Slashdot Mirror

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm Sometime in 2003, Pastor Åke Green delivered a sermon at his Pentecostal church in Borgholm, Sweden. It was titled: "Is Homosexuality Genetic or an Evil Force that Plays Mind Games with People?" He cited the main "clobber" passages in the Bible that have often been used to attack homosexual behavior. He said that: "The Bible clearly teaches about these abnormalities. Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. ....Because of these sins, the land will vomit out its inhabitants. The political response to this in our country is then what Paul talks about: 'We know God's righteous decree that those who live that way deserve death. Still it is in that very way they live, and worse yet, they think it is good when others do it.' [Paraphrase of Romans 1:32.] " ... "All homosexuals are not pedophiles or perverts. They nevertheless open the door to forbidden areas and allow sin to take hold of the life of the mind. And the one who is a pedophile today does not start out as such. They simply begin by changing their gender relationships. That is how it began. To be 'faithful' in a homosexual relationship is in no way a better relationship than where you frequently change partners. It is equally detestable in the eyes of God. From God's perspective it is to be rejected, and from God's perspective it is as much sin if you frequently change partners as it is to live in a [committed] homosexual relationship. It makes no difference before God's Word......" ... "Those who live that way are not a child of God and cannot be one. We must say it so people hear it. Do not fool yourselves, dear people. It is deceit of the highest level if you think you can fool yourselves. For the Devil says: 'You can be a Christian, and you can be good as a Christian, and you can live like this anyway.' 'You can be faithful in your partnership,' says the enemy of souls. However, the Word of God says something else. Delusions that lead to punishment..." After trial, Green was found guilty and sentenced to one month in prison. Public prosecutor Kjell Yngvesson is reported as saying: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." Thankfully, and eventually this conviction was overturned but it does show the way Europe and Canada are drifting when it comes to tolerance of anything outside the 'desired' standards for religious discourse..

One or Two???

Who cares about equivalency? Religious fanatics are religious fanatics. My point is that they are not limited to one religion or another.

since there were a couple of people who wanted to know the last time some loon tried to bomb/burn down an abortion clinic:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

that site gives a pretty good rundown on the violent history toward abortion clinics and the people who work there.

Okay, let's prefix this with the crucial information. If it's not obvious from my username (I registered just to reply to some comments in this discussion), I am a Muslim. I was born into a Muslim family and I've lived in the US (same house, actually), all my life. The issues you are discussing - the "revenge rape", poor administration, lack of understanding of the religion - and I can add a thousand other things - are issues that disgust Muslims as well as non-Muslims. These are societal as well as cultural issues. But they do not come from the religion itself, despite what people may claim. Every country that has a significant Muslim population has a plethora of problems such as you have described, unique to their areas. And this is no different from countries where problems such as drug abuse, rape, crime, ignorance, and other social ills exist, Muslim or not, in the West, East, or anywhere else. Moreover, these are not issues that are unique to Muslim countries. We just love to eat it up here, that's all. Keep in mind, as well, that the set of people we're talking about is over 1 billion . I am not defending these actions, but I do wish to put them in perspective when my population is marginalized and unjustly stereotyped. I doubt I fit in with the "modern" or "moderate" Muslim genre - I despise that term because of the implication - but I am an American and I have the unique opportunity to see these kinds of issues from both sides. Flame on if you will, but there's only so much one can see without commenting.

• the Spanish Inquisition
• the Crusades
  Wiki article
  But, it's alright, because those weren't "real" chrisitans. Ref
• the burning times - The extermination of Witches and other heretics
  50 - 100,000 burned to death or hung Ref

At least two persons have been arrested for allegedly assaulting a Hindu woman and setting her house on fire in Orissa after she refused to change her religion

International general secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad Pravin Togadia and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi received a combined death threat Tuesday ...
The death threat claiming to be from the "Christian community"

And if you doubt that the definition of extortion could stretch that far, just look at the cases where abortion clincs tried to sue pro-life groups under the RICO act. If you're a business threat and you display any sign of obstructing the other person's business, you'd best be wary of RICO.

No, I'm correcting an error you made. You said Jesus himself said he would kill everyone who didn't believe in him when he returns. That is simply wrong.

But the religious establishments themselves, including the Catholic Church, have officially recognized Revelation as divinely-inspired.

The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't, they don't include it in their Bible. Amillenialism is the official Catholic and mainline Protestant dogma, established by St. Augustine in the 4th century. It teaches that the Book of Revelation is allegorical or possibly refers to Roman Emperors, the Antichrist is a metaphor and not a real person. From religioustolerance.org: "Events described in The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and in most of the book of Revelation are seen as occurrences which have already happened, or which are symbolic in nature and not to be taken literally." What you mistakenly call the dogma of all of Christianity is one particular interpretation created in the 19th century by American fundamentalists. For someone so committed to the scientific method, you have a remarkable disdain for facts.

Morality is not an addition / subtraction kind of affair. One passage explicitly condoning racism is not "nullified" or canceled out by one that encourages tolerance. If you murder someone, you are and always will be a murderer; it doesn't matter how much charity you give.

The Bible is a book, not a person, it has no morality. What the Bible teaches is an addition/subtraction affair, because it has a mixed and ambiguous set of teachings that are open to interpretation. The question here is not whether we can pull out some verses of the Bible that can be interpreted to support immoral acts, but whether Christian churches make that interpretation, and whether it makes up a substantial part of their teachings. Additionally, Christian theology is heavily influenced by ancient Greek philosophy. The works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle make up what we might call the unofficial scriptures, and they too have been used to justify various acts we now consider to be immoral. For example, the Great Chain of Being. If you want to implicate our culture's ancient roots for perpetrating various evil things, why do you stop with the Bible? It is very clear the that Great Chain of Being justifies slavery, that it has been used that way and that is a Platonic idea. Do you denounce Plato?

The Bible is not "ambiguous" on racism... One passage explicitly condoning racism is not "nullified" or canceled out by one that encourages tolerance.

Oh, but one passage explicitly rejecting racism is nullified by one that encourages racism?

Exodus 19:5 explicitly states that God favors the Israelites over all other people.

You are claiming that this specific verse substantially influences Christian behavior and morality, but that contradicts historical Christian anti-semitism.

I'm sorry I don't see what is wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business. Would a European company be evil if it sold non-lead-free electronics in the US?

An analogy indicating that laws prohibiting lead in electronics and laws against seeking democratic political reform are equally valid and equally deserving of respect gets modded as insightful?

Here, I'll explain.

What is wrong with "obeying the laws of a country in which you do business" depends upon the nature of the laws and the nature of the country. A European company would not be evil if it sold non-lead-free electronics in the US, because the US is a democratic state containing at least some feedback between the populace affected by the laws and the process which creates and enforces those laws. If the citizens within the US wanted to change the laws to ban the sale of non-lead-free electronics, then they are capable of doing so, and therefore this hypothetical European country would not be capitalizing on an oppressed and captive citizenry.

