls, and the extirpation of heresy; that amid all difficulties and dangers he should never yield to anger or -->passion-->; that he should meet hostility fearlessly, but should not court it; that he should yield to no inducement or threat, and yet not be heartless; that, when circumstances permitted, he should observe mercy in allotting penalties; that he should listen to the counsel of others, and not trust too much to his own opinion or to appearances, since often the probable is untrue, and the truth improbable. Somewhat thus did Bernard Gui (or Guldonis) and Eymeric, both of them -->inquisitors--> for years, describe the ideal inquisitor. Of such an inquisitor also was Gregory IX doubtlessly thinking when he urged Conrad of Marburg: "ut puniatur sic temeritas perversorum quod innocentiae puritas non laedatur" -- i.e., "not to punish the wicked so as to hurt the innocent". History shows us how far the -->inquisitors--> answered to this ideal. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. No one would deny that the judges of today, despite occasional harsh decisions and the errors of a few, pursue a highly honourable profession. Similarly, the medieval -->inquisitors--> should be judged as a whole. Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance.
Balone wrote:He never said he doesn't value his life.
I value my life. I value your life. I don't value potential life stored up in my testes. If you value potential life as much as you value actual life, then shouldn't you be out there trying to make it illegal for women to menstruate?
Do you actually read the whole post or just stop because if you continue reading you will lose the thought in your mind. Will not post a rebuttle read the post again.
Yes if you don't think banking is a crime good luck getting your money when the economy collapses
As far as water flouridation it may not have a great effect on people who are not sick. If you have kidney dialysis you cannot drink the water or you will die. I am beginning to see the pattern here. If it does not affect you or yours you really do not care about anybody else. is that a lack of morals I hear again.
Thomathy saidYou copied this into your postPenn Jillette wrote:and then in the same post you did this
Balone wrote:I don't know what to say to this. I have the feeling that you are trying to make a point. I just don't know what it is
and then you did this
Balone wrote:Ah, this is the point you were getting at! So, here's that no true Scotsman fallacy, or at least I see it lurking there. Actually, I'm perfectly capable of understanding the concepts and ideas (Aren't these the same things?) contained within the bible which is exactly why I don't believe it to be a divine book or even a very good one. What Mr. Jillette (I bet he likes being called mister) is getting at is that the bible, being about the actions of one heinous being and otherwise containing much violence and suffering and too many altogether horrible commandments on how to live, should accelerate a person away from Christianity and toward Atheism if they were questioning at all.
Then you have no reading comprehension skills, i have made the point you did read it and then you copied it and posted it. What exactly is wrong with you.
1-God is. Why? Who? Prove this please, do not have to that is what faith is all about. sorry you dont have any
2-God made all. Why? How? Prove this please., same as above, once agian I am sorry
3-God made man. Why? Prove this please. HHHMMM same as above
4-Man broke the rules. What rules. How? Why? Prove this please. FAITH
5-Satan (disguised as a snake or not) tempted man to break the rules. Why? Who? Prove this please. FAITH
6-Satan & his angels fell from God and wanted to bring God's creation down too, which is why he (it) tempted man. Why? Where is this stated again? Prove this please. FAITH
7-God evicts man from Paradise. Where? Prove this please. FAITH
8-Man was turned into a mortal being (or not given eternal life). Why? What? Prove this please. FAITH
9-Man is now born with Adam's original sin (predisposition to do wrong). Why? What? Prove this please. FAITh
10-God provided a future way to be saved. Where? How? What? Where in Genesis is this, I don't see it? Prove this please. FAITH
I do not have to prove nothing. this shows that you all really do not know what believing in God is about. If you like the materialistic, capitalistic, uncaring, inconsiderate, misinformed, delusional society just keep going the way you are and you will find the sum of all you deserve.
i was going to wait a little longer and debate further but what the hell
First I am Gay. And yes I do believe it is an abomination to God. So I am not practicing.
Second I am a registered Democrat. i voted for Clinton and Gore and Kerry.
I Will not vote for Obamassiah or McCain. i would not have voted for Billary either. i am voting for Ron Paul.
I have the ability to see both sides of the coin. I am not self centered or am always thinking "What is in it for me?"
I guess that is just another Grace I received from God.
My belief system revolves around the axiom "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one"
80% of the US is Christian. The founding fathers founded this country on Christian beliefs. Who am I to argue that?
If 80% of the population wants or doesn't want something I am happy to oblige.
It is all about what will make this society better or at least stable.
If the country wants abortion OK. I do not condone or sanction it but that is what the country wants. Those people will have to answer to God.
