Is there any history that you believe in? Do you believe that the Holocast happened? How do you know as you were not there? You know because of the testimonies given by the survivors.
I think it's a mistake to equate the testimony of people who were actually there and are still alive today with a book written thousands of years ago that contradicts other existing histories.
That is exactly what the bible is.... it is a historical recording of facts from history. My point is that just because something is written down, even thousands of years ago, doesn't necessarly make it untrue.
Describing the bible as a historical document begs the question. The historical accuracy of the bible has not been demonstrated. And considering the fantastic nature of many of the things it describes, there is excellent reason to doubt it. I would not believe a Holocaust history that featured supernatural events.
I understand why you think that why.... but I disagree. For you, physical death is more important than spiritual death because you don't believe in spirtuality. However, if you do believe, spirtual death is far worse than physical death. Just because God didn't specifically say, "You will die spiritually" doesn't imply physical death.
No, the issue is not whether or not spiritual death is real or important. The issue is whether or not we should assume that "death" means "spiritual death" instead of the standard obvious definition of the word. You choose to believe it does because the alternative defies your personal world view. I choose (in the absence of evidence) not to believe it because I have no vested interest either way.
Our positions on the subject of christianity are fundamentally different. You choose to believe everything without evidence because you want to. I have no vested interest in believing in christianity, no special motive to do so, so I do not. Unless given evidence.
I find you statements interesting. If there is no God, who do you blame for all the "essential mindless injustice" in the world?
You misinterpret my statement. It is the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being punishing his creations for acting in the way that he designed them to act that I described as "essential mindless injustice". I do not believe that the concept of "justice" applies to the universe itself. People are just or unjust. The universe just is.
Thank you for those responses. However could you eloborate? What mircle "exactly" would you need to see? A person raised from the dead? You to be take to the surface of the Sun?
I don't know. But you know who would? The christian god, if he existed (all-knowing).
Additionally what questions would you need answered?
This is not a complete list, mind you, but for an impertinent start:
Why did you punish Adam and Eve for doing something that you knew they would do and for which you did not adequately prepare them?
Why are you so obsessed with people's sex lives?
A lot of your followers do a lot of bad things. Don't you feel this makes you look bad?
Sacrificing yourself to yourself to convince yourself to change a rule that you made yourself. Who were you trying to impress?
When will the Red Sox win the World Series?
Why do bad things happen to nice people? I mean, any goals an all-powerful being has can automatically be achieved without anyone suffering... unless the suffering is part of the goal itself. And that's just wrong.
The problem, of course, is that even if some being appeared out of nowhere and offered answers to these questions it wouldn't prove that that being was god.
Oh, I've seen it and used it many times. It's a fantastic resource, although it does seem to piss the christians off for some reason... can't imagine why...
I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.
Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.
The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.
I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.
Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.
I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.
God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.
I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.
God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus
Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.
The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for
Yes, nakedness was wrong AFTER she ate from the tree. The tree only made her realize that she was naked and she was ashamed. Why would God create Adam and Eve naked if it was wrong?
That's a very good question, since the scriptures don't support your belief that eating from the tree changed the definition of right and wrong. And why would they? The idea is ridiculous.
Only Satan makes the wrongs of the world.
Consider actually reading the bible, particularly Isaiah 45.
The tree was of the knowledge of good and evil, allowing both of them to discern the difference between the two. But even Eve said that if she ate from the tree she would surely die - how could she NOT know that it was wrong to eat from the tree?
You're confusing dangerous and wrong. Just because something will kill you doesn't make it wrong. Incidentally, despite god's claim that eating from the tree would kill them that day the reality turned out to be quite different. When god bluffs, he bluffs big.
Why would God give them a choice to sin if they weren't able to discern the difference between right and wrong?
Good question. You begin to approach an understanding of why the christian mythology does not make sense and why most people don't believe it.
And *I* go by heretical, anti-Christian doctrine?
I've supplied bible verses to support my arguments. You have not. Why do you think your mere opinion on the subject outweighs what you claim is the word of god? Is that not heresy? Is that not anti-christian?
I assumed you hadn't read it because you said He designed people to not know the difference from right and wrong. That is an incorrect statement. Adam and Eve were perfect in every way until they ate from the tree. They also understood that it was wrong to eat from the tree.
I understand why you claim this (as it's an important part of the jesus mythology) but the bible does not reflect your claim. Genesis 2 and 3 are very clear: being naked is defined as wrong. Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed until they ate of the tree. Clearly they did not know right from wrong until after they ate. And clearly this was by god's design because everything in the universe is by definition god's design (if you believe this sort of thing, anyway). Eve understood that god had said "hey, don't eat that" but she didn't know that it was wrong to disobey god. Not until she ate from the tree.
I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Yes. I'll go by what the bible actually says and you can go by heretical anti-christian doctrine.
Reality is what we percieve to be real. That is going to be different from person to person. There is no such thing as one reality.
So you claim that your god is not real, only that you perceive him to be real? That's an interesting admission from a christian.
It was only four years ago, a doctor cannot be considered a casual observer and since he was in a comma in hospital he had every available health monitoring system attached to him. But in saying that I never honestly expected you to believe me.
Evidence? But I suppose it is easier to claim that you don't expect to be believed and try to look like a victim of closed-minded atheists than it is to actually provide evidence.
Yep! Check out this or read the book, 'The Heavenly Man'. I understand that you may not find the article substantial and will probably never read the book, but do you really expect Communist China to document how one of their Christian prisoners survived with no food or water for 74 days and post it on the net?
So your evidence that he survived for 74 days without food and water is that he says he did? If you believe everything that everyone says even when what they say contradicts reality then you must work very hard to avoid listening to muslims or members of any other religion. Or do you only blindly believe things that confirm what you want to believe?
Wrong. Only a change of heart will do.
And now you're a mind reader too! Then again, jesus did promise his followers omnipotence so I suppose that makes sense. What other cool things have you done with your powers?
So God, Lucifer's loving father, kicks Lucifer right out. And that's not good enough! Nononono, he sends him down to a lake of fire, to, well, I don't know what to do. But he punishes his son by kicking him out of the house! What a system or morality he's got, really.
If this is true then all Lucifer has to do is return and God will welcome him back and kill the fatted calf, right? I mean, that's the right thing to do according to that Prodigal Son story christianity taught me.
Then, later on, he realizes he screwed up (in spite of the fact that "God doesn't make mistakes") and he has to learn about the "human condition" that he created.
Yeah, christians tend to say that god doesn't changehismind or create evil. Guess they should consider reading their holy book.
IF that's not the character of a megalomiac fascist dictator, I don't know what is. But it's obvious what model Hitler was copying. (Am I invoking Godwin's Law? Wait, I can't, can I?;) )
Well, Godwin's Law doesn't actually say that the discussion has to end, only that as a discussion on Usenet continues a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is inevitable. The "this discussion must end" bit was added by people who came out on the wrong side of those comparisons.:)
You need to read the Bible. He didn't design people to not know the difference from right and wrong. You have a conscience, right? There you go.