Now consider a different European country. Instead of selling non-lead-free electronics in the United States, it sells slaves in Sudan. This company would be acting in accord with the law in Sudan.

There. That's a lot closer to the situation in China: a non-democratic nation whose citizens have no power to effect change in the laws of their country or the manner in which the laws are enforced, and who tend to get crushed under the treads of tanks or suffer sudden 7.62mm brain hemmorhages if they try to do so. Would you excuse that company's actions because you "don't see what's wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business," or would you suddenly acquire the capacity for moral judgement and just maybe perhaps suggest that the company shouldn't do business selling slaves in fucking Sudan?

No one has said that students can't pray to themselves, and it would be an obvious violation of the first ammendment if they couldn't. That's not to say that they can be disruptive of class and pray loudly, nor can they bully other kids into praying. However, a kid or a group of kids who feel like getting together on their own time can't be regulated to stop prayer. Beyond that, organized Bible study groups can't be denied a right to form unless the school bans all other clubs. Read about the Feberal Equal Access Act: http://www.religioustolerance.org/equ_acce.htm . Schools can't prevent kids from forming a Christian group, a Muslim group, a Hindu group, a Wicca group, or an Atheist group, all for the same reason they couldn't prevent kids from forming a stamp or a chess club.

Wow, have you even opened the damn book? I mean, without your bible study group to cherry pick the passages and explain away all the glaring inconsistencies? The bible is not consistent with history,

neither is history

archeology,

neither is archeology

anthropology,

neither is history or archeology. I don't think you are getting anywhere with such vague assertions. I wonder if you include "biblical" "history" "archeology" and "anthropology", as it clearly has real and historical authorship

physics,

I'd like to see what you have, here

any coherent system of ethics,

I think you shot yourself with "any", but I contest the point without that word

or even with itself! #lameness filter lint

It's about as self-consistent as most anthropoligical, archealogical or historical sources of similar size and date whichever way you slice it; which isn't bad considering it went through some editing work during its lifetime.

There are two completely different versions of the creation myth

The mormons have even more accounts, however...

and two versions of the ten commandments.

Or even three

The four gospels tell wildly

not wildly, about as much as many sources

different stories of Jesus' death and resurrection, while Paul never mentions the resurrection once--probably

this must be some special use of the world probably, I would say that "possibily" that in the writings we actually have of Paul (yes we know some are missing) he didn't attempt to give an account. It's not like he was there at the time, or like he was trying to do a historical report like Luke, is it?

because the myth of the resurrection was not widely adopted till after his death.

The "myth" was prophesied long before his birth.

In fact, the original sources

there are no "original sources" unless you found a stash recently

for the gospels consist of aphorisms, he-said they-said...without a word about what Jesus did or about what happened to him. Look up the Gospel of Thomas if you want to see the original format of the gospels.

I guess that be a copy of something claiming to be the Gospel of Thomas and not any other original copies of any other gospels at all? How is a not-really-original copy of Thomas gospel even nearly equivalent to "the original sources">

The story of his life was filled in later, #lameness filter lint

The gospels weren't written till decades after they occurred, yes.

and in the grand tradition of hellenistic heroes, he was made the son of a god.

Are you trying to make out that this wasn't one of the reasons he was crucified, for blasphemously claiming to be the Son of God?

Of the four gospels the sermon on the mount is the only part that everyone agrees is probably accurate.

I may have to call on you to exband on this word "everyone", and also "accurate". I suspect that for "accurate" you mean without dispute over the documented event, what is more interesting is what is disuputed; we expect disputes over historical records.

I'd like to see data that backs that claim up. If anything, there is some research that suggests that bisexuality, at least in men, is a misconception. The likelihood is that human sexuality is distributed in a pretty lumpy way, with the vast majority being heterosexual, a robust minority being homosexual, and, questionably, a very tiny segment possibly being "true" bisexuals. There is plenty of research demonstrating the likely genetic basis of homosexuality, but bisexuals have not been found to be "in between." Of course, none of this addresses the higher prevalence of bisexual behavior in women, which raises the issue if women can be "truly" bisexual whereas men cannot--or if culturally sanctioned displays of homoerotic and homosexual behavior in otherwise heterosexual women is actual bisexualiy, or just acting out. Sexuality works very differently in the minds of women than men, so this is quite an open question. Anyway, I think we are too "hard-wired" in this department to start suddenly engaging in rampant bisexuality even if the cultural accepts it in both genders. For men, at least, its just not in their genes.

Also--a heterosexual who is non-sexually attracted to, or objectively appreciatie the sexual attractiveness of someone of their own gender is not being bisexual. That requires genuine sexual desire for both genders. That's tough to confirm, but with modern neuroscience techniques (like fMRI) we may be able to tell the difference.

The first ten amendments to the constitution are considered the Bill or Rights. Amendments added to the constitution are added to the bill or rights. They are listed seperatly from the constitution and not reworked into them. This is why it is just as corect to say amendments to the constitution or call the entire colection of 27 amendments the bill of rights. Even though your spliting somethign here, It doesn't change the meaning of what was writen.

For jesus to have existed, This is something I am not going to set out and prove. This wasn't my intention at all. We do know jesus existed by the same ways we know george washington actualy existed. His importance in history has preserved this for us. For instance, we have government records showing he was actualy placed on a cross and punished.

The point is that when the Old testament was written there were no Romans yet and the idea as males as heads of the household and as priests was established then.

This statement almost caused me to decide not to read the rest of your comment, because it is utterly wrong. The Jews were under Roman rule when Jesus started his preachin' and Christianity began as a splinter cult of Judaism. It would likely not exist today if not for Roman oppression. See this document for more info on rome. Note that the dates fall between about 100 BCE, and 200 CE. Now, if you are paying attention, you know that the date of 1 CE corresponds roughly with the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth (although of course that date is widely disputed.)

Why is it that religious types often hide behind scripture, but don't know a damn thing about the history of their religion? It only serves to prove that they don't know shit about what they're talking about.

Try reading this. Maybe it will open your eyes just a tad? Jesus preached for a year or so. He got busted for bitch slapping the money changers (take a good look at the famous painting sometime) and hung up to drip dry. Some years later, some documents were written by the Essenes, arguably the most strict cult of Judaism. They became the basis of the bible and after much revision, expurgation, and translation, we ended up with the mismash garble that we call the Bible today. Well, actually, we have a whole bunch of different bibles, because Jehovah-worshippers can't agree on a damn thing.

Women are consistently declared to be better then men in almost every aspect in the Bible. They are revered for their characteristics. The idea of the greater individual being submitting themselves and serving a lesser being (for the right reasons mind you) is Biblical as well.

That, sir, is a pile of horseshit. Women are expected to honor and obey their husbands in all things, but it's a one way street. If women are so great, why do they have to be subject to the will of men? Also, let's not forget that Original Sin entered the human race through woman. Granted, from what I've heard, that particular part of the bible is Paul's doing...