If gay men and women want to get marry, I see no problem with it. If the majority of the country says no, then once agian I will go along with that.
Try to look at other point of views other than your own, you will find yourself a better person for it.
I spent much time here fighting for some views I do not have but can see the reasoning behind.
My best friend of 22 years is an atheist and we have great debates. I told him and showed him these posting and here is what he said. "Just like religious fanatics you have atheist fanatics. In every group there are fanatics and assholes"
Balone, if you want people to respond to you, start using the quote function properly and start using a regular font size and start being coherent in your responses. The above post of yours is virtually incomprehensible.
edit, this was typed before the third post in a row was made by you, I refer now to the post above the post above this post.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Yay!
So you're done practicing, and now perform it professionally? Just kidding. Actually, what I'm curious about is:
a)If homosexuality is an abomination before God, why do so many animals exhibit homosexual behavior, even to the point of it being the behavioral norm for the species?
b)If homosexuality is an abomination before God, why does God, all-powerful as He is, cause some people to be born that way?
c)do you 'practice' heterosexuality?
Ok, so? I fail to see how one's choice of pandering politician affects this issue.
a)Almost everyone has that ability. It's called empathy, and it's present in most mammals to one degree or another.
b)Sure you are. You've just built up a complex schema of justifications and rationalizations. Remember, being a productive, reliable member of society that doesn't cause trouble is, at its core, an act of self-interest. Morality itself is self-interest. The trick is to get past the urge for quick gratification, which, really, is pretty easy.
And that's a defense mechanism to bolster self-esteem.
Actually, that's the cornerstone of all of society. However, the trick is to determine the needs, rather than the wants. For example: If 51% of the population was male, would that make it right if they all decided to deny women the right to vote? There is a term you should learn, 'The Tyranny of the Majority'. The premise is simple: the majority can be wrong. They often are. If the collective will (a function of wants, not needs) were always right, we wouldn't need government. The world itself could sink gracefully into a benevolent anarchy, because in any situation, the majority of the people would do the right thing. But the collective will isn't always right, and it usually takes a vocal minority to stand up to them in order to achieve what is right.
And I put it to you, sir, that the continuing struggle to improve ourselves, improve our society, and strive toward a more just and equitable existence is, in fact, what "the many" need, even if they themselves don't think of it that way. And just to be completely clear here: the needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the wants of the many. It may be inconvenient to stop a train to avoid hitting some poor bastard collapsed on the tracks, but are you going to tell me it's not the right thing to do?
78.2% of the respondents to the Pew Center's polling responded as some form of Christian. Many of those would argue the 3% Mormon, Orthodox, and Jehovah's Witnesses don't actually count as Christian. The margin of error on the poll is +/- 0.6%, so the final total could be as low as 74.6%. However, I'm merely pointing this out for the sake of accuracy, I think we can go ahead and accept the 80% number as a rough ballpark.
The Founding Fathers, however, founded (Founding Fathers... and they founded. What're the odds!) the country on Deist principles, as many of them did not espouse the beliefs of any denomination. By the same token, the Christian Faith was founded on Jewish beliefs. Eat any good shellfish lately? Either you can move past the specific beliefs present at the establishment of a social construct, or you damned well better adhere to all of the beliefs present at the establishment of all of your social constructs, and Christ said pretty clearly that not one iota of the Law would be changed until the Judgement. The Law says, among other things, no shellfish.
If 80% of the population jumped off a bridge, would you? Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right. That, in fact, is built into our government at every turn. The majority wants X? Well, their congresscritters don't have to do it. They manage to get their congresscritters to do it? The President can veto. The majority wants Bob for President? The Electoral College is under no obligation to agree, and is in fact obligated to oppose the will of the majority if the Electors feel the public has made a truly horrendous mistake. There are states which have laws allowing them to punish these 'faithless electors', but that obligation remains.
Stable != Good. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s did not stabilize society. The Women's Suffrage movement of the 1920s and before did not stabilize society. Society can be 'stable' when we get it right. Until then, we need to focus on 'better'. And the wants of the many almost never achieve that.
Then you are abdicating your responsibilities as a member of society. Personally, I'm in favor of abortion. But I'm far more in favor of every person in this country doing their best to try to stand up for what they feel is right, not just popular. Do your duty as a citizen.
See Above.
We often do. That doesn't mean we accept those points of view.
Then you do yourself, and those views, no favors. Sincerity, sir, and integrity. I recommend them highly.
I humbly submit that I am no fanatic. Believe what you wish. I will, however, never deny being an asshole. And a dick. And two thumbs, two eyes, some toes, 31.5 teeth (ow)....
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid