I finally got around to reading your distasteful reply, and I would like to respond. Can we continue the conversation in email? I posted here in attempt to get your attention.
Are you insulted because it's false, or are you insulted because it's true? I think it's the latter. Americans are complete prudes when it comes to sex.
Wait, I revise my statement:
White Americans are complete prudes when it comes to sex. I've noticed that black people can talk about it much more freely and openly than whites can.
Wait, I revise my statement again:
White, Southern Americans are so prudish about sex it'll make the average European's head spin. I am a white, Southern American, so I can describe my own culture with impunity. I am a gay, white, Southern american, so I can criticize my own culture with honesty when it relates to how my people are so fucked up with one of the most primal and common human activities: sex.
So, if I'm ever a parent, I'll just make sure to monitor what my kids do and not block their access.
(Grain of salt taken.)
Do you plan to hover over your kid while he does (fill in the blank)? Do you plan to do this 100% of the time that your child isn't sleeping?
Before I was a parent, I swore that I'd never have my kid eat fast food (except that I didn't realize how damn convenient it would be, or how effective it was as a reward), or wear "themed" shoes (except that I didn't realize that my son would ask for them and I didn't have a good reason for saying no). Lots of your grandiose ideas of parenting will change dramatically once you realize how emotionally draining being a parent is.
You're right! They also buy votes for politicians. It works like this: a politician takes money from those people whose votes they don't need, and gives the money to the people whose votes they do need.
it is good that you should be responsible for more than just your own children.
And what other things should I be responsible for beyond those things that I choose to be responsible for? I'm sure you think that we must have the government (which is nothing more than other individuals who happened to win/rig an overly complex and corrupt populatiry contest) tell us what we must be responsible for.
And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children.
Oh, you have the right to tell me how to raise my child? Tell me, which part of the constitution of the USA grants you that right?
It is not just the family that raises the children, but the whole village.
Vague statements like this are so typical of superstitious people. What, pray tell, is the "whole village"? Who are its members? Does the meth addict bum help me raise my child? What about the fucking predator who broke into my house and stole my property? Did he help me raise my child? Or were you just equating "the whole village" with "the government"?
Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining the schoold system.
The reason why schools are crappy is complex and highly politicized. I see several reasons behind it:
1. Government-run schools don't have an incentive to educate children. If children come out welfare-dependant, that means more votes for politicians because those kids "need" the government.
2. Some parents suck. This suckiness carries over into the schools, since sucky parents treat schools as nothing more than a taxpayer-funded babysitter.
3. Our society in general treats the crimes of assault, harrassment, sexual harrassment, and battery as "part of growing up." If you're 17 and you beat the living shit out of a 16-year-old, then that's just "part of growing up" for the victim. Crimes like these are frequent in highschools. What does it teach children?
4. Teachers' Unions are the most powerful unions in the country. Their purpose, like that of all unions, is to A) protect union members' jobs, and B) use extortion in order to make union members get paid more for doing less. Note that neither of these things helps students; in fact, they harm students. Protecting teachers' jobs most affects the teachers most likely to be fired, which, in general, are the shitty teachers (and, yes, there are shitty teachers). Paying teachers more for less work also harms students since, in some cases, it takes money from the school (which could have been spent on students) and rewards teachers in cases when they don't deserve it.
There is a time to question authority, but that time is not when you should be learning to read and write.
Since I see you as a government-worshipping Leftist (as opposed to a Gaea-worshipping Leftist), I'm sure you can think of lots of times when we shouldn't question authority. I see you and your ilk as hyper-conservative Christians, except that you've replaced YHWH with the State (and the State, like YHWH, *must* be obeyed). Furthermore, your statement assumes that (government) schools are teaching children to read and write. Not only do government school fail at that task with alarming regularity, but they also teach other things that aren't related to reading and writing. Should schools teach children to be strong individuals, or is individualism a sin?
Part of my argument is that much of society, Worldwide, is to the Left of the USA.
We agree!
In a similar vein, many (most?) countries have some system of national health care, without considering themselves Socialist - which is a long winded way of saying that, in this one respect, the US is out of step with everyone else.
Again, we agree. Socialiazed health care is nothing but another form of welfare. Health care costs someone time and money. If one claims that they have a "right" to health care, then they are claiming a right to someone else's time (liberty) or money (property). How can that be in a country which guarantees its citizenes rights to life, liberty, and property?
At the same time, socialized health care is inevitable in this country. There are simply waaaay to many votes to be purchased with someone else's money in the form of health care for it not to.
I tend to use humour to achieve the same, which isn't always sensible.
I think it's more fair to say that it isn't always effective -- but perhaps that's what you meant. People respond well to disarming humor and poorly when they think they're being mocked. I'm sure you knew that already, so forgive me for stating the obvious.
I'd suggest that your would be viewed as perverse by many (most) Conservatives.
I take it that when you write "Conservatives" here you mean "UK Conservatives." I would argue that even the UK Conservatives are socialist from my viewpoint. Perhaps I am not well-acquainted with their platform, but my perspective is the the entire UK society is to the Left of that of the USA.
People who resort to generalizations!
I think everyone generalizes to some degree or another. People only complain when they're false (and sometimes when they're true, but point out an ugly truth).
I'm a Kiwi!
How does my whole ass look?;)
I happen to believe that, in many ways, the USA has represented, and sometimes continues to represent, the model for other countries to follow: neither the UK or New Zealand have a written constitution, for example.
What a gracious thing for you to write! I happen to agree with you: an unwritten constitution is a blank check for government tyranny. A contributor to Slashdot recently (and sagely) noted that, contrary to President Bush's rhetoric, terrorists do not threaten our liberty. Our government threatens our liberty. The terrorists threaten our safety.
That does not excuse the genralizations portrayed as debate that US citizens (and others; it's by no means an American disease) sometimes exhibit.
There are plenty of American assholes, just like their are plenty of UK assholes and plenty of assholes in every culture. I think the US is the whipping boy of the world partly because people who aren't on top resent the one who is. Have we as a species so quickly forgotten how hated the UK was when they ruled half the world?
Dammit, sir, I hate it when people come across all...reasonable! Your generalization aside, I may disagree with some of your points but you make them well.
I know you're joking, but please don't be angry or resistant to my attempt to build bridges rather than walls. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to exchange knowledge, challenge my views, maybe learn something, and (blessedly rare when it happens) make friends. Converting people to my point of view is next to impossible, no matter how reasonable or convincing I am. I think that my problem is that I rely on reason and evidence to win converts, and we all know that emotions like fear and guilt (which I abhor) are much more effective in that regard.
It is very, very typical for UKers to get pissed off at Americans when they think Americans are saying something that doesn't represent UK society perfectly. From my perspective, the entire UK socity, exempting a select few, is socialist. For example, most of everyone supports the (socialist) NHS. Am I off-base?
"Your ilk" have got away with dubious and unfounded generalisations for far too long.
And what, pray tell, is "my ilk", from your point of view?
Your complaint looks like yet another example of a British (forgive me if I slander you with that statement, but I don't know if you're English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh...) person condescending to a "culturally-inferior" American who doesn't want to accept that UK society is *still* the best damn thing on the planet. It's not the first time that I've been talked down to by a UKer, and it just doesn't interest me at all. I don't mind having a frank discussion about the merits and drawbacks of our respective cultures, but having a self-important snob of *any* culture (tu connais la culture superieure de la France?) look down his nose at me is far from impressive or useful.
Now perhaps I've pegged you all wrong, and you have every right to call me on it if I have. If so, then let's go ahead and talk like intelligent individuals and shy away from statements that sound like "That's NOT the way that WE do it HERE!"
You probably think Pasteur stole the germ theory idea from Bechamp too, right? And that it's wrong anyway? Stop eating fruit, your body will become too acidic and create sickness...
Your response is pure ad hominem and is typical of those who are offended. And it makes sense: "I don't believe you" is the most offensive statement in the English language. I suppose you could have asked, "Why don't you believe it?" But questions like that just get in the way of your hate and outrage.
Well, I essentially mean any argument that isn't based on a well-tested set of observations that is not biased to one side or another - arguments not completely based on the scientific method, that don't freely change based on evidence and counter-arguments.
In other words, arguments that are not based on reason, logic, or evidence. Do you agree that the scientific method is gathering evidence that we observe, and then using logic and reason to draw conclusions based on the evidence?
Of course, many arguments are more or less 'unfair' along those lines. It's a very high bar, almost unreacheable to be completley fair in your arguments!
Whether or not any argument is "unfair", by this criteria, is testable. All we need to is ask, 1. Is there evidence which supports your agument, and 2. is your logic/reason sound? These tests should be applied to all arguments.
We all have to make these sorts of arguments as a part of life.
We have to make these sorts of arguments? I don't buy it.
We all bullshit.
But some do more than others, correct? And the ones who do should be called on it, correct? Or should we just allow bullshit arguments to stand becase "we all do it"?
We SHOULD regard it as a bad thing when we do it too - but in a highly charged political environment, a side expecting to win can't hide their rhetoric anymore.
I think it has much more to do with wanting to win than expecting to win. Do gay activists honestly expect that they're going to win in the gay marraige issue? No doubt they want to, and want to very, very badly. It comes down to some people feeling very strongly for their particular position, and logic and evidence be damned if they get in the way of what they want.
but don't claim any side is completely corrupt just for playing the game.
Pardon me, but how can anyone be anything but "completely corrupt" after you've claimed that "we all bullshit"? Is it something other than corruption that makes us all so equally and inherently deceitful in your view? (By the way, I reject this "humans are inherently evil" view, if that's what you believe.)
What is an "unfair" argument? My guess is that you mean an argument that isn't "playing by the rules."
Well, what rules are arguments supposed to play by? My answer to that would be, they must play by logic, reason, and evidence, rather than by emotion, deceit, and superstition.
So when you write "unfair arguments", do you actually mean:
1. arguments based in emotion 2. arguments based in lies 3. arguments based in superstition 4. something else?
I think calling an argument "unfair" is an attempt to hide what the real crime is. "Not playing by the rules" seems so much more innocuous than "arguing a point based on completely fabricated bullshit", doesn't it?
The movie *is* truthful, and if you think otherwise, please state specific claims.
I thought that Christoper Hitchens did a pretty good job at answering your challenge. Luckily for us, an anonymous coward posted Hichens's entire article here. It contains many specific claims and much more intelligent commentary than the propagandistic (and, incidentally, popular among extreme right-wing Christians) "This is TRUTH!!!!" assertion that you seem to prefer.
If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war,
You mean socialists, not progressives. Your ilk have gotten away with calling your 1950s-era class-war statism "progress" for far too long.
Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.
And while you demand that your enemies pony up evidence, you do not seem to hold yourself to the same standard of bevahior. What is the evidence that the media's coverage of the war has been one-sided? Are you including the New York Times in the "media"? My impression is that Left-leaning media sources spin the war in a negative light, while right-wing media sources spin the war in a positive light. This type of behavior is hardly surprising considering we've been gunning up toward an election year, and the public's view of the war (which is directly affected by the "news" they read about it) has a direct effect on George Bush's ability to be elected.
Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.
Folks on the Left and the Right exhibit this behavior. "If you don't agree with me, then you're not thinking for yourself." I've had Christians tell me several times, "Don't just adopt other people's opinions, read the Bible for yoruself and make your own opinion!" Propagandistic words from superstitious people; the main difference between you and them is the differences in the supersitions that you adhere to.
I really am not interested in seeing Michael Moore's film becuase he works from premises that I reject. All of his points are going to be built on these premises. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I listen to his points of view? Let's debate his premises instead, and seeing the movie does not serve that purpose.
Oh wait... is it murder if you shoot an injured unarmed Iraqi from a chopper 2 clicks out at night? Does that person deserve to die too?
Wartime rules are different.
What if that Iraqi's child had been killed by an American bomb?
Wartime rules are different.
Seems the problem is more complicated. Surprise surprise!
Of course the problem is complicated! What constitutes murder is a moral question, and everyone had their own opinions on that. Not that your little questions counter anything I wrote. Your arguments are non sequitur fallacies.
My original response was to counter the idiotic "killing people is wrong!" blanket statement. Sometimes killing is right. During war, none of our rules of civility apply. It's war, god damnit! Civility went out the window a long time ago. Arguing about "rights" and "wrongs" makes no sense in wartime. The only rule that matters is "to the victor go the spoils."
If you're using self-defense to mean "actions necessary to prevent someone who is trying to kill or injure you from succeeding", then there's no confusion.
We agree!
However, since death is final, you have to be sure that (a) killing is the only way to defend yourself, all other reasonable options have been exhausted, and (b) you confine the injury you cause to those who intended to injure you.
First, it is not your job to tell me what I "have to" do.
Second, in some cases, it's a good thing that death is final. There are people that I want to be dead and who deserve to die. Murderers spring to mind. I believe that people who prey on others for the sake of their own enjoyment have sacrificed their right to exist in society and deserve to die.
Third, I'm not going to waste time trying to figure out reasonable options if I think that my life (or, perish the thought, my child's life) is being threatened. I'm going to be harsh in the face of evil and I refuse to give predators the benefit of the doubt.
Killing people is the lazy, despicable solution to any problem.
I disagree. Sometimes killing people is necessary in order to preserve my life, liberty, and property or the lives, liberties, and property of those I love.
Are you so unwilling to engage in a dialog, to actually talk with people, find ways to live together[?]
This assumes that your adversary is interested in dialog with you. What if all your adversary wants is to see you suffer and die?
Are you unwilling to admit that people do change?
This assumes that all people do change in the way that you want them to in the timeframe that you want them to. What if the adversary is trying to kill you while you're trying to change their mind?
Are you willing to slaughter millions based on these prejudices?
No. I do not equate "self-defense" with "slaughter millions based on prejudices". Do you see the difference between the two?
Yes, you did assume incorrectly. What I believe is far, far more complicated than what "liberal Christian" would indicate. And I am offended - and it's not a high horse. You've placed beliefs on me that I don't have, nor did I ever claim to have. That's the worst kind of prejudice.
Your beliefs are very similar to those that liberal Christians present. Until you tell me otherwise, I'll probably think of you as a liberal Christian. I'm also beginning to think that you're going to use this "I'm offended!" tactic as the excuse to end this debate. Furthermore, I think racism is a worse kind of prejudice (considering that I don't believe in races).
Jesus didn't state 5 specific things you need to do to get into heaven - not in those extremely specific words that you're quoting. Definitely not, as he didn't speak modern English!
Jesus did state five specific things that you need to get into heaven. You have failed to offer anything to counter this fact. What you're trying to say here is that I can't say what he said in such "specific words" because Jesus didn't speak English. If this is true, then the entire Bible is meaningless.
I did note you never responded to the question of whether or not you think that Christ meant you must forgive people 490 times, and then you can give up on them?
Sorry, I missed this one. Let's see what Jesus said:
"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Mat 18:21-22
The footnote says "or seven times seventy." To answer your question, no. The part of your statement I disagree with is the "...and then you can give up on them." Jesus does not say that you can give up on them. He says that you must forgive them seventy-seven times (or "seven times seventy").
And, since you so smugly pointed out a question I missed, how about you answer some of my questions I asked and points I made that you shamefully dodged:
How do you know that the words written down were an imperfect match for the thoughts and experiences that the people who wrote them had? How do you test that?
The Bible could have been written by aliens. Prove this is impossible. Your mind could be controlled by evil spirits. Prove this is impossible.
Are you beginning to see why I reject any and all arguments that have no shred of evidence to support them?
Why is the knowledge of the "full extent" of a religion required to test for mutual exclusivity?
Christianity claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. Islam claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. They can't be the same god because one sent Jesus as god and the savior, one didn't. One sent Muhammad as the final prophet, one didn't. These religions cannot both be true.
You wrote, "belief, faith, and works are the same thing." If I do work A, then I have belief A (since works and beliefs are the same thing). If someone else does work A, then they also have belief A (since works and beliefs are the same thing). Therefore, if me and someone else have the same works, we must also necessarily have the same beliefs. Or perhaps you misspoke? Please clarify.
No, I think it's silly because you're saying that I can't interpret an interpretation.
I argued no such thing. Here's my argument, put bluntly: your "interpretations" of scripture suck. They are nothing more than attempts to make scripture say something that it does not. You are trying to defend your mendacious behavior my saying that I am also "interpreting," and I reject that. You have been unable to point out any flaws in my arguments or state how they are not supported by scripture; instead, you merely say that you "don't like my interpretation." By your argument, the Bible means whatever you want i
Because your argument is not supported by scripture. Mine is. I maintain: Jesus states that in order to get into heaven, you must have five specific works, and he mentiones nothing about faith.
This is silly. You're arguing that an object that's already interpreted can't be interpreted again. I don't believe the people who translated the Bible were perfect. The Bible has to be interpreted, because the words written down were already an imperfect match for the thoughts and experiences that the people who wrote them had.
Of course you think this is silly: my arguments do not fall underneath your premises. You mischaracterize my argument: I am *NOT* arguing that "an object that's already interpreted can't be interpreted again." This whole "interpretation" nonsense is your platform, not mine. I maintain that "interpretation" is code for "making the Bible mean something other than what it says." Furthermore, how do you know that the words written down were an imperfect match for the thoughts and experiences that the people who wrote them had? How do you test that?
Both of those are provably wrong - if you search through history and find the original authors of the Bible, you can prove the first wrong. Don't know why you listed this one... The second is, at least, provably wrong by me. I am. From your perspective, though, it's not provably wrong. You've just given an excellent example of a conjecture which will always be possible, at least from your point of view. But that's all immaterial - I said "could be". I was stating a possibility - a conjecture, a hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't need evidence - a hypothesis is what allows you to construct experiments to support or disprove it.
So many things to say here.
First, did you think that you would escape this becuase I didn't type "could be"? Think again! The Bible could have been written by aliens. Prove this is impossible. Your mind could be controlled by evil spirits. Prove this is impossible.
Second, if you search through history and find the original authors of the Bible, then you will have managed to put a centuries-long dispute to rest. No one knows who the original authors were because the original authographa do not exist. Your first defense fails. You have not shown that the Bible could not have been written by aliens.
Third, your second defense is no defense at all. You have shown nothing. It is therefore still true that your mind could be controlled by evil spirits.
Are you beginning to see why I reject any and all arguments that have no shred of evidence to support them? Merely calling them a "hypothesis" does not mean they merit consideration. You have to have some evidence before I'm going to put one iota of critical thought into it.
Mutual exclusivity only applies if the full extent of the religions is known. Considering the beliefs reside within the minds of human beings, it's impossible to know the extent of the religions in any context that we currently have.
Unimpressive. Why is the knowledge of the "full extent" of a religion required to test for mutual exclusivity?
In other words, yes, they're all true. And no, I don't believe they're all mutually exclusive. You're welcome to try to prove that they are.
I didn't claim that they were all mutually exclusive, so I decline. I will, however, offer this:
Christianity claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. Islam claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. They can't be the same god because one sent Jesus as god and the savior, one didn't. One sent Muhammad as the final prophet, one didn't. These religions cannot both be true.
Sigh. Isn't that exactly what I said you were going to counter with? Which is why I said that offering a counterargument in this case doesn't change the point.
Well, since he didn't say "You must do these five things to get into heaven" anywhere in the quoted passages, you're interpreting as well, and I don't agree with your interpretation. I'm not going to argue language semantics anyway - this is stupid.
Of course you think this is stupid: my argument does not fall underneath your premises.
Since you think I'm "interpreting", let me spell this out bluntly and clearly and see if you disagree.
1. Jesus divides all the nations into the righteous and the unrighteous. 2. Jesus indicates what makes the righteous that way (they have done five specific works). 3. Jesus indicates what makes the unrighteous that way (they have failed to do five specific works). 4. The righteous go to eternal life. 5. The unrighteous go to eternal torture.
Therefore, I conclude that, according to Jesus in this passage, it is the presence of having done five specific works that grants entry into heaven.
You argue, "If you have faith in Jesus, then you will do those five works." By what verses in Mat 25:31-46 do you conclude that? Be specific.
Bull! There's no "This is a parable!" in bold before each of them, and there are plenty of dramatic exaggerations.
Bull this:
"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Mat 25:1, The Parable of the Ten Virgins
See the word "like"?
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them." Mat 25:14, The Parable of the Talents
Again, see the word "like"?
Now, where do you see anything in Mat 25:31-46 that indicates it's a parable?
You don't need to prove a possibility - it remains possible until it is disproved. I never suggested what I said was true. I suggested it was possible. You argued with it and said that I needed to prove that it was possible. I don't. You need to prove that it's impossible.
The Bible was written by aliens. Prove this is impossible.
Your mind mind is controlled by evil spirits. Prove this is impossible.
Are you beginning to understand why I refuse to entertain any allegation that has no shred of evidence? You know as well as I that you can't prove a negative. You just happen to rely on it because you know that there is no evidence for gods, angels, devils, souls, heaven, or hell.
As for any evidence that the meaning of the Bible could be divine, I think the mere existence of the Golden Rule in ten world religions, completely independently, is good evidence for the possibility of it.
If this is evidence that the Bible is divine, then all ten of those (probably mutually-exclusive) religions are true as well. Furthermore, even atheistic philosophies contains something similar to the golden rule. I have a better explanation for your observation: perhaps many philosophies contain the golden rule because it is self-evident that human society works better when we are not spending every waking moment ripping each other to shreads.
The counter that you may offer would be that it's basic ethics, and anyone would come up with it. And you'd be correct. See above statement - all evidence for the existence of God can equally support his non-existence. All evidence for the non-existence of God can equally support his existence. It's unprovable)
You're trying to change the subject. The question was, "How do you know that the Bible is divine?", not, "How do you know there is a God?". So far, you have failed to show me why you conclude that the Bible is divine.
Yes. If it doesn't make sense to you, it's because you're trying to rigidify human thought into language, which is a poor filter.
Ad hominem.
Two people can believe the same thing while stating it in a completely different way. It can, in fact, sound completely different, yet be the exact same thing - it's the story o
Regardless of your animosity towards Christians I will oblige you with a response.
My mom is a Christian. Do I hate her, too? I know it's convenient for you to paint me as "hateful," but it isn't true. I practice, "Love the Christian, hate the Christianity."
Specifically the kidnap of any being is subject to the punishment of DEATH.
It's interesting that God would have prohibited kidnapping in some places and demanded it in others:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Num 31:17-18
So much for God's morality.
The fact is EVERY ABHORRENT ACT did not need to be categorized. That categorization is the defense used by people who cannot put forth a logical argument.
You claim that every abhorrent act did not need to be categorized, yet God does that very thing in the Old Testament. My complaint is that the Ten Commandments are supposedly the topmost and most important of these laws. Coveting made the "top ten" list, but rape and child torture didn't. How can you explain this?
So instead of filling your child with your hatred towards Christians, which can and may manifest itself in ways you never imagined or intended; in otherwords bigotry knows no bounds, perhaps it would be best to allow him to decide for himself.
I am a gay man. I understand very well how it feels to be hated considering that your Christian "brothers" promulgate it with every opportunity they have. They call me a child molester and a criminal even though I am a parent and an employer. They call me deviant and unstable even though my gay relationship has outlasted and been more stable than most of the straight ones I've come across. Try walking in my shoes for a day and then talk to me about hate.
"Some people you just can't reach." That's the line that comes next, right?;)
Christ is *not* saying in Matt 25 that these things are 12 steps to eternal life. It isn't a manual for how to be saved. He *is* saying that a life of faith will and must produce these works. The works themselves to not save the righteous -- their love of Christ does, which is manifest in their love of neighbor. This is clear from the text itself.
Here you are blatantly playing the game of "that's what it says, but that's not what it means." NOWHERE in the passage does Jesus say anything about a "life of faith" that you claim is so important. The only criteria that Jesus lists as entry into heaven are the five specific works.
Put another way: if (faith), then (good works). The inverse is also true. Lack of faith means no good works in the eyes of God. The converse is *not* true: good works does not produce faith.
Preaching dogma to me is not going to work. If faith were so important, then Jesus would have listed it as a criteria for the final judgement (as he did in other places). Jesus can't seem to make up his mind on the answer to the question, "What must I do to avoid ETERNAL TORTURE?" One would think that he, being the perfect God, would have chosen to be crystal clear on this subject.
Let's look at some other points of scripture. John 6:51 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Salvation, then, is attained by partaking of the means of grace found in the Christ, which can only be received through -- faith.
No, salvation comes from eating the bread. Look at what Jesus said! "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Did Jesus say, "If anyone has faith and eats this bread, he will live forever?" No! You inserted the word "faith".
"'I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.'" (John 10:9). This is very clear on the nature of salvation -- we are justified by our relationship to Christ, which we call faith.
Yes, here Jesus preaches faith. You'd think he might have mentioned those five works which are, according to Jesus, vital for entrance to heaven.
Please respond, indeed. I'm no apologist, but I think I have a better grasp of doctrine and scripture than others you may have argued with.
You claim to not be an apologist, but you argue very much like one. You treat the whole bible as a "context," you reinterpret scripture, and you gush about how awesome your religion is. Lots of Christians who have talked to me felt like they were going to be "the one" who inspired me to turn to Jesus. Who knows, maybe you will be "the one." But, judging from the weak, stupid things that you've written here, I'm not holding my breath.
He likes to bait people into this argument. You will not win this debate, because he will refuse to give you straight answers until you give up.
You fail to realize that its the AIDS apologists' duty to provide the answers, not mine. I am the skeptic. Convince me!
I just feel bad for any kid who even remotely buys into his idiocy and dies because of it.
Typical. A Christian whom I may be debating might say, "I jsut feel bad for any kid who even remotely buys into his idiocy and goes to hell because of it." Religious language from religious people.
What would such an experiment prove? Suppose I am right, and HIV is harmless or nonexistant. I inject myself with "HIV tainted blood" and, as expected, I suffer no ill effects from it.
How would the AIDS priests handle this? They would claim that I have a "genetic immunity" or that the "latency period" for me just happened to be really long. Nothing would be proven.
...and if you look at Matthew 25:14-30, if you bury a talent in the ground, you go to Hell. Hey, I'm just "reading the Bible for what it says," which according to you is how it should be read. I'm going to have a heck of a time burying my talent for art. How deep do you dig that hole?
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them." Mat 25:14
See the word "like" in there? This is a parable. Now go back and re-read Mat 25:31-46. Do you see Jesus say that it was going to be that way, or did he use the word "like" as he did here?
So, according to you, reading something into context and placing a paragraph in context to the rest of the book is somehow wrong?
I'm not opposed to reading anything in context. I am opposed to Christians claiming that the entire Bible is a "context" whose meaning is "interpreted" to mean what they want it to mean rather than what it says.
You can pluck a handful of verses out of a single chapter of a single book, and have God's plan for salvation?
I can pluck all of the verses out of all the chapters in the Bible that have anything to do with salvation and you would have no hope of reconciling them.
Loundry's philosophy: But feel free to kidnap a child and rape him...
Way to live up to the stereotype of the smug and condescending Christian. Since I'm not a Christian, I must be deceived by Satan, right? I am completely evil and living for my own selfish desires, right?
So, if your son likes to rape little girls, it's okay? If he's a good person, and deserves to be happy, anything he does that makes him happy is by default also good. A good person cannot desire evil, after all.
Not only is my son allowed to rape little girls, but he must also beat and murder them as well. Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer.
Are you seeing where humanism starts to fall apart? Oh, I know, you'll dismiss it as "playing the pedophile card", instead of explaining why your "philosophy" is worth anything since it can't withstand the simplest of moral challenges.
First, I am an objectivist, not a humanist. Second, your superstitious Christian beliefs are incompatible with morality. Third, I am moral and my philosophy will withstand many of the moral challenged that yours will fail. How about this one: Do you admit that slavery is supported in both the Old Testament and the New Testament? If not, then please show me the chapter and verse that indicates that slavery is not part of "God's plan".
Rape: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Rape does not imply adultery. The perpetrator and the victim could both be unmarried.
Torture: Thou shalt not kill.
Torture does not imply killing (are you sure it isn't "thou shalt not murder"?). People have survived torture.
Kidnapping and slavery: Thou shalt not covet.
Slavery does not imply coveting. If a person is deemed to be property, then you could own it just like any other property which also does not imply coveting. Kidnapping also doesn't imply coveting, as one could conceievably kidnap on a whim.
Child abuse: Thou shalt not kill, and Honor thy father and mother.
Child abuse does not imply killing, nor does it imply disrespecting one's own father and mother.
Your defenses suck and my points stand.
Not good enough? Probably not for you, because you don't believe in "total context"; so you ignored the part where Jesus said that if you were angry with your brother without cause, then you violated "Thou shalt not kill".
You're right: "total context" is bullshit. It's something that Christians impose on the Bible to try and reconcile troublesome verses with "what the Bible *REALLY* means". Whether or not Jesus said that being angry with your brother without cause violates "thou shalt not kill" (chapter and verse?) is separate from the "total context" defense that you rely on so heavily.
It does mean that doing X, Y, Z will get you in (it's the contrapositive), but it does not mean that you must do X, Y, Z.
Incorrect. According to Jesus, you must do those five things if you want to get into heaven. Those are the only requirements. (Not that he doesn't contradict himself later, but that's a separate point.)
You haven't given proof that it can't, just said that you haven't seen proof that it is.
I also haven't given proof that there are no aliens or leprechauns or wizards or dragons. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. If you claim that there is something "divine," then pony up the evidence. I will not entertain claims for which there is no shred of evidence. I just don't have the time.
Do you want me to speak in sentences that are five lines long? This is the entire point of boiling things down.
I want you to speak in sentences that are just long enough to be accurate and complete in expressing your point. If that requires five sentences, then so be it. "Boiling things down" is a way of making something say something that it doesn't.
Reducing that to "those who do not help people in need go to hell" is presumptive, yes, but it is a logical extension.
Actually, it's "people who don't do the five things that Jesus listed go do hell." It's not presumptive or an extension. It's what Jesus said would happen.
You know, arguing against the Bible by strict interpretation is just as bad as arguing for it - the simple fact is that certain things that we're saying now could not even be said then. Did they even have words for some of the concepts we're talking about?
I agree that treating the Bible as something that means what it says and says what it means is bad for bible-believers. They have to contend with verses in which Jesus tells people that they must give up all their possessions and hate their entire family.
And then, of course, you completely throw out any possibility of metaphors, examples, and parables, where the meaning has to be inferred no matter what.
I agree there are parables in the Bible when the Bible states it's a parable. Metaphors are imposed upon scripture in order to play the "that's what it says, but that's not what it means" game.
Faith and works are the same thing - that's what I said.
James agrees with you, Paul does not. You have asserted that faith==works, but you have not given any evidence to support it. For instance, why do the five requirements that Jesus lists for salvation imply faith in anything?
No, you assumed that. I assumed nothing.
What the hell are you talking about? You stated that people can be saved, and therefore you assume that there is something to be saved from (hell, perhaps?) and thus implies a need to be saved. I don't believe any of those assumptions.
The usual answer is "yes, because they must believe in Christ", and it's flawed, because of what I said before - belief, faith, and works are the same thing.
That makes no sense. If I have good works, then I must necessarily believe the same thing as someone who has similar works?
What people need is an entirely different argument that I won't even begin to touch. And that was a red herring fallacy, by the way.
I disagree. If people can be saved, then how do you argue that they don't need to be saved?
It is: "The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis is the biggest medical fraud in human history." Hope this helps. It is a positive claim. It was advanced without context, on its own. No one (including myself) has thus far in this thread argued the contrary position, but have rather asked you to back up your claim.
You raise a good point, and I may have to change my.sig as a result. For me to claim that the HIV==AIDS hypothesis is a fraud is, in fact different from my saying that I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS (or that we need a definition of AIDS, etc). The first implies some kind of malicious thought, and I have no interest in conspiracy theories.
Do you have an alternative definitions?
Here you are assuming a point in dispute. I do not believe that HIV exists. Immune deficiency exists in absense of HIV -- even the HIV==AIDS apologists admit this. The existence of AIDS itself depends on the existence of HIV. Your demand that I come up with "alternative definitions" depends on these assumptions.
If a virus detected by a given test does not cause AIDS, then it is not HIV, by the very definitions of the terms. Your claim was specific and was contradicts to the very definitions of the terms.
And so what? I reject the terms as well. AIDS apologists like to pretend that we all have to accept that HIV exists and AIDS exists and HIV causes AIDS. I do not believe any of it. The burden of proof does not lie on me to prove why I do not believe something.
I made no such claims. Enjoy beating on that strawman.
On the contrary, you quoted the CDC as if their facts were true. You have assumed that HIV exists, AIDS exists, and that HIV causes AIDS.
You made a claim, someone else called you on it, you talked about something unrelated to your claim, I pointed out that that post didn't address your own claim. That's it.
Are you just mad that I used the word "fraud"? I retract it. I'll change by.sig. I still don't believe in HIV or AIDS.
I didn't make that claim, you made a claim related to it and are now attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Nice try. If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, then prove it. The burden of proof lies on you. You can't hide behind "definitions" that you support and pretend that you aren't piggybacking on those claims.
I say you examine a word in every instance that it is use (i.e. a word study) to get the general take on what the Biblical view is.
The "Biblical view"? What the hell is that? Let me guess: the Biblical view is what Christians "interpret" the Bible to mean. A "word study" is the session in which the "interpretation" happens. Am I correct in any way?
I'm assuming your response on this will be something like "How can they be different views when they say completely opposite things?"
Paul: You are saved by faith and faith alone. James: You are saved by faith and works.
How is your "word study" going to work this one out? I know: you can have your word study come to the conclusion that "that's what it says, but that's not what it means." That's what "interpretation" comes down to, doesn't it?
Fine, don't believe me.
Your smug and condescending behavior is so unwarranted, but so expected. I'm used to catching shit from HIV apologists (and Christian apologists, the pinnacle of "smug and condescending"). Your rude words will neither move nor impress me AT ALL. You will have to rely on reason and evidence if you want me to change my mind.
Look up the evidence on your own as opposed to having some webpage summarize it for you (I'm talking legit research journals now)
Oh, I should be reading legit research journals. Well, how do I know which ones are "legit"? Can I decide for myself?
I have read the evidence and I find it lacking. Why has AIDS in North America been so radically different from AIDS in Africa? What is the scientific, medical reason for this?
I'm questioning Mullis's authority on the subject. I'm not so much attacking him as I am discrediting him.
Have fun discrediting Mullis. Does this mean you agree with all the other individuals represented on the virusmyth.net website? Did you think that you could discredit one and then just assume that all the rest of them are wrong about everything, too?
Slashdot Mirror
Hello!
I finally got around to reading your distasteful reply, and I would like to respond. Can we continue the conversation in email? I posted here in attempt to get your attention.
And that is just insulting.
Are you insulted because it's false, or are you insulted because it's true? I think it's the latter. Americans are complete prudes when it comes to sex.
Wait, I revise my statement:
White Americans are complete prudes when it comes to sex. I've noticed that black people can talk about it much more freely and openly than whites can.
Wait, I revise my statement again:
White, Southern Americans are so prudish about sex it'll make the average European's head spin. I am a white, Southern American, so I can describe my own culture with impunity. I am a gay, white, Southern american, so I can criticize my own culture with honesty when it relates to how my people are so fucked up with one of the most primal and common human activities: sex.
So, if I'm ever a parent, I'll just make sure to monitor what my kids do and not block their access.
(Grain of salt taken.)
Do you plan to hover over your kid while he does (fill in the blank)? Do you plan to do this 100% of the time that your child isn't sleeping?
Before I was a parent, I swore that I'd never have my kid eat fast food (except that I didn't realize how damn convenient it would be, or how effective it was as a reward), or wear "themed" shoes (except that I didn't realize that my son would ask for them and I didn't have a good reason for saying no). Lots of your grandiose ideas of parenting will change dramatically once you realize how emotionally draining being a parent is.
Taxes pay for more than just schools
You're right! They also buy votes for politicians. It works like this: a politician takes money from those people whose votes they don't need, and gives the money to the people whose votes they do need.
it is good that you should be responsible for more than just your own children.
And what other things should I be responsible for beyond those things that I choose to be responsible for? I'm sure you think that we must have the government (which is nothing more than other individuals who happened to win/rig an overly complex and corrupt populatiry contest) tell us what we must be responsible for.
And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children.
Oh, you have the right to tell me how to raise my child? Tell me, which part of the constitution of the USA grants you that right?
It is not just the family that raises the children, but the whole village.
Vague statements like this are so typical of superstitious people. What, pray tell, is the "whole village"? Who are its members? Does the meth addict bum help me raise my child? What about the fucking predator who broke into my house and stole my property? Did he help me raise my child? Or were you just equating "the whole village" with "the government"?
Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining the schoold system.
The reason why schools are crappy is complex and highly politicized. I see several reasons behind it:
1. Government-run schools don't have an incentive to educate children. If children come out welfare-dependant, that means more votes for politicians because those kids "need" the government.
2. Some parents suck. This suckiness carries over into the schools, since sucky parents treat schools as nothing more than a taxpayer-funded babysitter.
3. Our society in general treats the crimes of assault, harrassment, sexual harrassment, and battery as "part of growing up." If you're 17 and you beat the living shit out of a 16-year-old, then that's just "part of growing up" for the victim. Crimes like these are frequent in highschools. What does it teach children?
4. Teachers' Unions are the most powerful unions in the country. Their purpose, like that of all unions, is to A) protect union members' jobs, and B) use extortion in order to make union members get paid more for doing less. Note that neither of these things helps students; in fact, they harm students. Protecting teachers' jobs most affects the teachers most likely to be fired, which, in general, are the shitty teachers (and, yes, there are shitty teachers). Paying teachers more for less work also harms students since, in some cases, it takes money from the school (which could have been spent on students) and rewards teachers in cases when they don't deserve it.
There is a time to question authority, but that time is not when you should be learning to read and write.
Since I see you as a government-worshipping Leftist (as opposed to a Gaea-worshipping Leftist), I'm sure you can think of lots of times when we shouldn't question authority. I see you and your ilk as hyper-conservative Christians, except that you've replaced YHWH with the State (and the State, like YHWH, *must* be obeyed). Furthermore, your statement assumes that (government) schools are teaching children to read and write. Not only do government school fail at that task with alarming regularity, but they also teach other things that aren't related to reading and writing. Should schools teach children to be strong individuals, or is individualism a sin?
Part of my argument is that much of society, Worldwide, is to the Left of the USA.
We agree!
In a similar vein, many (most?) countries have some system of national health care, without considering themselves Socialist - which is a long winded way of saying that, in this one respect, the US is out of step with everyone else.
Again, we agree. Socialiazed health care is nothing but another form of welfare. Health care costs someone time and money. If one claims that they have a "right" to health care, then they are claiming a right to someone else's time (liberty) or money (property). How can that be in a country which guarantees its citizenes rights to life, liberty, and property?
At the same time, socialized health care is inevitable in this country. There are simply waaaay to many votes to be purchased with someone else's money in the form of health care for it not to.
I tend to use humour to achieve the same, which isn't always sensible.
I think it's more fair to say that it isn't always effective -- but perhaps that's what you meant. People respond well to disarming humor and poorly when they think they're being mocked. I'm sure you knew that already, so forgive me for stating the obvious.
I'd suggest that your would be viewed as perverse by many (most) Conservatives.
;)
I take it that when you write "Conservatives" here you mean "UK Conservatives." I would argue that even the UK Conservatives are socialist from my viewpoint. Perhaps I am not well-acquainted with their platform, but my perspective is the the entire UK society is to the Left of that of the USA.
People who resort to generalizations!
I think everyone generalizes to some degree or another. People only complain when they're false (and sometimes when they're true, but point out an ugly truth).
I'm a Kiwi!
How does my whole ass look?
I happen to believe that, in many ways, the USA has represented, and sometimes continues to represent, the model for other countries to follow: neither the UK or New Zealand have a written constitution, for example.
What a gracious thing for you to write! I happen to agree with you: an unwritten constitution is a blank check for government tyranny. A contributor to Slashdot recently (and sagely) noted that, contrary to President Bush's rhetoric, terrorists do not threaten our liberty. Our government threatens our liberty. The terrorists threaten our safety.
That does not excuse the genralizations portrayed as debate that US citizens (and others; it's by no means an American disease) sometimes exhibit.
There are plenty of American assholes, just like their are plenty of UK assholes and plenty of assholes in every culture. I think the US is the whipping boy of the world partly because people who aren't on top resent the one who is. Have we as a species so quickly forgotten how hated the UK was when they ruled half the world?
Dammit, sir, I hate it when people come across all...reasonable! Your generalization aside, I may disagree with some of your points but you make them well.
I know you're joking, but please don't be angry or resistant to my attempt to build bridges rather than walls. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to exchange knowledge, challenge my views, maybe learn something, and (blessedly rare when it happens) make friends. Converting people to my point of view is next to impossible, no matter how reasonable or convincing I am. I think that my problem is that I rely on reason and evidence to win converts, and we all know that emotions like fear and guilt (which I abhor) are much more effective in that regard.
In the UK,
...) person condescending to a "culturally-inferior" American who doesn't want to accept that UK society is *still* the best damn thing on the planet. It's not the first time that I've been talked down to by a UKer, and it just doesn't interest me at all. I don't mind having a frank discussion about the merits and drawbacks of our respective cultures, but having a self-important snob of *any* culture (tu connais la culture superieure de la France?) look down his nose at me is far from impressive or useful.
It is very, very typical for UKers to get pissed off at Americans when they think Americans are saying something that doesn't represent UK society perfectly. From my perspective, the entire UK socity, exempting a select few, is socialist. For example, most of everyone supports the (socialist) NHS. Am I off-base?
"Your ilk" have got away with dubious and unfounded generalisations for far too long.
And what, pray tell, is "my ilk", from your point of view?
Your complaint looks like yet another example of a British (forgive me if I slander you with that statement, but I don't know if you're English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh
Now perhaps I've pegged you all wrong, and you have every right to call me on it if I have. If so, then let's go ahead and talk like intelligent individuals and shy away from statements that sound like "That's NOT the way that WE do it HERE!"
You probably think Pasteur stole the germ theory idea from Bechamp too, right? And that it's wrong anyway? Stop eating fruit, your body will become too acidic and create sickness...
Your response is pure ad hominem and is typical of those who are offended. And it makes sense: "I don't believe you" is the most offensive statement in the English language. I suppose you could have asked, "Why don't you believe it?" But questions like that just get in the way of your hate and outrage.
Well, I essentially mean any argument that isn't based on a well-tested set of observations that is not biased to one side or another - arguments not completely based on the scientific method, that don't freely change based on evidence and counter-arguments.
In other words, arguments that are not based on reason, logic, or evidence. Do you agree that the scientific method is gathering evidence that we observe, and then using logic and reason to draw conclusions based on the evidence?
Of course, many arguments are more or less 'unfair' along those lines. It's a very high bar, almost unreacheable to be completley fair in your arguments!
Whether or not any argument is "unfair", by this criteria, is testable. All we need to is ask, 1. Is there evidence which supports your agument, and 2. is your logic/reason sound? These tests should be applied to all arguments.
We all have to make these sorts of arguments as a part of life.
We have to make these sorts of arguments? I don't buy it.
We all bullshit.
But some do more than others, correct? And the ones who do should be called on it, correct? Or should we just allow bullshit arguments to stand becase "we all do it"?
We SHOULD regard it as a bad thing when we do it too - but in a highly charged political environment, a side expecting to win can't hide their rhetoric anymore.
I think it has much more to do with wanting to win than expecting to win. Do gay activists honestly expect that they're going to win in the gay marraige issue? No doubt they want to, and want to very, very badly. It comes down to some people feeling very strongly for their particular position, and logic and evidence be damned if they get in the way of what they want.
but don't claim any side is completely corrupt just for playing the game.
Pardon me, but how can anyone be anything but "completely corrupt" after you've claimed that "we all bullshit"? Is it something other than corruption that makes us all so equally and inherently deceitful in your view? (By the way, I reject this "humans are inherently evil" view, if that's what you believe.)
Unfair arguments WORK.
What is an "unfair" argument? My guess is that you mean an argument that isn't "playing by the rules."
Well, what rules are arguments supposed to play by? My answer to that would be, they must play by logic, reason, and evidence, rather than by emotion, deceit, and superstition.
So when you write "unfair arguments", do you actually mean:
1. arguments based in emotion
2. arguments based in lies
3. arguments based in superstition
4. something else?
I think calling an argument "unfair" is an attempt to hide what the real crime is. "Not playing by the rules" seems so much more innocuous than "arguing a point based on completely fabricated bullshit", doesn't it?
The movie *is* truthful, and if you think otherwise, please state specific claims.
I thought that Christoper Hitchens did a pretty good job at answering your challenge. Luckily for us, an anonymous coward posted Hichens's entire article here.
It contains many specific claims and much more intelligent commentary than the propagandistic (and, incidentally, popular among extreme right-wing Christians) "This is TRUTH!!!!" assertion that you seem to prefer.
If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war,
You mean socialists, not progressives. Your ilk have gotten away with calling your 1950s-era class-war statism "progress" for far too long.
Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.
And while you demand that your enemies pony up evidence, you do not seem to hold yourself to the same standard of bevahior. What is the evidence that the media's coverage of the war has been one-sided? Are you including the New York Times in the "media"? My impression is that Left-leaning media sources spin the war in a negative light, while right-wing media sources spin the war in a positive light. This type of behavior is hardly surprising considering we've been gunning up toward an election year, and the public's view of the war (which is directly affected by the "news" they read about it) has a direct effect on George Bush's ability to be elected.
Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.
Folks on the Left and the Right exhibit this behavior. "If you don't agree with me, then you're not thinking for yourself." I've had Christians tell me several times, "Don't just adopt other people's opinions, read the Bible for yoruself and make your own opinion!" Propagandistic words from superstitious people; the main difference between you and them is the differences in the supersitions that you adhere to.
I really am not interested in seeing Michael Moore's film becuase he works from premises that I reject. All of his points are going to be built on these premises. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I listen to his points of view? Let's debate his premises instead, and seeing the movie does not serve that purpose.
Oh wait... is it murder if you shoot an injured unarmed Iraqi from a chopper 2 clicks out at night? Does that person deserve to die too?
Wartime rules are different.
What if that Iraqi's child had been killed by an American bomb?
Wartime rules are different.
Seems the problem is more complicated. Surprise surprise!
Of course the problem is complicated! What constitutes murder is a moral question, and everyone had their own opinions on that. Not that your little questions counter anything I wrote. Your arguments are non sequitur fallacies.
My original response was to counter the idiotic "killing people is wrong!" blanket statement. Sometimes killing is right. During war, none of our rules of civility apply. It's war, god damnit! Civility went out the window a long time ago. Arguing about "rights" and "wrongs" makes no sense in wartime. The only rule that matters is "to the victor go the spoils."
If you're using self-defense to mean "actions necessary to prevent someone who is trying to kill or injure you from succeeding", then there's no confusion.
We agree!
However, since death is final, you have to be sure that (a) killing is the only way to defend yourself, all other reasonable options have been exhausted, and (b) you confine the injury you cause to those who intended to injure you.
First, it is not your job to tell me what I "have to" do.
Second, in some cases, it's a good thing that death is final. There are people that I want to be dead and who deserve to die. Murderers spring to mind. I believe that people who prey on others for the sake of their own enjoyment have sacrificed their right to exist in society and deserve to die.
Third, I'm not going to waste time trying to figure out reasonable options if I think that my life (or, perish the thought, my child's life) is being threatened. I'm going to be harsh in the face of evil and I refuse to give predators the benefit of the doubt.
Killing people is the lazy, despicable solution to any problem.
I disagree. Sometimes killing people is necessary in order to preserve my life, liberty, and property or the lives, liberties, and property of those I love.
Are you so unwilling to engage in a dialog, to actually talk with people, find ways to live together[?]
This assumes that your adversary is interested in dialog with you. What if all your adversary wants is to see you suffer and die?
Are you unwilling to admit that people do change?
This assumes that all people do change in the way that you want them to in the timeframe that you want them to. What if the adversary is trying to kill you while you're trying to change their mind?
Are you willing to slaughter millions based on these prejudices?
No. I do not equate "self-defense" with "slaughter millions based on prejudices". Do you see the difference between the two?
Your beliefs are very similar to those that liberal Christians present. Until you tell me otherwise, I'll probably think of you as a liberal Christian. I'm also beginning to think that you're going to use this "I'm offended!" tactic as the excuse to end this debate. Furthermore, I think racism is a worse kind of prejudice (considering that I don't believe in races).
Jesus didn't state 5 specific things you need to do to get into heaven - not in those extremely specific words that you're quoting. Definitely not, as he didn't speak modern English!
Jesus did state five specific things that you need to get into heaven. You have failed to offer anything to counter this fact. What you're trying to say here is that I can't say what he said in such "specific words" because Jesus didn't speak English. If this is true, then the entire Bible is meaningless.
I did note you never responded to the question of whether or not you think that Christ meant you must forgive people 490 times, and then you can give up on them?
Sorry, I missed this one. Let's see what Jesus said:
"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Mat 18:21-22
The footnote says "or seven times seventy." To answer your question, no. The part of your statement I disagree with is the "...and then you can give up on them." Jesus does not say that you can give up on them. He says that you must forgive them seventy-seven times (or "seven times seventy").
And, since you so smugly pointed out a question I missed, how about you answer some of my questions I asked and points I made that you shamefully dodged:
No, I think it's silly because you're saying that I can't interpret an interpretation.
I argued no such thing. Here's my argument, put bluntly: your "interpretations" of scripture suck. They are nothing more than attempts to make scripture say something that it does not. You are trying to defend your mendacious behavior my saying that I am also "interpreting," and I reject that. You have been unable to point out any flaws in my arguments or state how they are not supported by scripture; instead, you merely say that you "don't like my interpretation." By your argument, the Bible means whatever you want i
Why do I have to use any verses to back that up?
Because your argument is not supported by scripture. Mine is. I maintain: Jesus states that in order to get into heaven, you must have five specific works, and he mentiones nothing about faith.
This is silly. You're arguing that an object that's already interpreted can't be interpreted again. I don't believe the people who translated the Bible were perfect. The Bible has to be interpreted, because the words written down were already an imperfect match for the thoughts and experiences that the people who wrote them had.
Of course you think this is silly: my arguments do not fall underneath your premises. You mischaracterize my argument: I am *NOT* arguing that "an object that's already interpreted can't be interpreted again." This whole "interpretation" nonsense is your platform, not mine. I maintain that "interpretation" is code for "making the Bible mean something other than what it says." Furthermore, how do you know that the words written down were an imperfect match for the thoughts and experiences that the people who wrote them had? How do you test that?
Both of those are provably wrong - if you search through history and find the original authors of the Bible, you can prove the first wrong. Don't know why you listed this one...
The second is, at least, provably wrong by me. I am. From your perspective, though, it's not provably wrong. You've just given an excellent example of a conjecture which will always be possible, at least from your point of view.
But that's all immaterial - I said "could be". I was stating a possibility - a conjecture, a hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't need evidence - a hypothesis is what allows you to construct experiments to support or disprove it.
So many things to say here.
First, did you think that you would escape this becuase I didn't type "could be"? Think again! The Bible could have been written by aliens. Prove this is impossible. Your mind could be controlled by evil spirits. Prove this is impossible.
Second, if you search through history and find the original authors of the Bible, then you will have managed to put a centuries-long dispute to rest. No one knows who the original authors were because the original authographa do not exist. Your first defense fails. You have not shown that the Bible could not have been written by aliens.
Third, your second defense is no defense at all. You have shown nothing. It is therefore still true that your mind could be controlled by evil spirits.
Are you beginning to see why I reject any and all arguments that have no shred of evidence to support them? Merely calling them a "hypothesis" does not mean they merit consideration. You have to have some evidence before I'm going to put one iota of critical thought into it.
Mutual exclusivity only applies if the full extent of the religions is known. Considering the beliefs reside within the minds of human beings, it's impossible to know the extent of the religions in any context that we currently have.
Unimpressive. Why is the knowledge of the "full extent" of a religion required to test for mutual exclusivity?
In other words, yes, they're all true. And no, I don't believe they're all mutually exclusive. You're welcome to try to prove that they are.
I didn't claim that they were all mutually exclusive, so I decline. I will, however, offer this:
Christianity claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. Islam claims that their god is the one true god and all other gods are false. They can't be the same god because one sent Jesus as god and the savior, one didn't. One sent Muhammad as the final prophet, one didn't. These religions cannot both be true.
Sigh. Isn't that exactly what I said you were going to counter with? Which is why I said that offering a counterargument in this case doesn't change the point.
No, not really
Well, since he didn't say "You must do these five things to get into heaven" anywhere in the quoted passages, you're interpreting as well, and I don't agree with your interpretation. I'm not going to argue language semantics anyway - this is stupid.
Of course you think this is stupid: my argument does not fall underneath your premises.
Since you think I'm "interpreting", let me spell this out bluntly and clearly and see if you disagree.
1. Jesus divides all the nations into the righteous and the unrighteous.
2. Jesus indicates what makes the righteous that way (they have done five specific works).
3. Jesus indicates what makes the unrighteous that way (they have failed to do five specific works).
4. The righteous go to eternal life.
5. The unrighteous go to eternal torture.
Therefore, I conclude that, according to Jesus in this passage, it is the presence of having done five specific works that grants entry into heaven.
You argue, "If you have faith in Jesus, then you will do those five works." By what verses in Mat 25:31-46 do you conclude that? Be specific.
Bull! There's no "This is a parable!" in bold before each of them, and there are plenty of dramatic exaggerations.
Bull this:
"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Mat 25:1, The Parable of the Ten Virgins
See the word "like"?
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them." Mat 25:14, The Parable of the Talents
Again, see the word "like"?
Now, where do you see anything in Mat 25:31-46 that indicates it's a parable?
You don't need to prove a possibility - it remains possible until it is disproved. I never suggested what I said was true. I suggested it was possible. You argued with it and said that I needed to prove that it was possible. I don't. You need to prove that it's impossible.
The Bible was written by aliens. Prove this is impossible.
Your mind mind is controlled by evil spirits. Prove this is impossible.
Are you beginning to understand why I refuse to entertain any allegation that has no shred of evidence? You know as well as I that you can't prove a negative. You just happen to rely on it because you know that there is no evidence for gods, angels, devils, souls, heaven, or hell.
As for any evidence that the meaning of the Bible could be divine, I think the mere existence of the Golden Rule in ten world religions, completely independently, is good evidence for the possibility of it.
If this is evidence that the Bible is divine, then all ten of those (probably mutually-exclusive) religions are true as well. Furthermore, even atheistic philosophies contains something similar to the golden rule. I have a better explanation for your observation: perhaps many philosophies contain the golden rule because it is self-evident that human society works better when we are not spending every waking moment ripping each other to shreads.
The counter that you may offer would be that it's basic ethics, and anyone would come up with it. And you'd be correct. See above statement - all evidence for the existence of God can equally support his non-existence. All evidence for the non-existence of God can equally support his existence. It's unprovable)
You're trying to change the subject. The question was, "How do you know that the Bible is divine?", not, "How do you know there is a God?". So far, you have failed to show me why you conclude that the Bible is divine.
Yes. If it doesn't make sense to you, it's because you're trying to rigidify human thought into language, which is a poor filter.
Ad hominem.
Two people can believe the same thing while stating it in a completely different way. It can, in fact, sound completely different, yet be the exact same thing - it's the story o
Regardless of your animosity towards Christians I will oblige you with a response.
My mom is a Christian. Do I hate her, too? I know it's convenient for you to paint me as "hateful," but it isn't true. I practice, "Love the Christian, hate the Christianity."
Specifically the kidnap of any being is subject to the punishment of DEATH.
It's interesting that God would have prohibited kidnapping in some places and demanded it in others:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Num 31:17-18
So much for God's morality.
The fact is EVERY ABHORRENT ACT did not need to be categorized. That categorization is the defense used by people who cannot put forth a logical argument.
You claim that every abhorrent act did not need to be categorized, yet God does that very thing in the Old Testament. My complaint is that the Ten Commandments are supposedly the topmost and most important of these laws. Coveting made the "top ten" list, but rape and child torture didn't. How can you explain this?
So instead of filling your child with your hatred towards Christians, which can and may manifest itself in ways you never imagined or intended; in otherwords bigotry knows no bounds, perhaps it would be best to allow him to decide for himself.
I am a gay man. I understand very well how it feels to be hated considering that your Christian "brothers" promulgate it with every opportunity they have. They call me a child molester and a criminal even though I am a parent and an employer. They call me deviant and unstable even though my gay relationship has outlasted and been more stable than most of the straight ones I've come across. Try walking in my shoes for a day and then talk to me about hate.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
;)
"Some people you just can't reach." That's the line that comes next, right?
Christ is *not* saying in Matt 25 that these things are 12 steps to eternal life. It isn't a manual for how to be saved. He *is* saying that a life of faith will and must produce these works. The works themselves to not save the righteous -- their love of Christ does, which is manifest in their love of neighbor. This is clear from the text itself.
Here you are blatantly playing the game of "that's what it says, but that's not what it means." NOWHERE in the passage does Jesus say anything about a "life of faith" that you claim is so important. The only criteria that Jesus lists as entry into heaven are the five specific works.
Put another way: if (faith), then (good works). The inverse is also true. Lack of faith means no good works in the eyes of God. The converse is *not* true: good works does not produce faith.
Preaching dogma to me is not going to work. If faith were so important, then Jesus would have listed it as a criteria for the final judgement (as he did in other places). Jesus can't seem to make up his mind on the answer to the question, "What must I do to avoid ETERNAL TORTURE?" One would think that he, being the perfect God, would have chosen to be crystal clear on this subject.
Let's look at some other points of scripture. John 6:51 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Salvation, then, is attained by partaking of the means of grace found in the Christ, which can only be received through -- faith.
No, salvation comes from eating the bread. Look at what Jesus said! "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Did Jesus say, "If anyone has faith and eats this bread, he will live forever?" No! You inserted the word "faith".
"'I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.'" (John 10:9). This is very clear on the nature of salvation -- we are justified by our relationship to Christ, which we call faith.
Yes, here Jesus preaches faith. You'd think he might have mentioned those five works which are, according to Jesus, vital for entrance to heaven.
Please respond, indeed. I'm no apologist, but I think I have a better grasp of doctrine and scripture than others you may have argued with.
You claim to not be an apologist, but you argue very much like one. You treat the whole bible as a "context," you reinterpret scripture, and you gush about how awesome your religion is. Lots of Christians who have talked to me felt like they were going to be "the one" who inspired me to turn to Jesus. Who knows, maybe you will be "the one." But, judging from the weak, stupid things that you've written here, I'm not holding my breath.
He likes to bait people into this argument. You will not win this debate, because he will refuse to give you straight answers until you give up.
You fail to realize that its the AIDS apologists' duty to provide the answers, not mine. I am the skeptic. Convince me!
I just feel bad for any kid who even remotely buys into his idiocy and dies because of it.
Typical. A Christian whom I may be debating might say, "I jsut feel bad for any kid who even remotely buys into his idiocy and goes to hell because of it." Religious language from religious people.
What would such an experiment prove? Suppose I am right, and HIV is harmless or nonexistant. I inject myself with "HIV tainted blood" and, as expected, I suffer no ill effects from it.
How would the AIDS priests handle this? They would claim that I have a "genetic immunity" or that the "latency period" for me just happened to be really long. Nothing would be proven.