The Bible discribes two types of degeneracy. There is immoral degeneracy, the one that everyone identifies easily. This is drug use,

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

sexual promiscuity, anti-establishment activity, etc.

Sexual promiscuity is banned because it is a tool of other religions which were stamped out around this time; several of them featured "temple prostitutes" who hung around and fucked people for donations. (Just because it's in Snow Crash doesn't mean it's not true...)

And I sure am glad that anti-establishment activity is against God's will! I guess that explains why the fundies do what their president tells them?

If followed to their conclusion the individual becomes an industrious, law abiding, charitible, and wholesome citizen. Tell me how that dosen't help society and make this life better.

Like the silly Apple commercials say, it's the cracked ones that let the light into the world. Christianity's goal is the same as that of public schools - to turn out legions of easily controlled sheep who will question nothing. This, of course, guarantees the mediocrity of our nation (the US) since we now have a bunch of students who don't even know what science is, let alone a theory. Hence, the continuing

88% of the world population belongs to some religion

Where did you pull this statistic out of?

I have heard otherwise on relgion and percentages. This was from a professor of religious anthropology in college.

The more industrialized the nation the less participation in religion. The most industrialized nation, I believe Denmark or Netherlands, had something like 10% church of the population attends church of some sort. America, the most religious of all industrialized nations, has only about 50% of people that attend church of some sort.

It would appear the vast majority of your 88%, if that statistic is to be believed, is from the uneducated developing nations.

I would also point to this site.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

If you are going to trump someone with facts, at very least attempt to cite them.

"Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing."

I don't think that was ever an issue.

You have some valid points about the "choice of examples" but science is supposed to be objective and unbiased. There simply isn't a way to repeatably prove (or disprove) ID. That, in and of itself, does NOT give it credibility as "science". It's NOT, pure and simple. It's speculation based on a theology... WHICH to my knowledge, there are hundreds of thousands of theologies. This provides speculation with so many variations because most of them (theologies) believe in different ideologies.

Religion is a human built structure to promote control and organization in our society without it, it is unlikely we would have come this far as a society. (which in and of itself is a form of evolution) Politics is just the latest version of that (societal control mechanism). (There are even different "beliefs" in that area as well ergo Communism, Fascism, Democracy, etc.) Heck that may explain why in many places religion and politics intertwine so much and look what happens in those cases... (that's another discussion)

The scientific laws used to determine the validity of an experiment (hypothesis, theory) with repeatable results are universal. In most cases where there is something unexplainable a theory can be created based on the known laws, which have been proven time and time again, to explain it... It may not be testable at the current level of technology but in time we will more then likely prove or disprove it... Look at what we have proven in the past two decades since we have advanced the computer so much. In Mathematics there have been advances as well.

Nothing like that is possible in ID. It's "belief in" a higher power, or "faith that" a higher power intervened.

Now, that's all well and good, and you may believe that is the case, but how about this...

What IF "your" (plural, not YOU specifically) God is actually an Alien from another galaxy, solar system, dimension, take your pick and IT infected this planet accidentally with some "bug" from its planet and we are a possible evolution of that "bug"

OR

Maybe that Alien race decided to start an experiment with our planet to see how things turn out...

OR

You see where I am going? It's ALL speculation!!! Based one WHAT???

A BELIEF and a FAITH ... a theology... which isn't even planet or nation wide... meaning it isn't even accepted by ALL of the people of this planet.... not even 90%... not even 80%... try less then 35%...

Hell there are people in, I think it's the Philippians, which have a ritual where they spend a year cutting down this tree, clean it up, prepare it with a whole bunch of ceremony and then everyone rides it down a hill... Some people get killed, injured and other wise permanently maimed and I am not condemning it... I am simply pointing out an example of another belief which is so different from most Judeo-Christian theologies doesn't even fit within the realm of Christian peoples understanding...

In science we use laws which have been proven time and time again.

Religion uses faith, belief and fear/hope to give it parishioners "peace of mind" that there is something after death... ID is just another example that religion uses to say look, God/Whomever loves you and you will be with him because you came from Him/Her/It...

I even like to HOPE that this life isn't everything... I would hate to miss out on more conversations like this... :-D

Happy Holidays... Solstice Greetings... Merry Christmas... Saturnalia... Yule... http://www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice. htm

This is a beauty as well... http://www.issurvivor.com/ArticlesDetail.asp?ID=54 1

Unfortunately the terminology has, as usual, been co-opted and distorted by the masses, who tend to think that weak atheists are agnostics, and all atheists are strong atheists.

When I did some research about this (admittedly, this was a while ago), the term agnostic could encompass a wide variety of beliefs (including those you attribute to weak atheism).

Indeed, the term was basically coined to describe those who did not hold strong atheist views. A logical interpretation of this is that anyone who claims that we don't know about the existence of God in some way is a certain kind of agnostic. Then one can subdivide agnostics into appropriate categories.

One site gives the following definitions: An agnostic theist, for example, is one "who believe that a deity probably exists", while an agnostic atheist believes "that it is very improbable that a deity exists." On the other hand, an empirical agnostic believes "that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them."

Thus, within this context weak atheists could be described as agnostic atheists. I believe the latter term is more clear, since it encompasses both the "not knowing" meaning of agnost as well as the implications of atheist. Certainly, though, I do not believe that describing people as agnostics when you would describe them as weak atheists is diluting the term. As mentioned earlier, it was devised originally in part (or in full, I'm not sure) for this purpose.

Besides, wouldn't it be a bit counterintuitive to have the definition of agnostic be a narrow one?

Here's a quote re: The Fundamentals of Extremism, from its publisher:

"Ms. Blaker, an ardent supporter of the separation of church and state and a syndicated journalist and writer (see The Wall(TM)), worked with five experts on Christian fundamentalism: Edwin Frederick Kagin, an attorney and founder of Camp Quest, a summer camp for children of atheists and freethinkers; Bobbie Kirkhart, a retired teacher and social worker with abused children and President of Atheist Alliance International; John Suarez, a former professor of psychiatry and a member of the Board of Trustees for Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Herb Silverman, a Distinguished Professor of Mathematics and National Board Member of the American Humanist Association; and Edward M. Buckner, Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism.

If you want to talk about poor sources, here's a site that agrees mostly with you, also one of the very top hits from Google:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

1. It's interesting that this site too admits at one point that data for Louisiana is lacking, and again lists the most fundamentalist states without including Louisiana.
2. The site has a marvelous quote from Ron Barrier "The Spokespersonn (sic) for American Atheists" about why atheists do better than fundamentalists at keeping marriages together. The quote is right under a table that shows the highest divorce rate is not for fundamentalists, but for Jews, which is generally not what most of us would consider a fundmentalist sect. The 3% difference between Jews (30% divorces, by this source) and "Born Again Christians" (27%) and the similar sized difference between "Born again" and "Other" Christians (24%) are both treated as irrelevant and not needing explanation or indicating any ethical or moral superiority one way or the other. The similar 3% difference between "Other Christians and Atheists (21%) is (according to Ron) proof of "Atheist ethical superiority". Oh, just incidentally, this Ron Barrier is one of the authors of several of those 900 scholarly works you mentioned, and the organization sponsoring this link is apparently in the book too.
        In the section about regional differences, a table featuring the higher divorce rates in the south is followed by text putting Arizona in the southern region, and Nevada and Oklahoma in the bible belt. The whole site again specifically skips over Cal, but fails to admit it. Ooops, the preparers of this site are using the same sources quoted in your Book. Far from having done their own research, they all seem to be working starting from the exact same government studies...