I have read the bible; Adam and Eve gained that knowledge by eating of the Tree of Knowledge.
Incidentally, why do christians always assume atheists haven't read the bible? Asimov put it best: "Properly read, the bible is the most powerful force for atheism ever devised." I was raised a christian; it just didn't take once I started thinking about what I was expected to believe.
If you believe that he didn't exist, then how can you ignore all of the evidence that supports his existance? The existance of Jesus was recorded by several different people in different places and at different times. The existance of Jesus is accepted by most scholars, including atheists.
This turns out not to be the case. There is quite a bit of doubt about the authenticity of the bible, especially since the gospel accounts were all written well after Jesus's time and contradict each other.
The problem there lies that the majority of people he interacted with (back then and even now) claimed that he was a healer, a great teacher, and a prophet. I doubt you would get the same response for the cults you refer to.
The majority of people who interacted with Hercules (according to the Greek writings we have) described him as a great hero. Is he real? Superman always seems to get good press in his various books. Do you see the point? All you have to describe Jesus's supposed actions is the bible, the authenticity of which is in grave doubt (since it contains many errors, inconsistencies and tales of things that didn't happen).
This is very much untrue. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven by many scholars. I would suggest you read the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. It contains several scientific references to why the bible is authentic.
It certainly has not been proven that the bible is divinely inspired or a true history. I suggest you read the variousrebuttals that have been written to Strobel's book.
They did know right from wrong, and we still do... by our conscious. But we "choose" to do wrong by our free will.
Reread Genesis; it was the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong that they ate from. God said they'd die, the snake said they wouldn't. Gee, they didn't die. But that's not the point; the point is that they didn't know right from wrong until they ate of the tree. And that's what pissed god off, that they learned right from wrong. Even though, being all-knowing, he knew in advance that this would happen.
God wishes that none shall perish (John 3: 16). All we have to do is to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour which saves us from our debt of sins and therefore we do not go to hell.
If he wished that none would perish, none would perish. All-powerful, remember? The christian god is the ultimate mafia boss. "Gee, that's a nice soul you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Jesus had to die not to change the rule, but to keep the rule. The consequence of sin is death (spirtual death) and therefore there has to be payment for our sins. And with Jesus's death, He pays the debt for us so we do not have to die.
The consequence of sin (according to christian beliefs) is only death because god wants it to be. If he didn't want that to be the consequence, it wouldn't be (all-powerful, remember?) God creates the rule, creates the consequence, creates beings that he knows will break the rule, then threatens to torture them for all eternity unless they jump through his hoops. If the christian god existed, by definition nothing would happen in this universe in anything other than the precise way in which that god wanted it to happen (all-powerful, remember?)
You are right. But not for the reasons you state. It's because people don't want to believe that we are sinful and not perfect.
This is an interesting theory. I assume you have evidence that atheists consider thems
Re:Sophistry
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure we question and analyze reality, we just believe in a different reality to you.
Reality isn't a function of belief; the fact that you think it is says just about all that needs to be said. (Not that that will stop me from rambling on.)
How else can you take the term 'raised from the dead'? He died and then he lived. He was dead and then he was raised back into life. He was pronounced dead (after slipping into a comma) but sat straight up and asked to go home 20 minutes later.
It's actually not uncommon (especially in the past) for people to appear dead to the casual observer but to actually still be alive and to recover. No gods required, just inadequate health observation abilities.
And as for 74 days without food and water being hardly abnormal? It's widely recognised that any more than about a week without water or seven weeks without food (dependent on fat stores) will cause death. This guy went 10 and a half weeks without both (and was daily beaten too).
You of course have documented evidence for this claim, which you will put right here:
Unfortunately some people choose to harden their hearts despite occurances that clearly defy long helf scientific and natural laws to prevent uncomfortableness.
Nope, we just demand evidence. It's the christians who have hardened hearts and closed minds. Ask me what'll make me not an atheist and you'll get a simple answer: scientific evidence of a god. Ask a christian what'll make them lose their faith in christianity and you'll get an emphatic "Nothing!"
Incidentally, if we ever did find evidence for a god, what makes you think it'd be yours?
It does seem to be a form of Pascal's Wager. I say it's safe to believe in God because if I'm right, good, and if not, well nothing lost. But then you say, "but by worshiping this one God you may offend another."
Yes, perhaps god doesn't mind if people don't worship him (especially if they've never heard of him) but gets really pissed if people have the audacity to worship some god they made up themselves. It's a slap in the face, say. Or maybe god is a celestial engineer who judges people based on whether or not they believe things that contradict reality. If they do, they are destroyed. If not, they move on to the next life. Who knows? It's rather senseless to claim that christianity is a particularly safe bet.
But there lies the problem. Not all religions are the same. Out of all the religions (that I've researched), Jesus was the only person to claim to be God. All of the other religions are people writing about other people who appeared to be God-like (but never claimed to be God).
You're obfuscating the truth. Most religions claim to have a god. Do you think muslims think allah is merely "god-like"? Be serious. Christianity is not the only religion to promote the idea of a god.
As a result of this, you basically have 2 choices. Either Jesus was wrong (because he was lying, crazy, etc) or he was right.
Or he was misquoted. Or he didn't exist. There's an entire universe of possibilities that you are trying to trick people into ignoring.
I don't believe he was lying or crazy because he knew that if he claimed to be God he would surely be killed.
By that same argument you believe that the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult weren't lying or crazy because they died for their faith. Wow, I'm convinced.
Additionally all of his diciples afterwards proclaimed to the world that he was God (dispite severe persecution).
This assumes that the stories laid out in the bible are true, something for which there is no evidence and which the majority of the people in the world do not believe.
While this is not all the evidence for Jesus, it sets a strong case that he indeed was God and died out of love for all people.
Actually, it rather doesn't. The whole idea of christianity is pretty nonsensical. An all-powerful, all-knowing god creates a race of beings that he knows will disobey him, initially because (by his own design) they don't know right from wrong. So he decides that they all have to go to hell. (Some christians will claim at this point that this isn't god's fault -- it's just that the can't abide sin. These christians misunderstand the meaning of "all-powerful".) Then he decides he doesn't like that. So, rather than simply change the way things work (all-powerful, remember?) he decides that jesus has to die. Jesus is god. So, god sacrifices himself to himself to change a rule that he made himself. Keep in mind that he knew all this in advance and that this is all his design.
And so everyone is supposed to feel grateful that god chose to momentarily inconvenience himself to convince himself to stop subjecting people to eternal punishment for things that they do because he designed them in such a way that they would do these things.
Is it any wonder that most people don't believe in this stuff? Of course it isn't.
Perhaps an article in Reader's Digest might be considered 'proof' beyond a reasonable doubt to you - but it was YEARS before the gov't (Surgeon General) acknowledged it. I believe it was 1964 in fact. Nonetheless, smoking in various forms had been going on for many years before this.
So despite the fact that you know that the government acknowledged that smoking was dangerous in 1964, you claimed that forty years ago science believed that smoking wasn't dangerous. Why do you lie so much? Is it a christian thing? It certainly matches my experience with christians on this forum.
What? I'm supposed to just roll over and ignore the obvious? Its an important argument and one that has precedent elsewhere. But I guess one man's slippery slope is another man's lift ticket to Hell. Happy trails!
It's not an argument at all, it's an assertion and a fairly stupid one. But I suppose I should expect no less from someone who thinks that threats from their pathetic mythology are impressive.
"...although again the quote marks are a grammatical error."
Uh, no they are not. You didn't use ignorant and bigot in the same context or together. I was paraphrasing the words.
That's just it, you'd use the quotation marks if you were quoting me. That's why they call them quotation marks. Hope that helps.
What are you now, an English teacher?
Nope, I just seem that way to people like you.
Speaking of doing new tricks... You can't provide any sort of proof whatever that homosexual marriage is some sort of civil right - not legally, not scientifically.
I don't have to provide proof, the Massachusetts Supreme Court already has, at least for that state. The others will follow, as the principle is clear. Why do you think the religious right and the neocons are attempting to amend the Constitution? Because they know that as it stands any law banning homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. All it took was someone to challenge it.
It's still a 'theory', not proven, not legalized (witness charges being brought on the New Paltz mayor today for an example of proof).
Yeah, and Rosa Parks was charged too. What's your point, that people engaging in civil disobedience often run afoul of the law? What a revelation!
We don't agree on this point: I feel homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE.
The evidence disagrees with you. Try reading something that doesn't come from fundies and you might learn a thing or two.
Minorities are what they are without choice.
"What they are?" Listen to your bigotry! Do you actually wear the white hood while you post? Do you honestly believe that it matters even the slightest bit what race a person is from?
This is why I think it is valid to ask the American people about whether or not alternative marriages should be recognized.
I'm not sure you want to use the word 'think' to describe the process by which you came to that conclusion. It sounds to me like you just repeat everything you read on fundy websites.
It comes down to this: If it IS choice, then my slippery slope argument holds water. Why? Because I might choose to have sex with an animal, or someone too young, or a host of other abominations.
The thing that your raging christian hatred makes you unable to understand is that even if homosexuality were a choice there would be nothing wrong with making that choice. There's nothing wrong with any sex act where all participants give informed consent (which, since you don't appear to have been paying attention to prior messages, means that children and animals are excluded).
Example: Is NAMBLA representing a lifestyle choice or a civil right? If you continue to blur the distinction there won't BE a distinction.
Your continuing equating of homosexuality with child molestation is offensive and moronic.
The constitution and the law in general was not designed with this sort of thing in mind nor was it designed to be flauted anytime a mayor thinks it should be.
Actually I think it's a great comparison. Sure, we know TODAY that smoking kills, but forty years ago there was little proof otherwise. People believed in the tobacco-backed studies.
Wrong. In 1952 Reader's Digest published "Cancer by the Carton", an article that detailed the dangers of smoking. Many similar articles followed.
My point was that science can and has been twisted into proving various points of view. In some things, like whether homosexuality is genetic, these things are still in debate.
Well, there are certainly organizations that publish inaccurate studies, but I'm talking about peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In YOUR opinion. Not mine. And *I'VE* explained repeatedly that it is not the job of you or the mayor of SF to make that determination. We have due process through the courts - that's the way we handle things here. Or should.
Do you think this isn't going to go to the courts?
Is this truly a model way of dealing with things you want to uphold? A coupla good ol' boys would just LOVE that sort o' justice. Yee HAW!
There you go with the idiot "slippery slope" argument. Don't you do any other tricks?
Really? Then why do YOU bother arguing the point, since it's a foregone conclusion? Why not just write me off as yet another 'ignorant' 'bigot'?
Oh I do, although again the quote marks are a grammatical error. I keep arguing the point because I believe bigotry and dishonesty should be fought, and because I love a debate.
I think you know how the vast majority of Americans feel about this particular issue and are troubled by it. You see it as a civil rights cause, most of the rest of us out here see it as just one more burden on the family as well as a legal nightmare.
I think I know how you assume the majority of Americans feel about this particular issue. I don't, however, care. After all, we didn't let bigots vote against desegregation, Abraham Lincoln didn't put the Emancipation Proclamation up to a popular vote; why would anyone think this issue should be put to a popular vote either?
"I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value."
Do you mean society in general or just this specific topic?
I mean that it is a mistake to insist on keeping some aspect of society just because it's traditional. Each aspect needs to be evaluated on its own individual merits and it is my opinion that tradition by itself has no weight.
"There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm..."
Yes, science will save us! Oh... Please go back 40 years and replace the words 'homosexual marriage' with 'smoking'. THAT'S science for you.
Not a very good example, since scientists have been saying for decades that smoking is addictive and harmful. People choose to smoke anyway. I don't understand the appeal of spending lots of money so I can inhale a foul-smelling, foul-tasting concoction that will kill me, but people have the right to do it if they want. As long as they aren't harming anyone else they can do as they please.
It's wrong to try to ban an action if there's no evidence that it's harmful to people other than the one taking the action.
The truth is, we don't know WHAT the truth is. But you apparently are willing to throw away what's worked for something that is untried here.
Yeah, we should still be living like they did in 1776 because it would be too dangerous to try anything new. You seem to believe that part of what makes marriage "work" is the fact that only heterosexuals partake in it. That doesn't make any sense.
And your side seems to have no compunction about flouting the law in California - a law by the way - voted on by the people in 2000.
I've explained repeatedly that the reasoning of SF's legal team is that the law is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. As for being voted on by the people, it is an error to think that the people have a right to vote on civil rights. If the people of California voted to ban interracial marriages then it would be right to ignore the law. We have the Constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
If you want gay marriage, then why not present it to the people that way? Why doesn't Kerry or Edwards speak up, speak out about the 'injustice' done to the homosexual community? Where are their voices for the cause?
Do you even read my messages? Didn't we just have a discussion on why politicians don't propose solutions to problems? Kerry and Edwards can get more mileage out of talking from both sides of their faces.
You have no legal mandate to do this. Even your lib friends are terrified of what such a bold statement would mean - at least Bush has been honest about where he stands - not that he would expect any support from the homosexual community at large anyway.
I'm not doing anything, but the people who are doing something are doing it based on their interpretation of their various state Constitutions. Civil disobedience is a proud tradition in the United States and it's nice to see that some people still have the guts to stand up for what's right.
Don't talk to me of civil rights when you have the very fabric of our law being torn in half over this issue with everyone just standing around trying to figure out what the next move should be.
You drastically overestimate the importance of this issue. Our society is not going to collapse when homosexuals start getting married. The sky is not falling. As for not talking about civil rights, civil rights outweigh every other consideration. If oppressing the civil rights of a single individual could make life perfect for everyone in the United States, to do so would still be unconstitutional and unacceptable.
No, you are here because of this 'unusual occurance' of children. Marriages often result in children. It IS an underlying purpose and it goes to the heart of our society (and any others I can think of).
I never said that having children was "unusual" in marriage. You are attempting to dishonestly put words in my mouth. I said that it was not a requirement. You failed to respond to the point about marriages being given to people that the state knows will not have children. As long as having children is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage it is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage.
Some of them will be rewritten to accomodate this exception. Some of them are just IGNORED like they are in SF and New Paltz. I suppose it would be better to do all this legally, but that again, doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
Please list the laws that you think will be rewritten.
Your belief and mine differ about homosexuality. It's this definition that defines the whole argument: Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is - heterosexuality is the natural order. Being black or hispanic isn't a choice and therefore their civil rights are (to me at least), defendable.
There is substantial medical and psychological evidence to indicate that it is not a choice, but I doubt that matters to you. As for the matter of choice, you're missing the point. Interracial marriages are legal not because people don't have a choice about what race they are but because race is irrelevant to the subject of marriage. Given the conditions under which marriage licenses are granted, orientation appears to be irrelevant as well. Certainly no one has yet presented a valid argument against it.
"These are undeniable facts.."
Uhmmm.. To use netspeak: Bwahahahahaha! If this argument has proven ANYTHING, it's that there are no such things.
Don't be dishonest. That line came after my listing of the conditions under which marriage license are currently given. Do do deny that licenses are given to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or who simply don't want children?
I think that your side bends reality around thousands of years of tradition for self-interest. Evidently, you don't agree with me.
I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value. There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm society so there is on reason to ban it.
So it's all a joke, right? I'm glad you can laugh about it. This is what I mean about the 'institution' of marriage being weakened. But what the hell, its no big deal, right?
It does not follow that someone making (what I will for the sake of argument call) an "artistic statement" will damage the institution of marriage. You're being hysterical.
Uhmmm, that's a little extreme for an example, isn't it? Yates is hardly a common model - there will always be exceptions.
It's a data point, one more than you've provided. It shows that a traditional christian family is no guarantee that any children produced will be raised well, or at all.
You wouldn't be here yourself without a mom and dad (no matter how badly they treated you). And you know what? NO homosexual alive today became a person otherwise - even artificially. Until that basic biology changes, this exception (in the form of marriage), should remain one.
You are making a common error: assuming that marriage and its associated civil benefits are for the purpose of providing for children. A lot of people believe this, but the facts show otherwise. Marriage licenses are routinely granted to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or who simply don't want children. Meanwhile, such licenses are routinely denied to homosexual couples that are raising children through adoption or artificial insemination. Marriage is a partnership between two adults which may or may not result in children. These are undeniable facts, however much the religious right would like to claim otherwise. The benefits to marriage (which go beyond financial considerations) are to facilitate and benefit that partnership.
I understand this all too well. I'M not the one rewriting the traditional definition of marriage here:
'The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.'
So if you can rewrite what this means, why stop there? What IS age but a number, right? My point is that your type sets no boundries, no limits. That would be discriminatory, right?
This argument is not based on reality No one is suggesting that the marriage laws be rewritten. What the court has decided is that the existing law allows homosexual couples to get married.
You are making the same arguments that were made against interracial marriages years ago. They were stupid then than they're stupid now.
WTF - whose being 'dishonest' now? Of course I agreed with that decision because their local gov't officials were BREAKING THE LAW. You know, like they are in SF. Of course, you won't see a beatdown there, but in light of the attitude displayed there, I wouldn't mind it.
You're the one who said that because I talked about the use of the National Guard to facilitate desegregation I was reminiscent of Hitler (echoing my earlier comment). That implied that you disagreed with the use of the Guard, if not with desegregation in general.
Well, that's the whole thing about opinion. I explained my point of view but I didn't expect him or you to accept that. I happen to think there's plenty of evidence, but then when you define reality so differently, there's going to be little, if any common ground.
If you really had evidence you'd be able to show some. Your problem is that you think that assertions made by groups like the Family Research Council constitute evidence. It's a common mistake.
No, no dishonesty (unless you think you were really supposed to believe it), rhetorical statements. I truly believe that the breaking of the definition of marriage will lead to such travesties. You don't have to share that view, but that doesn't make me a fucking LIAR!
The dishonesty is in stating your opinion as though it were fact. I don't doubt that you honestly believe what you're saying, but I tend to agree with
Ah, I see we're getting into insult territory now...
This is where any meaningful civil discourse ends unless you have something reasonable to say for yourself.
Don't flee from hyperbole; If you don't want to continue this discussion just say so.
If you really wanted to have a good argument, you'd find a way to weasel out of explaining how our lawmakers/breakers are operating in SF currently. I see that you didn't/couldn't do that. Why not just simply admit that what they are doing is WRONG? Righteous indignation stuck in your throat?
The argument that the mayors of SF and that town in NY whose name I can't be bothered to look up are making is that the anti-homosexual-marriage laws violate the Constitutions of their respective states. Based on the fact that the wording of the Constitutions in question is very similar to that of Massachusetts, it's not an unreasonable argument. Civil disobedience in the face of invalid or unjust laws is a proud tradition in the United States, starting from the American revolution. The way you talk, it sounds like you would have opposed that revolution.
Too bad, because I've enjoyed 'chatting' with you all the same.
If you're going to run away, don't try to blame me. You snipped every argument I made to focus on one line; that's pretty cowardly.
This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I tell my liberal friends to let go of their hate. The hate for anything you disagree with shows it's disrespect - don't think that I or the majority of Americans you spit on don't see it.
Actual, it's the neocons like you who are filled with hate. Your messages reek of hate for homosexuals and for freedom. Moderates like me have a live-and-let-live attitude that makes us seek equality for all.
Gee, when I read this article it says that although her local equivalent to a Justice of the Peace is humoring her, the marriage has no official standing. I wonder what the article said when you read it that made you think it was relevant.
I couldn't put it better than the Family Research Council on why homosexual marriages damage the traditional family.
I applaud you on your sense of irony. You say that you won't trust a poll conducted by the "liberal media" (not that I'm arguing for the validity of self-selected internet polls) but you try to present the Family Research Council as an unbiased source?!? Clearly you are hoping for a +1, Funny mod.
"...the most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what 'marriage' is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.
Newsflash: people's understanding of marriage has changed, and for the better. No longer do spouses feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships because they think divorce makes baby jesus cry.
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
This isn't evidence; this is merely opinion. If you have actual facts (as opposed to christian propaganda) to back your argument up, please present them. As for fears about homosexual adoption, homosexual couples are already adopting children and there are no independent studies to suggest that there are any disadvantages to those children. What's im
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights - that's what's stated but that isn't it at all. The real problem can only be seen by those who have the foresight and moral outrage to realize what's next.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Very common, very stupid, and very wrong. Unless you can show some evidence for your paranoid delusions.
When you continue to breakdown the fundamental building blocks of family, you risk the destruction of this country. Today it's gay marriage - which makes no sense to me since a man/man or woman/woman can never hope to bear children on their own - something that the majority of us will do.
You imply that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. This is a common argument but one that (surprise!) ignores the facts. The facts are that marriage licenses are routinely granted to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or simply don't want children, and are routinely denied to homosexual couples that are raising children through adoption or artificial insemination. Marriage rights in the United States have nothing to do with children.
Marriage is a commitment for society as well as to your partner. It is a civil act and forms the basis for society at it's core.
It's a condition that grants very real benefits, but only to certain couples. It's an inherently unjust situation. You imply that married couples repay society for the benefits they get, but I doubt you'll be able to provide any actual evidence of your claim.
You liberals think nothing of mocking the traditional view, but it's a view that was formed over thousands of years. Without preamble, you would have the true meaning of it destroyed or at least severely weakened.
You severely overestimate the value of the views that people have had over the past several thousand years. They held slaves; they persecuted people who believed differently than them; they oppressed minorities and women; hell some of them feared the left-handed! Frankly, the people of the past were morons and if it were feasible to send troops back in time to beat the shit out of them we'd probably all be better off! (Ok, so that last bit is something of an exaggeration:).
Don't quote the Founding Fathers. If they saw what you were trying to do they'd be disgusted. People forget that although this country was founded on reigious tolerance it was understood that meant CHRISTIAN forms of religion. In the early days of this nation they used to burn people at the stake for anything less. The Founders never intended for this sort of thing.
Actually, the founding fathers would disagree with you. The United States has never been a christian nation and it's high time people stopped lying about that.
But the worst is what's to come next out of the travesty that is gay marriage. EXAMPLE: In Holland, you recently had a woman marry HERSELF. Could this have happened with a strict definition of marriage?
I'm sure you have a cite for this claim, which you will provide in your reply.
How about a man who wants to marry his sheep?
If you honestly believe that this follows from gay marriage you are probably too stupid to understand my reply, but I'll play along: people can't marry animals because animals (and children, for that is the other idiot claim that bigots use in the slippery slope argument) cannot give informed consent.
Like my own? There are some things that are more important than SELF INTEREST. Where my tolerance becomes outrage is when the actions of others begin to affect me, my family, my nation.
You'll now explain precisely how two homosexuals getting married affects you.
Don't pretend that gay marriage is somehow innocent of that crime.
The judiciary is entitled to strike down inproper laws and interpret proper ones.
and this one:
If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist.
contradict each other.
Ok, so they don't so much contradict each other as support each other and mean the same thing. That'll teach me a lesson about reading posts too quickly. Still, when judges strike down unconstitutional laws the neo-cons always whine about "judicial activism", trying to convince people that the judges are stepping outside the boundaries of their role, when in fact they are performing that role.
Further, judges can strike down legislation that is unconstitutional
And this is exactly what happened. The judges determined that denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples violated the Massachusetts State Constitution. It was the correct decision and they were completely within their power to make it.
The judiciary is entitled to strike down inproper laws and interpret proper ones.
and this one:
If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist.
contradict each other. If the Supreme Court determine that a law is unconstitutional, it is not valid and is immediately struck down. This is part of the function of that court. Neo-conservatives don't like this, but their opinions on the subject don't matter. As much as Bush would like to get rid of the Supreme Court and other restraints on his power, he has no ability to do so.
Once upon a time the people demanding freedom were the christians wanting to support christian morals. They wrote a constitution based upon their freedom.
No. The framers of the Constitution were largely deists, and the United States was never a christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves this. It's a common misconception (to be generous) to claim that the United States was founded on christianity, but it isn't true.
It worked fine until recently, when being free and being christian were different ideas.
These have always been different ideas. Christianity is all about obedience, not freedom. Try reading the bible.
Not the only circumstance, but the tone of your post sure made it sound that way to me.
I won't pretend to like christianity but I wouldn't say I have a grudge against it. To my mind that implies a degree of significance to my life that the subject does not merit.
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll take a look sometime. I've actually been looking for something like that for awhile, so having a recommendation is nice. Is the writing style fairly informal, or more scholarly?
The style is fairly scholarly, but it isn't too dry, I don't think.
You and whoever marked this insightful really have some kind of grudge against Christianity. That's sad. I've got a reading recommendation for you - and it covers the good and bad (including the tired old Inquisition and witch trials) in case you were going to object on those grounds.
I don't know about the person who marked me insightful, but as for me I find it interesting that you claim I have some kind of grudge against christianity. Is that really the only circumstance under which you can imagine someone criticizing it? That would really show a lack of imagination. I also note that you didn't reply to any of my actual points. That's not particularly suprising, but it is rather sad.
With regards to the reading recommendation, the blurb from the publisher begins "Had Jesus never been born, this world would be far more miserable than it is." Doesn't sound very neutral to me. But since you were kind enough to make a recommendation to me, let me make one for you. This one isn't neutral either, of course, but it's non-neutral in the other direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any history that you believe in? Do you believe that the Holocast happened? How do you know as you were not there? You know because of the testimonies given by the survivors.
I think it's a mistake to equate the testimony of people who were actually there and are still alive today with a book written thousands of years ago that contradicts other existing histories.
That is exactly what the bible is.... it is a historical recording of facts from history. My point is that just because something is written down, even thousands of years ago, doesn't necessarly make it untrue.
Describing the bible as a historical document begs the question. The historical accuracy of the bible has not been demonstrated. And considering the fantastic nature of many of the things it describes, there is excellent reason to doubt it. I would not believe a Holocaust history that featured supernatural events.
I understand why you think that why.... but I disagree. For you, physical death is more important than spiritual death because you don't believe in spirtuality. However, if you do believe, spirtual death is far worse than physical death. Just because God didn't specifically say, "You will die spiritually" doesn't imply physical death.
No, the issue is not whether or not spiritual death is real or important. The issue is whether or not we should assume that "death" means "spiritual death" instead of the standard obvious definition of the word. You choose to believe it does because the alternative defies your personal world view. I choose (in the absence of evidence) not to believe it because I have no vested interest either way.
Our positions on the subject of christianity are fundamentally different. You choose to believe everything without evidence because you want to. I have no vested interest in believing in christianity, no special motive to do so, so I do not. Unless given evidence.
I find you statements interesting. If there is no God, who do you blame for all the "essential mindless injustice" in the world?
You misinterpret my statement. It is the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being punishing his creations for acting in the way that he designed them to act that I described as "essential mindless injustice". I do not believe that the concept of "justice" applies to the universe itself. People are just or unjust. The universe just is.
Thank you for those responses. However could you eloborate? What mircle "exactly" would you need to see? A person raised from the dead? You to be take to the surface of the Sun?
I don't know. But you know who would? The christian god, if he existed (all-knowing).
Additionally what questions would you need answered?
This is not a complete list, mind you, but for an impertinent start:
Why did you punish Adam and Eve for doing something that you knew they would do and for which you did not adequately prepare them?
Why are you so obsessed with people's sex lives?
A lot of your followers do a lot of bad things. Don't you feel this makes you look bad?
Sacrificing yourself to yourself to convince yourself to change a rule that you made yourself. Who were you trying to impress?
When will the Red Sox win the World Series?
Why do bad things happen to nice people? I mean, any goals an all-powerful being has can automatically be achieved without anyone suffering... unless the suffering is part of the goal itself. And that's just wrong.
The problem, of course, is that even if some being appeared out of nowhere and offered answers to these questions it wouldn't prove that that being was god.
I've read your comments on this issue, bamberg. Thanks for giving me some hope in the existence of some rational human beings :-)
:)
Thanks. It's helpful to know I'm not the only one who hasn't been taken in.
You might enjoy this link: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Oh, I've seen it and used it many times. It's a fantastic resource, although it does seem to piss the christians off for some reason... can't imagine why...
Flamebait, huh? Typically /. rating for something that truthfully answers the question. lol!
Probably not flamebait, but definitely not proof.
I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.
Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.
The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.
I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.
Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.
I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.
God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.
I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.
God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus
Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.
The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for
Yes, nakedness was wrong AFTER she ate from the tree. The tree only made her realize that she was naked and she was ashamed. Why would God create Adam and Eve naked if it was wrong?
That's a very good question, since the scriptures don't support your belief that eating from the tree changed the definition of right and wrong. And why would they? The idea is ridiculous.
Only Satan makes the wrongs of the world.
Consider actually reading the bible, particularly Isaiah 45.
The tree was of the knowledge of good and evil, allowing both of them to discern the difference between the two. But even Eve said that if she ate from the tree she would surely die - how could she NOT know that it was wrong to eat from the tree?
You're confusing dangerous and wrong. Just because something will kill you doesn't make it wrong. Incidentally, despite god's claim that eating from the tree would kill them that day the reality turned out to be quite different. When god bluffs, he bluffs big.
Why would God give them a choice to sin if they weren't able to discern the difference between right and wrong?
Good question. You begin to approach an understanding of why the christian mythology does not make sense and why most people don't believe it.
And *I* go by heretical, anti-Christian doctrine?
I've supplied bible verses to support my arguments. You have not. Why do you think your mere opinion on the subject outweighs what you claim is the word of god? Is that not heresy? Is that not anti-christian?
I assumed you hadn't read it because you said He designed people to not know the difference from right and wrong. That is an incorrect statement. Adam and Eve were perfect in every way until they ate from the tree. They also understood that it was wrong to eat from the tree.
I understand why you claim this (as it's an important part of the jesus mythology) but the bible does not reflect your claim. Genesis 2 and 3 are very clear: being naked is defined as wrong. Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed until they ate of the tree. Clearly they did not know right from wrong until after they ate. And clearly this was by god's design because everything in the universe is by definition god's design (if you believe this sort of thing, anyway). Eve understood that god had said "hey, don't eat that" but she didn't know that it was wrong to disobey god. Not until she ate from the tree.
I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Yes. I'll go by what the bible actually says and you can go by heretical anti-christian doctrine.
Reality is what we percieve to be real. That is going to be different from person to person. There is no such thing as one reality.
So you claim that your god is not real, only that you perceive him to be real? That's an interesting admission from a christian.
It was only four years ago, a doctor cannot be considered a casual observer and since he was in a comma in hospital he had every available health monitoring system attached to him. But in saying that I never honestly expected you to believe me.
Evidence? But I suppose it is easier to claim that you don't expect to be believed and try to look like a victim of closed-minded atheists than it is to actually provide evidence.
Yep! Check out this or read the book, 'The Heavenly Man'. I understand that you may not find the article substantial and will probably never read the book, but do you really expect Communist China to document how one of their Christian prisoners survived with no food or water for 74 days and post it on the net?
So your evidence that he survived for 74 days without food and water is that he says he did? If you believe everything that everyone says even when what they say contradicts reality then you must work very hard to avoid listening to muslims or members of any other religion. Or do you only blindly believe things that confirm what you want to believe?
Wrong. Only a change of heart will do.
And now you're a mind reader too! Then again, jesus did promise his followers omnipotence so I suppose that makes sense. What other cool things have you done with your powers?
So God, Lucifer's loving father, kicks Lucifer right out. And that's not good enough! Nononono, he sends him down to a lake of fire, to, well, I don't know what to do. But he punishes his son by kicking him out of the house! What a system or morality he's got, really.
;) )
:)
If this is true then all Lucifer has to do is return and God will welcome him back and kill the fatted calf, right? I mean, that's the right thing to do according to that Prodigal Son story christianity taught me.
Then, later on, he realizes he screwed up (in spite of the fact that "God doesn't make mistakes") and he has to learn about the "human condition" that he created.
Yeah, christians tend to say that god doesn't change his mind or create evil. Guess they should consider reading their holy book.
IF that's not the character of a megalomiac fascist dictator, I don't know what is. But it's obvious what model Hitler was copying. (Am I invoking Godwin's Law? Wait, I can't, can I?
Well, Godwin's Law doesn't actually say that the discussion has to end, only that as a discussion on Usenet continues a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is inevitable. The "this discussion must end" bit was added by people who came out on the wrong side of those comparisons.
You need to read the Bible. He didn't design people to not know the difference from right and wrong. You have a conscience, right? There you go.
I have read the bible; Adam and Eve gained that knowledge by eating of the Tree of Knowledge.
Incidentally, why do christians always assume atheists haven't read the bible? Asimov put it best: "Properly read, the bible is the most powerful force for atheism ever devised." I was raised a christian; it just didn't take once I started thinking about what I was expected to believe.
If you believe that he didn't exist, then how can you ignore all of the evidence that supports his existance? The existance of Jesus was recorded by several different people in different places and at different times. The existance of Jesus is accepted by most scholars, including atheists.
This turns out not to be the case. There is quite a bit of doubt about the authenticity of the bible, especially since the gospel accounts were all written well after Jesus's time and contradict each other.
The problem there lies that the majority of people he interacted with (back then and even now) claimed that he was a healer, a great teacher, and a prophet. I doubt you would get the same response for the cults you refer to.
The majority of people who interacted with Hercules (according to the Greek writings we have) described him as a great hero. Is he real? Superman always seems to get good press in his various books. Do you see the point? All you have to describe Jesus's supposed actions is the bible, the authenticity of which is in grave doubt (since it contains many errors, inconsistencies and tales of things that didn't happen).
This is very much untrue. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven by many scholars. I would suggest you read the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. It contains several scientific references to why the bible is authentic.
It certainly has not been proven that the bible is divinely inspired or a true history. I suggest you read the various rebuttals that have been written to Strobel's book.
They did know right from wrong, and we still do... by our conscious. But we "choose" to do wrong by our free will.
Reread Genesis; it was the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong that they ate from. God said they'd die, the snake said they wouldn't. Gee, they didn't die. But that's not the point; the point is that they didn't know right from wrong until they ate of the tree. And that's what pissed god off, that they learned right from wrong. Even though, being all-knowing, he knew in advance that this would happen.
God wishes that none shall perish (John 3: 16). All we have to do is to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour which saves us from our debt of sins and therefore we do not go to hell.
If he wished that none would perish, none would perish. All-powerful, remember? The christian god is the ultimate mafia boss. "Gee, that's a nice soul you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Jesus had to die not to change the rule, but to keep the rule. The consequence of sin is death (spirtual death) and therefore there has to be payment for our sins. And with Jesus's death, He pays the debt for us so we do not have to die.
The consequence of sin (according to christian beliefs) is only death because god wants it to be. If he didn't want that to be the consequence, it wouldn't be (all-powerful, remember?) God creates the rule, creates the consequence, creates beings that he knows will break the rule, then threatens to torture them for all eternity unless they jump through his hoops. If the christian god existed, by definition nothing would happen in this universe in anything other than the precise way in which that god wanted it to happen (all-powerful, remember?)
You are right. But not for the reasons you state. It's because people don't want to believe that we are sinful and not perfect.
This is an interesting theory. I assume you have evidence that atheists consider thems
Sure we question and analyze reality, we just believe in a different reality to you.
Reality isn't a function of belief; the fact that you think it is says just about all that needs to be said. (Not that that will stop me from rambling on.)
How else can you take the term 'raised from the dead'? He died and then he lived. He was dead and then he was raised back into life. He was pronounced dead (after slipping into a comma) but sat straight up and asked to go home 20 minutes later.
It's actually not uncommon (especially in the past) for people to appear dead to the casual observer but to actually still be alive and to recover. No gods required, just inadequate health observation abilities.
And as for 74 days without food and water being hardly abnormal? It's widely recognised that any more than about a week without water or seven weeks without food (dependent on fat stores) will cause death. This guy went 10 and a half weeks without both (and was daily beaten too).
You of course have documented evidence for this claim, which you will put right here:
Unfortunately some people choose to harden their hearts despite occurances that clearly defy long helf scientific and natural laws to prevent uncomfortableness.
Nope, we just demand evidence. It's the christians who have hardened hearts and closed minds. Ask me what'll make me not an atheist and you'll get a simple answer: scientific evidence of a god. Ask a christian what'll make them lose their faith in christianity and you'll get an emphatic "Nothing!"
Incidentally, if we ever did find evidence for a god, what makes you think it'd be yours?
It does seem to be a form of Pascal's Wager. I say it's safe to believe in God because if I'm right, good, and if not, well nothing lost. But then you say, "but by worshiping this one God you may offend another."
Yes, perhaps god doesn't mind if people don't worship him (especially if they've never heard of him) but gets really pissed if people have the audacity to worship some god they made up themselves. It's a slap in the face, say. Or maybe god is a celestial engineer who judges people based on whether or not they believe things that contradict reality. If they do, they are destroyed. If not, they move on to the next life. Who knows? It's rather senseless to claim that christianity is a particularly safe bet.
But there lies the problem. Not all religions are the same. Out of all the religions (that I've researched), Jesus was the only person to claim to be God. All of the other religions are people writing about other people who appeared to be God-like (but never claimed to be God).
You're obfuscating the truth. Most religions claim to have a god. Do you think muslims think allah is merely "god-like"? Be serious. Christianity is not the only religion to promote the idea of a god.
As a result of this, you basically have 2 choices. Either Jesus was wrong (because he was lying, crazy, etc) or he was right.
Or he was misquoted. Or he didn't exist. There's an entire universe of possibilities that you are trying to trick people into ignoring.
I don't believe he was lying or crazy because he knew that if he claimed to be God he would surely be killed.
By that same argument you believe that the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult weren't lying or crazy because they died for their faith. Wow, I'm convinced.
Additionally all of his diciples afterwards proclaimed to the world that he was God (dispite severe persecution).
This assumes that the stories laid out in the bible are true, something for which there is no evidence and which the majority of the people in the world do not believe.
While this is not all the evidence for Jesus, it sets a strong case that he indeed was God and died out of love for all people.
Actually, it rather doesn't. The whole idea of christianity is pretty nonsensical. An all-powerful, all-knowing god creates a race of beings that he knows will disobey him, initially because (by his own design) they don't know right from wrong. So he decides that they all have to go to hell. (Some christians will claim at this point that this isn't god's fault -- it's just that the can't abide sin. These christians misunderstand the meaning of "all-powerful".) Then he decides he doesn't like that. So, rather than simply change the way things work (all-powerful, remember?) he decides that jesus has to die. Jesus is god. So, god sacrifices himself to himself to change a rule that he made himself. Keep in mind that he knew all this in advance and that this is all his design.
And so everyone is supposed to feel grateful that god chose to momentarily inconvenience himself to convince himself to stop subjecting people to eternal punishment for things that they do because he designed them in such a way that they would do these things.
Is it any wonder that most people don't believe in this stuff? Of course it isn't.
Perhaps an article in Reader's Digest might be considered 'proof' beyond a reasonable doubt to you - but it was YEARS before the gov't (Surgeon General) acknowledged it. I believe it was 1964 in fact. Nonetheless, smoking in various forms had been going on for many years before this.
So despite the fact that you know that the government acknowledged that smoking was dangerous in 1964, you claimed that forty years ago science believed that smoking wasn't dangerous. Why do you lie so much? Is it a christian thing? It certainly matches my experience with christians on this forum.
What? I'm supposed to just roll over and ignore the obvious? Its an important argument and one that has precedent elsewhere. But I guess one man's slippery slope is another man's lift ticket to Hell. Happy trails!