...and if you look at Matthew 25:14-30, if you bury a talent in the ground, you go to Hell. Hey, I'm just "reading the Bible for what it says," which according to you is how it should be read. I'm going to have a heck of a time burying my talent for art. How deep do you dig that hole?
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them." Mat 25:14
See the word "like" in there? This is a parable.
Now go back and re-read Mat 25:31-46. Do you see Jesus say that it was going to be that way, or did he use the word "like" as he did here?
So, according to you, reading something into context and placing a paragraph in context to the rest of the book is somehow wrong?
I'm not opposed to reading anything in context. I am opposed to Christians claiming that the entire Bible is a "context" whose meaning is "interpreted" to mean what they want it to mean rather than what it says.
You can pluck a handful of verses out of a single chapter of a single book, and have God's plan for salvation?
I can pluck all of the verses out of all the chapters in the Bible that have anything to do with salvation and you would have no hope of reconciling them.
Loundry's philosophy: But feel free to kidnap a child and rape him...
Way to live up to the stereotype of the smug and condescending Christian. Since I'm not a Christian, I must be deceived by Satan, right? I am completely evil and living for my own selfish desires, right?
So, if your son likes to rape little girls, it's okay? If he's a good person, and deserves to be happy, anything he does that makes him happy is by default also good. A good person cannot desire evil, after all.
Not only is my son allowed to rape little girls, but he must also beat and murder them as well. Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer.
Are you seeing where humanism starts to fall apart? Oh, I know, you'll dismiss it as "playing the pedophile card", instead of explaining why your "philosophy" is worth anything since it can't withstand the simplest of moral challenges.
First, I am an objectivist, not a humanist. Second, your superstitious Christian beliefs are incompatible with morality. Third, I am moral and my philosophy will withstand many of the moral challenged that yours will fail. How about this one: Do you admit that slavery is supported in both the Old Testament and the New Testament? If not, then please show me the chapter and verse that indicates that slavery is not part of "God's plan".
Rape: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Rape does not imply adultery. The perpetrator and the victim could both be unmarried.
Torture: Thou shalt not kill.
Torture does not imply killing (are you sure it isn't "thou shalt not murder"?). People have survived torture.
Kidnapping and slavery: Thou shalt not covet.
Slavery does not imply coveting. If a person is deemed to be property, then you could own it just like any other property which also does not imply coveting. Kidnapping also doesn't imply coveting, as one could conceievably kidnap on a whim.
Child abuse: Thou shalt not kill, and Honor thy father and mother.
Child abuse does not imply killing, nor does it imply disrespecting one's own father and mother.
Your defenses suck and my points stand.
Not good enough? Probably not for you, because you don't believe in "total context"; so you ignored the part where Jesus said that if you were angry with your brother without cause, then you violated "Thou shalt not kill".
You're right: "total context" is bullshit. It's something that Christians impose on the Bible to try and reconcile troublesome verses with "what the Bible *REALLY* means". Whether or not Jesus said that being angry with your brother without cause violates "thou shalt not kill" (chapter and verse?) is separate from the "total context" defense that you rely on so heavily.
It does mean that doing X, Y, Z will get you in (it's the contrapositive), but it does not mean that you must do X, Y, Z.
Incorrect. According to Jesus, you must do those five things if you want to get into heaven. Those are the only requirements. (Not that he doesn't contradict himself later, but that's a separate point.)
You haven't given proof that it can't, just said that you haven't seen proof that it is.
I also haven't given proof that there are no aliens or leprechauns or wizards or dragons. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. If you claim that there is something "divine," then pony up the evidence. I will not entertain claims for which there is no shred of evidence. I just don't have the time.
Do you want me to speak in sentences that are five lines long? This is the entire point of boiling things down.
I want you to speak in sentences that are just long enough to be accurate and complete in expressing your point. If that requires five sentences, then so be it. "Boiling things down" is a way of making something say something that it doesn't.
Reducing that to "those who do not help people in need go to hell" is presumptive, yes, but it is a logical extension.
Actually, it's "people who don't do the five things that Jesus listed go do hell." It's not presumptive or an extension. It's what Jesus said would happen.
You know, arguing against the Bible by strict interpretation is just as bad as arguing for it - the simple fact is that certain things that we're saying now could not even be said then. Did they even have words for some of the concepts we're talking about?
I agree that treating the Bible as something that means what it says and says what it means is bad for bible-believers. They have to contend with verses in which Jesus tells people that they must give up all their possessions and hate their entire family.
And then, of course, you completely throw out any possibility of metaphors, examples, and parables, where the meaning has to be inferred no matter what.
I agree there are parables in the Bible when the Bible states it's a parable. Metaphors are imposed upon scripture in order to play the "that's what it says, but that's not what it means" game.
Faith and works are the same thing - that's what I said.
James agrees with you, Paul does not. You have asserted that faith==works, but you have not given any evidence to support it. For instance, why do the five requirements that Jesus lists for salvation imply faith in anything?
No, you assumed that. I assumed nothing.
What the hell are you talking about? You stated that people can be saved, and therefore you assume that there is something to be saved from (hell, perhaps?) and thus implies a need to be saved. I don't believe any of those assumptions.
The usual answer is "yes, because they must believe in Christ", and it's flawed, because of what I said before - belief, faith, and works are the same thing.
That makes no sense. If I have good works, then I must necessarily believe the same thing as someone who has similar works?
What people need is an entirely different argument that I won't even begin to touch. And that was a red herring fallacy, by the way.
I disagree. If people can be saved, then how do you argue that they don't need to be saved?
It is: "The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis is the biggest medical fraud in human history." Hope this helps. It is a positive claim. It was advanced without context, on its own. No one (including myself) has thus far in this thread argued the contrary position, but have rather asked you to back up your claim.
.sig as a result. For me to claim that the HIV==AIDS hypothesis is a fraud is, in fact different from my saying that I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS (or that we need a definition of AIDS, etc). The first implies some kind of malicious thought, and I have no interest in conspiracy theories.
.sig. I still don't believe in HIV or AIDS.
You raise a good point, and I may have to change my
Do you have an alternative definitions?
Here you are assuming a point in dispute. I do not believe that HIV exists. Immune deficiency exists in absense of HIV -- even the HIV==AIDS apologists admit this. The existence of AIDS itself depends on the existence of HIV. Your demand that I come up with "alternative definitions" depends on these assumptions.
If a virus detected by a given test does not cause AIDS, then it is not HIV, by the very definitions of the terms. Your claim was specific and was contradicts to the very definitions of the terms.
And so what? I reject the terms as well. AIDS apologists like to pretend that we all have to accept that HIV exists and AIDS exists and HIV causes AIDS. I do not believe any of it. The burden of proof does not lie on me to prove why I do not believe something.
I made no such claims. Enjoy beating on that strawman.
On the contrary, you quoted the CDC as if their facts were true. You have assumed that HIV exists, AIDS exists, and that HIV causes AIDS.
You made a claim, someone else called you on it, you talked about something unrelated to your claim, I pointed out that that post didn't address your own claim. That's it.
Are you just mad that I used the word "fraud"? I retract it. I'll change by
I didn't make that claim, you made a claim related to it and are now attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Nice try. If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, then prove it. The burden of proof lies on you. You can't hide behind "definitions" that you support and pretend that you aren't piggybacking on those claims.
I say you examine a word in every instance that it is use (i.e. a word study) to get the general take on what the Biblical view is.
The "Biblical view"? What the hell is that? Let me guess: the Biblical view is what Christians "interpret" the Bible to mean. A "word study" is the session in which the "interpretation" happens. Am I correct in any way?
I'm assuming your response on this will be something like "How can they be different views when they say completely opposite things?"
Paul: You are saved by faith and faith alone.
James: You are saved by faith and works.
How is your "word study" going to work this one out? I know: you can have your word study come to the conclusion that "that's what it says, but that's not what it means." That's what "interpretation" comes down to, doesn't it?
Fine, don't believe me.
Your smug and condescending behavior is so unwarranted, but so expected. I'm used to catching shit from HIV apologists (and Christian apologists, the pinnacle of "smug and condescending"). Your rude words will neither move nor impress me AT ALL. You will have to rely on reason and evidence if you want me to change my mind.
Look up the evidence on your own as opposed to having some webpage summarize it for you (I'm talking legit research journals now)
Oh, I should be reading legit research journals. Well, how do I know which ones are "legit"? Can I decide for myself?
I have read the evidence and I find it lacking. Why has AIDS in North America been so radically different from AIDS in Africa? What is the scientific, medical reason for this?
I'm questioning Mullis's authority on the subject. I'm not so much attacking him as I am discrediting him.
Have fun discrediting Mullis. Does this mean you agree with all the other individuals represented on the virusmyth.net website? Did you think that you could discredit one and then just assume that all the rest of them are wrong about everything, too?