You might want to Google for good ole' Ron and Bobbie together or other such combinations (Ron hangs around with Ed a lot too)(The photos of them standing side by side on the dias at the awards ceremony together are especially nice). The authors you cite, and the authors of the 900 other scolarly works they cited in turn, mostly appear to comprise a small overlapping pool of people the rest of us would call militant atheists, and just from half an hour or so on the net, I've found several cases where they have been disingenious with the facts, made mistakes in their use of statistical methods and scientific terms, and otherwise shown that their bias is strongly influencing what should be an objective issue. I don't have time to trace every one of those 900 works to show whether they come from such sloppy sources or not. I'm sure you can skip over the top 10 or 20 net sites, pick some search terms, and find some that aren't such poor sources, and you can similarly argue your conclusions entirely from print sources if you choose, but I'm not willing to buy all those scholarly works and cross check, especially since I turned up things that seem to indicate major flaws in this work on the first, second, and now third sites Google gave me looking for a straight forward search term like US Divorce Rate.

      So yes, based on what I have seen so far, your source is wrong, yep.

6. Never kill -- no war is just

That blanket statement is as stupid as people who would assume war is the solution to everything. Fighting aggression is as just as it comes.

Dude, you got this one wrong. It's that you aren't allowed to kill other Jew not Christain. (Christain generally treat it that they aren't supposed to kill anyone though.) The Jewish version, which is the real ten commandments is usually taught that their is a big exception their for war. War is fine and dandy as long as your Jewish King/leader/Rabi says that the war is o.k. The Jews believe in genocide for other people. Read the bible. The Jews committed genocide. I don't really feel bad in the abstract sense that karma finally came back to them. They deserved to be on the other end every now and then as a reminder that the Jews used to do that sort of thing to those that were non-Jewish.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.

8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft
Um, I don't know the folks that you run into. I remember the don't steal, but nothing about taxation or inflation. I think that is a group that wants to stop those practices by labeling them as theft and getting other average folk Christains to go along with it. (It'd work in some areas.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"...this Commandment has been interpreted to refer to only one kind of theft; namely, to someone who kidnaps a person, forces him or her to work for him, and then sells him or her into slavery. This, like the previous prohibitions mentioned in the verse, murder and adultery, is a Capital Crime; that is, punishable by the death-penalty." 2 Since slavery has now been abolished in North America, this commandment is no longer applicable.
bullet

In modern times, the commandment is interpreted to mean the stealing of any piece of property. This is not directly related to its original meaning.

10. Don't be jealous or control what isn't yours - Zoning laws are wrong, business regulations are
wrong, slavery is wrong (the draft)

What wierd Christian branch is this one from? I recall a don't envy what others have that you don't. Nothing else is mentioned though. This a good for a lord to instruct his serfs to believe in. Think about it don't wish that you could have anything that your lord has. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"Covet" is a word that is gradually going out of usage. One set of definitions of the word is:

1. To wish for enviously.
2. To desire inordinately or culpably ~ vi: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another. 3

bullet

Religious liberals believe that the original text included only the first seven words. That is because the word "house" by itself was assumed to include all of a man's possessions: his building, wife, male slaves, female slaves, children, animals, etc.
bullet

A woman, in biblical times, was considered to be the property first of her father and after marriage of her husband.
bullet

Many biblical translations shy away from the term "slave" and use a more ambiguous word lik

6. Never kill -- no war is just

That blanket statement is as stupid as people who would assume war is the solution to everything. Fighting aggression is as just as it comes.

Dude, you got this one wrong. It's that you aren't allowed to kill other Jew not Christain. (Christain generally treat it that they aren't supposed to kill anyone though.) The Jewish version, which is the real ten commandments is usually taught that their is a big exception their for war. War is fine and dandy as long as your Jewish King/leader/Rabi says that the war is o.k. The Jews believe in genocide for other people. Read the bible. The Jews committed genocide. I don't really feel bad in the abstract sense that karma finally came back to them. They deserved to be on the other end every now and then as a reminder that the Jews used to do that sort of thing to those that were non-Jewish.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.

8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft
Um, I don't know the folks that you run into. I remember the don't steal, but nothing about taxation or inflation. I think that is a group that wants to stop those practices by labeling them as theft and getting other average folk Christains to go along with it. (It'd work in some areas.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"...this Commandment has been interpreted to refer to only one kind of theft; namely, to someone who kidnaps a person, forces him or her to work for him, and then sells him or her into slavery. This, like the previous prohibitions mentioned in the verse, murder and adultery, is a Capital Crime; that is, punishable by the death-penalty." 2 Since slavery has now been abolished in North America, this commandment is no longer applicable.
bullet

In modern times, the commandment is interpreted to mean the stealing of any piece of property. This is not directly related to its original meaning.

10. Don't be jealous or control what isn't yours - Zoning laws are wrong, business regulations are
wrong, slavery is wrong (the draft)

What wierd Christian branch is this one from? I recall a don't envy what others have that you don't. Nothing else is mentioned though. This a good for a lord to instruct his serfs to believe in. Think about it don't wish that you could have anything that your lord has. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"Covet" is a word that is gradually going out of usage. One set of definitions of the word is:

1. To wish for enviously.
2. To desire inordinately or culpably ~ vi: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another. 3

bullet

Religious liberals believe that the original text included only the first seven words. That is because the word "house" by itself was assumed to include all of a man's possessions: his building, wife, male slaves, female slaves, children, animals, etc.
bullet

A woman, in biblical times, was considered to be the property first of her father and after marriage of her husband.
bullet

Many biblical translations shy away from the term "slave" and use a more ambiguous word lik

6. Never kill -- no war is just

That blanket statement is as stupid as people who would assume war is the solution to everything. Fighting aggression is as just as it comes.

Dude, you got this one wrong. It's that you aren't allowed to kill other Jew not Christain. (Christain generally treat it that they aren't supposed to kill anyone though.) The Jewish version, which is the real ten commandments is usually taught that their is a big exception their for war. War is fine and dandy as long as your Jewish King/leader/Rabi says that the war is o.k. The Jews believe in genocide for other people. Read the bible. The Jews committed genocide. I don't really feel bad in the abstract sense that karma finally came back to them. They deserved to be on the other end every now and then as a reminder that the Jews used to do that sort of thing to those that were non-Jewish.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.

8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft
Um, I don't know the folks that you run into. I remember the don't steal, but nothing about taxation or inflation. I think that is a group that wants to stop those practices by labeling them as theft and getting other average folk Christains to go along with it. (It'd work in some areas.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"...this Commandment has been interpreted to refer to only one kind of theft; namely, to someone who kidnaps a person, forces him or her to work for him, and then sells him or her into slavery. This, like the previous prohibitions mentioned in the verse, murder and adultery, is a Capital Crime; that is, punishable by the death-penalty." 2 Since slavery has now been abolished in North America, this commandment is no longer applicable.
bullet

In modern times, the commandment is interpreted to mean the stealing of any piece of property. This is not directly related to its original meaning.

10. Don't be jealous or control what isn't yours - Zoning laws are wrong, business regulations are
wrong, slavery is wrong (the draft)

What wierd Christian branch is this one from? I recall a don't envy what others have that you don't. Nothing else is mentioned though. This a good for a lord to instruct his serfs to believe in. Think about it don't wish that you could have anything that your lord has. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
"Covet" is a word that is gradually going out of usage. One set of definitions of the word is:

1. To wish for enviously.
2. To desire inordinately or culpably ~ vi: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another. 3

bullet

Religious liberals believe that the original text included only the first seven words. That is because the word "house" by itself was assumed to include all of a man's possessions: his building, wife, male slaves, female slaves, children, animals, etc.
bullet

A woman, in biblical times, was considered to be the property first of her father and after marriage of her husband.
bullet

Many biblical translations shy away from the term "slave" and use a more ambiguous word lik

"The Church that He started, quite obviously: The Catholic Church."

Well, historical accounts seem to disagree whether the "Catholic Church" proper was started directly by Christ, or if it was started as many as 400-500 years after his death.

There's actually quite an eye-opening difference between the accounts of early christian history as viewed by Roman Catholics and as viewed by "religious liberals" and historians.

I'm not doubting that Catholics devoutly and feverently believe that their version is the literal truth, but I'm afraid in a dispute between a group of people who have no evidence but have a vested interest in claiming a direct conenction to the messiah, and another group of disinterested people who do have evidence and are pointing out many problems with that claim, my money would be on the disinterested party with documentary evidence as being more correct...

"It is the original Bible texts which are flawless, and possibly the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated in the 5th century by St. Jerome. Not only did he have all the original texts available, but he was very fluent in the languages involved. I haven't done the research to back this statement, but perhaps the translation was also protected from err."

Well, it appears that St. Jerome wrote at least three slightly different versions of the Vulgate, so that rather scotches the idea that it was mystically protected in any way from error...

It's also interesting that the Gallicana Vulgate, the second version, became the standard text of the Roman Catholic church. If it was the original version you could make a case that the later versions were mistaken distortions/revisions of an original perfect translation. If it was the third version (the most faithful translation from the Hebrew) you could make the case that it was a progressive improvement ending with a perfect translation. The fact it's the middle one of a series of differing versions leaves no such conclusion, apart from that it was an arbitrary historical accident as to which was taken as your "perfect" translation.

Also interesting is the passage in the Wikipedia article (yeah, usual Wikipedia caveats) that states: "In the other Vulgates [Romana and Gallicana] the Psalms were mostly translated from Greek, but were checked against Hebrew and Aramaic sources; this was done since they were already very familiar to the worshippers in this form and a completely new translation of the Psalms was felt to be too radical a change".

This suggests that with the previous two versions St Jerome was already editing or self-censoring his translations (to some extent) to conform more closely to the preconceptions of his audience. I'm not suggesting that he deliberately produced wildly inaccurate translations, but it graphically demonstrates that "perfectly accurate translation" wasn't his sole aim - he was also well aware of the effect any differences would have on his audience, and was seeking to minimise them.

"Huh? How could Genesis be *complete*? I'm sure you can easily demonstrate missing info-- possibly something so obvious as the kind of fruit on the tree of knowledge (assuming it was fruit)."

I have absolutely no idea. But many Christian Fundamentalists I've spoken to hold that Genesis is the whole, complete and unedited story of humanity's creation.

Otherwise, it would be possible that (say) God created Adam and Eve as the first "modern" humans (homo sapiens), and that Cain and Seth took homoerectus or Neanderthal wives (depending on when you envision Genesis taking place against the background of "human" evolution).

This would allow for a fairly neat squaring of Genesis with the established scientific consensus, and moreover one where it

"The Church that He started, quite obviously: The Catholic Church."

Well, historical accounts seem to disagree whether the "Catholic Church" proper was started directly by Christ, or if it was started as many as 400-500 years after his death.

There's actually quite an eye-opening difference between the accounts of early christian history as viewed by Roman Catholics and as viewed by "religious liberals" and historians.

I'm not doubting that Catholics devoutly and feverently believe that their version is the literal truth, but I'm afraid in a dispute between a group of people who have no evidence but have a vested interest in claiming a direct conenction to the messiah, and another group of disinterested people who do have evidence and are pointing out many problems with that claim, my money would be on the disinterested party with documentary evidence as being more correct...

"It is the original Bible texts which are flawless, and possibly the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated in the 5th century by St. Jerome. Not only did he have all the original texts available, but he was very fluent in the languages involved. I haven't done the research to back this statement, but perhaps the translation was also protected from err."

Well, it appears that St. Jerome wrote at least three slightly different versions of the Vulgate, so that rather scotches the idea that it was mystically protected in any way from error...

It's also interesting that the Gallicana Vulgate, the second version, became the standard text of the Roman Catholic church. If it was the original version you could make a case that the later versions were mistaken distortions/revisions of an original perfect translation. If it was the third version (the most faithful translation from the Hebrew) you could make the case that it was a progressive improvement ending with a perfect translation. The fact it's the middle one of a series of differing versions leaves no such conclusion, apart from that it was an arbitrary historical accident as to which was taken as your "perfect" translation.

Also interesting is the passage in the Wikipedia article (yeah, usual Wikipedia caveats) that states: "In the other Vulgates [Romana and Gallicana] the Psalms were mostly translated from Greek, but were checked against Hebrew and Aramaic sources; this was done since they were already very familiar to the worshippers in this form and a completely new translation of the Psalms was felt to be too radical a change".

This suggests that with the previous two versions St Jerome was already editing or self-censoring his translations (to some extent) to conform more closely to the preconceptions of his audience. I'm not suggesting that he deliberately produced wildly inaccurate translations, but it graphically demonstrates that "perfectly accurate translation" wasn't his sole aim - he was also well aware of the effect any differences would have on his audience, and was seeking to minimise them.

"Huh? How could Genesis be *complete*? I'm sure you can easily demonstrate missing info-- possibly something so obvious as the kind of fruit on the tree of knowledge (assuming it was fruit)."

I have absolutely no idea. But many Christian Fundamentalists I've spoken to hold that Genesis is the whole, complete and unedited story of humanity's creation.

Otherwise, it would be possible that (say) God created Adam and Eve as the first "modern" humans (homo sapiens), and that Cain and Seth took homoerectus or Neanderthal wives (depending on when you envision Genesis taking place against the background of "human" evolution).

This would allow for a fairly neat squaring of Genesis with the established scientific consensus, and moreover one where it

"The Church that He started, quite obviously: The Catholic Church."

Well, historical accounts seem to disagree whether the "Catholic Church" proper was started directly by Christ, or if it was started as many as 400-500 years after his death.

There's actually quite an eye-opening difference between the accounts of early christian history as viewed by Roman Catholics and as viewed by "religious liberals" and historians.

I'm not doubting that Catholics devoutly and feverently believe that their version is the literal truth, but I'm afraid in a dispute between a group of people who have no evidence but have a vested interest in claiming a direct conenction to the messiah, and another group of disinterested people who do have evidence and are pointing out many problems with that claim, my money would be on the disinterested party with documentary evidence as being more correct...

"It is the original Bible texts which are flawless, and possibly the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated in the 5th century by St. Jerome. Not only did he have all the original texts available, but he was very fluent in the languages involved. I haven't done the research to back this statement, but perhaps the translation was also protected from err."

Well, it appears that St. Jerome wrote at least three slightly different versions of the Vulgate, so that rather scotches the idea that it was mystically protected in any way from error...

It's also interesting that the Gallicana Vulgate, the second version, became the standard text of the Roman Catholic church. If it was the original version you could make a case that the later versions were mistaken distortions/revisions of an original perfect translation. If it was the third version (the most faithful translation from the Hebrew) you could make the case that it was a progressive improvement ending with a perfect translation. The fact it's the middle one of a series of differing versions leaves no such conclusion, apart from that it was an arbitrary historical accident as to which was taken as your "perfect" translation.

Also interesting is the passage in the Wikipedia article (yeah, usual Wikipedia caveats) that states: "In the other Vulgates [Romana and Gallicana] the Psalms were mostly translated from Greek, but were checked against Hebrew and Aramaic sources; this was done since they were already very familiar to the worshippers in this form and a completely new translation of the Psalms was felt to be too radical a change".

This suggests that with the previous two versions St Jerome was already editing or self-censoring his translations (to some extent) to conform more closely to the preconceptions of his audience. I'm not suggesting that he deliberately produced wildly inaccurate translations, but it graphically demonstrates that "perfectly accurate translation" wasn't his sole aim - he was also well aware of the effect any differences would have on his audience, and was seeking to minimise them.

"Huh? How could Genesis be *complete*? I'm sure you can easily demonstrate missing info-- possibly something so obvious as the kind of fruit on the tree of knowledge (assuming it was fruit)."

I have absolutely no idea. But many Christian Fundamentalists I've spoken to hold that Genesis is the whole, complete and unedited story of humanity's creation.

Otherwise, it would be possible that (say) God created Adam and Eve as the first "modern" humans (homo sapiens), and that Cain and Seth took homoerectus or Neanderthal wives (depending on when you envision Genesis taking place against the background of "human" evolution).

This would allow for a fairly neat squaring of Genesis with the established scientific consensus, and moreover one where it

Or the more simple explanation is that most societies depend on a nearby water wource and are thus built dangerously close to water. Take modern day examples such as New Orleans or the Netherlands. New York even lost a resort island called in 1893. Archeologists are finding scores of sunken cities from different time periods all over the world.

If you are looking for a biblical link you can find the flooding of the black sea. The black sea flooded around 5500BC. This would have flooded the area Noah lived. However, it would have been a couple thousand years before Noah. The date however, does coincide with the Sumarian Epic of Gilgamesh. Many historians believe that Noah's story is actually basded on Gilgamesh. This would not be surprising considering that religions tend to "inherit" items from other religions. Examples, such as Angels that are similar to Roman gods and Greek christian church's which were once used as Greek pagan churhces before the rise of christianity.

Google is your friend:

• Is this ossuary proof of Jesus, or is it spurious?
• Was James' Ossuary Found In Israel? The Story Of A Really Neat Hoax
• The Stone Box
• Burial Box of St. James Found?
• Experts Say Burial Box for 'Brother of Jesus' is a Forgery

Most religious people, including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth, show a high degree of tolerance for the beliefs of others.


That's true, but in the case of Jews and Christians they aren't following the Ten Commandments by doing so :

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"

The Qu'ran also has the same rule
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr10cisl.htm

Hindus - I have no idea, but historically they seem to have coexisted with Buddhists. I even saw some temples in Thailand with mixed Hindu and Buddist gods. Buddhism itself apparently has something about 'the higher Buddha is not Buddha'. So they both seem to be free of the inherent intolerance in Abrahamic, monotheistic religions.

Hey, since you're only following up to this because I was rude to you here
How does 'The Higher Linux is not Linux sound to you' ;-)


I know you want to paint all religious people as "evil", but the fact of the matter is that you're wrong. Reality differs from your fantasy world.


I can see how you'd get that impression from this post:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167879&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=nested&cid=1400145 5

Oh wait, I said the exact opposite. Didn't Jesus say something about hating the sin, not the sinner?

I wouldn't say that the 10 commandments are really that universal. Certainly some, like the prohibition of murder are fairly universal, but some are flatly absurd to those who reject Christianity (or Judaism). For examples, see Religious Tolerance for details.

"Wicca, despite new-age flap to the contrary, does not and has not ever existed as a "real" religion in any reasonable sense."

What?

1983 US District Court Ruling

Exerpt of the US Army Chaplin's Handbook, cerca 1990

In addition, Wiccanism has been recognized by the World's Parliament of Religions

You should probly check out this web site: ReligiousTolerance.Org

Blessed Be

QBRADQ

"Wicca, despite new-age flap to the contrary, does not and has not ever existed as a "real" religion in any reasonable sense."

What?

1983 US District Court Ruling

Exerpt of the US Army Chaplin's Handbook, cerca 1990

In addition, Wiccanism has been recognized by the World's Parliament of Religions

You should probly check out this web site: ReligiousTolerance.Org

Blessed Be

QBRADQ

"Wicca, despite new-age flap to the contrary, does not and has not ever existed as a "real" religion in any reasonable sense."

What?

1983 US District Court Ruling

Exerpt of the US Army Chaplin's Handbook, cerca 1990

In addition, Wiccanism has been recognized by the World's Parliament of Religions

You should probly check out this web site: ReligiousTolerance.Org

Blessed Be

QBRADQ

Therefore, any anti-Semitic comments are illegal.
Of course, I may be mistaken about this.

Yes, you are mistaken.

Last time I looked only certain hate speech is actually prosecuted. You can march down the street with a swastika banner shouting "Kill the Jews!" all day long and nobody will stop you. On the other hand, "Kill all the Fags!" will likely get you arrested.

Fortunately, most of the time the police have a lot better things to do than enforce hate-speech laws. Maybe that does fall onto the school then - if you aren't educated what hate speech is, who's fault is it?

Many colleges and schools have their own "hate speech code", but these do not have the force of law.

ReligiousTolerance.org (with cites), Google search.

Hardly any Christians believe that.

I'm actually speaking figuratively. Not "Other > Catholic", but as in "Catholics are not representative as a whole. There are a lot more Christians out there." I don't have any clue as to the worldwide figures.

However, the U.S. figures are here. It's difficult to state that these figures are anything more than a reasonable approximation, but they do show that other churches combined outnumber the Catholic church in the U.S. It's quite likely that the spread is greater than those numbers would have you believe, as it doesn't include a large number of community churches that have no denominational affiliation.

*sighs* Essentially the moronic end of chrisitianity protests against anything they associate with Satanism

This seems to be what you've taken offense at? Correct me if I am wrong.

So tell me - Do the moronic end of christianity protest against anything they associate with satanism?

Please note - I am not talking about christians in general - just the moronic end of christianity.

*sighs* Essentially the moronic end of chrisitianity protests against anything they associate with Satanism

This seems to be what you've taken offense at? Correct me if I am wrong.

So tell me - Do the moronic end of christianity protest against anything they associate with satanism?

Please note - I am not talking about christians in general - just the moronic end of christianity.

We are off-topic here but my observation had much more to do with how it's incredibly rude to even put that in a sig to propogate it wherever you post than why you put it there. This is a largely tech-oriented discussion site, quotes like that serve no purpose other than to draw attention that you most certainly have drawn.

I will say this, not only is that verse part of the hebrew scriptures, but it's translation is still in constant dispute. Nevermind the fact that these scriptures were written by humans, and the Bible has seen a large amount of edits over time, with exclusions and inclusions being made. It has been altered to suit the tastes of those in power in the religious structure.

As the anonymous coward questioned, when did you speak with God personally and discover his exact views on the subject matter, or do you just like to presume to know these things and spread bigotry without understanding the full context of the passage (Remember, context is always important)? Blindly following something is never wise, whether it regards religion or not, and this is not a slam on any form of organized religion. It's pretty strange to presume to know things one cannot possibly know, and claim that your preferred interpretation is the one true one. I'm not saying it's not true, but to proclaim it as such is foolhardy at best.

Besides, have we not all sinned, and isn't the ultimate purpose of the teachings of Christ to lead a good life? Cute how you put quotes around Christian as if you're any less a follower of the teachings because you interpret one thing differently, it really gives your contention that extra umph of truth and finality.

Violence against abortion clinics is a big problem, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

There are plenty of books on the subject if you're interested.

And lots of them come to different conclusions. If the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, shouldn't that be enough? None of those other books are divinely inspired, are they? I already have the bible. Several, actually. Maybe you can tell me which one is REALLY the word of god.

Basically though, you look at what the law is setting out to achieve and ask in what way this is fulfilled in Christ and therefore whether it is a law that still needs followed.

So why have you interpreted this supposed prohibition against homosexuality as anything other than identifying the act as unclean, and dealt with it the same way as the others in the same chapter of the same book? Or perhaps translated the passages as prohibitions against temple prostitution, as other scholars have? You do so because you have biases, and you're reading them into the text. So are the various authors (not divinely inspired) that wrote those books.

The food laws for instance were about cleanliness and uncleanliness, an issue dealt with by Christ on the cross, when he laid open the possibility of anyone being clean in God's sight.

OK, so we read that as to lie with a woman as you do with a man is unclean, anyone can be clean in God's sight, voila! Unless of course you don't like homosexuality, in which case you choose to interpret it differently.

The plain reading of the text is clear the homosexual actions are prohibited

Hmmm. These people seem to have found that there exist some disagreements on the subject. I'm sure you are positive that your interpretation is correct, but forgive me if I don't take your word that it's "clear". In fact, it seems that the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't agree with you. But, I'm sure he's a heretic. And I'd like to say that there are a lot of other ambiguities in there, otherwise there wouldn't be so many churches and Variances in belief. It's funny, when you read about all the different beliefs held by self-proclaimed Christians, besides the bible, the one most common seems to be that anyone who believes differently than them isn't a true Christian. Even the divinity of Christ isn't a constant.

[...]

Picking and choosing verses would be inconsistent. It's a question of correctly interpreting each verse in the light of the events of the cross.

A skill that you and like-minded individuals have, and those who disagree lack? If I had to choose between two authorities on the subject, I'd choose the Archibishop over you. You'll forgive me? As you get to choose your books and make the decision in your heart, so do I. I just don't claim that the bible told me so.

Defining what is right and wrong is different from determining the punishment that must be carried out. The church is not theocratic Israel. It is a family that leaves punishment to the state authorities.

A historically recent development. For an example, see Inquisition. Of course, when the church and state are intertwined, as they have been often over the last milennium or so, saying the church leaves such things to the state is disingenuous.

The translations we have are very good and the interpretations quite clear.

Again, that's not what I read. Perhaps the books you read say so, but then, I'm sure you read them with your biases as the filter. If anyone says differently, they should be discarded

There are plenty of books on the subject if you're interested.

And lots of them come to different conclusions. If the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, shouldn't that be enough? None of those other books are divinely inspired, are they? I already have the bible. Several, actually. Maybe you can tell me which one is REALLY the word of god.

Basically though, you look at what the law is setting out to achieve and ask in what way this is fulfilled in Christ and therefore whether it is a law that still needs followed.

So why have you interpreted this supposed prohibition against homosexuality as anything other than identifying the act as unclean, and dealt with it the same way as the others in the same chapter of the same book? Or perhaps translated the passages as prohibitions against temple prostitution, as other scholars have? You do so because you have biases, and you're reading them into the text. So are the various authors (not divinely inspired) that wrote those books.

The food laws for instance were about cleanliness and uncleanliness, an issue dealt with by Christ on the cross, when he laid open the possibility of anyone being clean in God's sight.

OK, so we read that as to lie with a woman as you do with a man is unclean, anyone can be clean in God's sight, voila! Unless of course you don't like homosexuality, in which case you choose to interpret it differently.

The plain reading of the text is clear the homosexual actions are prohibited

Hmmm. These people seem to have found that there exist some disagreements on the subject. I'm sure you are positive that your interpretation is correct, but forgive me if I don't take your word that it's "clear". In fact, it seems that the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't agree with you. But, I'm sure he's a heretic. And I'd like to say that there are a lot of other ambiguities in there, otherwise there wouldn't be so many churches and Variances in belief. It's funny, when you read about all the different beliefs held by self-proclaimed Christians, besides the bible, the one most common seems to be that anyone who believes differently than them isn't a true Christian. Even the divinity of Christ isn't a constant.

[...]

Picking and choosing verses would be inconsistent. It's a question of correctly interpreting each verse in the light of the events of the cross.

A skill that you and like-minded individuals have, and those who disagree lack? If I had to choose between two authorities on the subject, I'd choose the Archibishop over you. You'll forgive me? As you get to choose your books and make the decision in your heart, so do I. I just don't claim that the bible told me so.

Defining what is right and wrong is different from determining the punishment that must be carried out. The church is not theocratic Israel. It is a family that leaves punishment to the state authorities.

A historically recent development. For an example, see Inquisition. Of course, when the church and state are intertwined, as they have been often over the last milennium or so, saying the church leaves such things to the state is disingenuous.

The translations we have are very good and the interpretations quite clear.

Again, that's not what I read. Perhaps the books you read say so, but then, I'm sure you read them with your biases as the filter. If anyone says differently, they should be discarded

Unfortunatly this is not the case. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm Canada now has as law many anti-free speach laws. These are promoted under the hate crime legislation motive. I guess calling evil, evil is evil in the eyes of Canada's government.

It used to be that abortions were legal in the U.S. up until 'quickening' or fetal movement. Now groups want to say that life begins before an embryo has even implanted or differentaited.

RU-486 results in 1 death in 200,000 making it twice as safe as penicillian. Those people who have suffered the worst side effects were those who took it despite being having contra-indicating factors warning against its use.
(from religioustolerance.org)

RU-486 still has complications in 8-10% of cases requiring surgical follow up, which I think is what you're alluding to.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/>

But I thought these folks were ALL ABOUT women's health!

I used to think doctors were all about health too, but most of them don't seem to care.
I'm saying this as a guy who has met a fair number of doctors who were simply unable or unwilling to do simple diagnostic work. Apathy and negligence are problems throughout the medical profession. The number of unreported incidences of malpractice is high. A significant accident occurs in one out of three major operations, if memory serves. I could be off on this, I don't have time to google it. All I know is that I've had one friend injected with so much insulin that they went into a coma, and my mom had her teeth filed down by the dentist when she specifically asked for them not to be.

Vaginal administration of RU-486 isn't contra-indicated, however. It's an off-label use, which is different. You haven't really supported the notion that it should be banned (though from what I've googled on the NIH research, oral administration is far more effective.), or even supported the notion that that was in fact the cause of these women dying.

Bacterial infections are treatable, though some strains of S. Aureus are now resistant even to vancomycin, and starting to become resistant to the various fluroquinolones. But considering that they don't know the facts related to these women's cases, and that the infections weren't treated properly, it would seem that these women simply weren't receiving proper medical care to begin with in terms of follow up visits. That, rather than a pill, was the cause of their death. The "human at conception" camp opposes RU-486 for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting women's health.

When it comes down to it, abortion is still far safer than pregnancy. There were 399 deaths from pregnancy in 2001 alone.

Up until the late 1800s, 'quickening' or the time when fetal movements could be felt, was the point of no return for a pregnancy. The notion that 'life has always begun at conception' according to religious doctrine is simply not true. If you ask someone to show you a biblical passage that makes the claim that life begins at conception, I promise you they'll show you a passage that says somthing else entirely. Without fail. The notion that "people are fully human at conception" is literally the belief that undifferentiated cells are people.

But when even Bill Frist tried to argue that it should be slightly later, he was essentially shouted down by his own party who didn't want to hear it.

Just because there is vocal minority of complete dumbasses who claim to be of my religion doesn't mean I am one of them. It also means that you cannot lump me in with them.

Wrong. These polls clearly show that the "complete dumbasses" you speak of actually comprise between 40 and 50% of the population. Since the population is not at all 100% Christian (lots of atheists, agnostics, Jews, Pagans, and even Hindus here), it looks like a minimum of half of American Christians are Creationists, probably more. So cut the "vocal minority" crap. You're the minority, buddy. Generalizing Christians to be Creationists is perfectly valid as far as I can see.

Your non-6000YOE Christians are in the minority, according to these polls.

Non-Creationist Christians have been trying to defend themselves a lot lately, saying that they're in the "silent majority", that the Creationists are a fringe minority, etc., but it's all a lie. Polls clearly show that the majority of Christians believe in Creationism, and don't believe in Evolution.

So please cut it out with the "silent majority" crap. The Creationists are a vocal majority.

According to these polls, the religious right (at least the ones who believe in Creationism) are almost in the majority, and are about half of the country's population.

This guy's personal experience with Christians is very much indicative of the general opinions of most Americans now. The Christians who aren't Creationists are in the minority.

You sure paint a rosy picture of American Christianity. While I wish things were more like the way you have portrayed them here, the numbers just don't support this.

America is a big place, with a lot of people (nearly 300 million now). It's one of the most heavily populated countries on Earth, only behind China and India to my knowledge. While you may not know or have run into a lot of fundamentalists and Creationists, this is simply because you don't run in those circles, or maybe you live in an area where they aren't quite as prevalent. Believe me, they're here, and they're numerous. Don't believe me? Poll results support me:

Last year a CNN Poll found that more Americans supported Creationism than Evolutionary theory. According to this poll, a full 55% of the population believes this way. That's a majority.

Here's another link I found on a religious website: link. The numbers are a little lower (45-50%), but the results seem to be more accurately categorized according to specific beliefs (fundamentalist/Creationist, theistic, naturalistic), and exactly what those categories are are better described. According to this poll, your theistic (but not Creationist) compatriots are outnumbered by the Creastionists. We naturalists are in the tiny minority with only about 10%.

While it would be nice if the extremists were just a tiny minority, and the majority were moderates like you, this simply doesn't appear to be the case in America today.

The Republican party has been replaced with another party going by the same name.

I suspect these people or similar are responsible for the growth of the Christian Right:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.h tml
http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/dominionism.htm

Their goals aren't much different than the Taliban's--establishment of a religious government, death to all non-believers etc. I'm open to the thought that they are more common than it at first seems and are the driving force behind the Christian Right, especially since most every diehard Christian I currently know espouses much of their philosophy. If you have the stomach to watch The 700 Club or Jerry Falwell (Often on Fox News), it sure seems they are heavily influenced. Google for more.

"the U.S. population has a pretty open Christian community that respects a lot of views."


Like this?

and this?

and this?

and this?

and this?

and this?


Please, save your propaganda for people who are retarded enough to buy it.

Evolution is not atheism. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest as much

I think you mean "natural selection" instead of "evolution". NS is the kind of evolution which is opposed by Intelligent Design. Hypothetically, an invisible UFO could be flying around abducting organisms for genetic engineering. If that were true, then (guided) evolution would be happening but not natural selection.

That's why ID-supporters try to remember to say they're fighting against "Natural Selection" or "Darwinism", as opposed to merely evolution.

It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest as much

They're not exactly the same thing, but in practice they are highly related. While not all religions claim to explain the origin of life on earth, all of the most popular ones do. So, believing in NS contradicts the main theist creeds.

Furthermore, there is empirical measurement. Just check out this survey. Scroll down to the yellow chart and compare the first and last columns- see how predictably God goes down when Evolution goes up.

I'm not challenging your numbers - do enough polls and you'll get almost any result - but I wonder if you can tell me the poll you saw. The numbers I saw doing a google search are 55% (Nov. 2004), 47% (Nov. 1991), and 42% (Aug. 2005) of Americans believing in Creationism.