It's not an argument at all, it's an assertion and a fairly stupid one. But I suppose I should expect no less from someone who thinks that threats from their pathetic mythology are impressive.
"...although again the quote marks are a grammatical error."
Uh, no they are not. You didn't use ignorant and bigot in the same context or together. I was paraphrasing the words.
That's just it, you'd use the quotation marks if you were quoting me. That's why they call them quotation marks. Hope that helps.
What are you now, an English teacher?
Nope, I just seem that way to people like you.
Speaking of doing new tricks... You can't provide any sort of proof whatever that homosexual marriage is some sort of civil right - not legally, not scientifically.
I don't have to provide proof, the Massachusetts Supreme Court already has, at least for that state. The others will follow, as the principle is clear. Why do you think the religious right and the neocons are attempting to amend the Constitution? Because they know that as it stands any law banning homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. All it took was someone to challenge it.
It's still a 'theory', not proven, not legalized (witness charges being brought on the New Paltz mayor today for an example of proof).
Yeah, and Rosa Parks was charged too. What's your point, that people engaging in civil disobedience often run afoul of the law? What a revelation!
We don't agree on this point: I feel homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE.
The evidence disagrees with you. Try reading something that doesn't come from fundies and you might learn a thing or two.
Minorities are what they are without choice.
"What they are?" Listen to your bigotry! Do you actually wear the white hood while you post? Do you honestly believe that it matters even the slightest bit what race a person is from?
This is why I think it is valid to ask the American people about whether or not alternative marriages should be recognized.
I'm not sure you want to use the word 'think' to describe the process by which you came to that conclusion. It sounds to me like you just repeat everything you read on fundy websites.
It comes down to this: If it IS choice, then my slippery slope argument holds water. Why? Because I might choose to have sex with an animal, or someone too young, or a host of other abominations.
The thing that your raging christian hatred makes you unable to understand is that even if homosexuality were a choice there would be nothing wrong with making that choice. There's nothing wrong with any sex act where all participants give informed consent (which, since you don't appear to have been paying attention to prior messages, means that children and animals are excluded).
Example: Is NAMBLA representing a lifestyle choice or a civil right? If you continue to blur the distinction there won't BE a distinction.
Your continuing equating of homosexuality with child molestation is offensive and moronic.
The constitution and the law in general was not designed with this sort of thing in mind nor was it designed to be flauted anytime a mayor thinks it should be.
He's not flouting it, he's upholding it.
Actually I think it's a great comparison. Sure, we know TODAY that smoking kills, but forty years ago there was little proof otherwise. People believed in the tobacco-backed studies.
Wrong. In 1952 Reader's Digest published "Cancer by the Carton", an article that detailed the dangers of smoking. Many similar articles followed.
My point was that science can and has been twisted into proving various points of view. In some things, like whether homosexuality is genetic, these things are still in debate.
Well, there are certainly organizations that publish inaccurate studies, but I'm talking about peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In YOUR opinion. Not mine. And *I'VE* explained repeatedly that it is not the job of you or the mayor of SF to make that determination. We have due process through the courts - that's the way we handle things here. Or should.
Do you think this isn't going to go to the courts?
Is this truly a model way of dealing with things you want to uphold? A coupla good ol' boys would just LOVE that sort o' justice. Yee HAW!
There you go with the idiot "slippery slope" argument. Don't you do any other tricks?
Really? Then why do YOU bother arguing the point, since it's a foregone conclusion? Why not just write me off as yet another 'ignorant' 'bigot'?
Oh I do, although again the quote marks are a grammatical error. I keep arguing the point because I believe bigotry and dishonesty should be fought, and because I love a debate.
I think you know how the vast majority of Americans feel about this particular issue and are troubled by it. You see it as a civil rights cause, most of the rest of us out here see it as just one more burden on the family as well as a legal nightmare.
I think I know how you assume the majority of Americans feel about this particular issue. I don't, however, care. After all, we didn't let bigots vote against desegregation, Abraham Lincoln didn't put the Emancipation Proclamation up to a popular vote; why would anyone think this issue should be put to a popular vote either?
"I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value."
Do you mean society in general or just this specific topic?
I mean that it is a mistake to insist on keeping some aspect of society just because it's traditional. Each aspect needs to be evaluated on its own individual merits and it is my opinion that tradition by itself has no weight.
"There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm..."
Yes, science will save us! Oh... Please go back 40 years and replace the words 'homosexual marriage' with 'smoking'. THAT'S science for you.
Not a very good example, since scientists have been saying for decades that smoking is addictive and harmful. People choose to smoke anyway. I don't understand the appeal of spending lots of money so I can inhale a foul-smelling, foul-tasting concoction that will kill me, but people have the right to do it if they want. As long as they aren't harming anyone else they can do as they please.
It's wrong to try to ban an action if there's no evidence that it's harmful to people other than the one taking the action.
The truth is, we don't know WHAT the truth is. But you apparently are willing to throw away what's worked for something that is untried here.
Yeah, we should still be living like they did in 1776 because it would be too dangerous to try anything new. You seem to believe that part of what makes marriage "work" is the fact that only heterosexuals partake in it. That doesn't make any sense.
And your side seems to have no compunction about flouting the law in California - a law by the way - voted on by the people in 2000.
I've explained repeatedly that the reasoning of SF's legal team is that the law is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. As for being voted on by the people, it is an error to think that the people have a right to vote on civil rights. If the people of California voted to ban interracial marriages then it would be right to ignore the law. We have the Constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
If you want gay marriage, then why not present it to the people that way? Why doesn't Kerry or Edwards speak up, speak out about the 'injustice' done to the homosexual community? Where are their voices for the cause?
Do you even read my messages? Didn't we just have a discussion on why politicians don't propose solutions to problems? Kerry and Edwards can get more mileage out of talking from both sides of their faces.
You have no legal mandate to do this. Even your lib friends are terrified of what such a bold statement would mean - at least Bush has been honest about where he stands - not that he would expect any support from the homosexual community at large anyway.
I'm not doing anything, but the people who are doing something are doing it based on their interpretation of their various state Constitutions. Civil disobedience is a proud tradition in the United States and it's nice to see that some people still have the guts to stand up for what's right.
Don't talk to me of civil rights when you have the very fabric of our law being torn in half over this issue with everyone just standing around trying to figure out what the next move should be.
You drastically overestimate the importance of this issue. Our society is not going to collapse when homosexuals start getting married. The sky is not falling. As for not talking about civil rights, civil rights outweigh every other consideration. If oppressing the civil rights of a single individual could make life perfect for everyone in the United States, to do so would still be unconstitutional and unacceptable.
No, you are here because of this 'unusual occurance' of children. Marriages often result in children. It IS an underlying purpose and it goes to the heart of our society (and any others I can think of).
I never said that having children was "unusual" in marriage. You are attempting to dishonestly put words in my mouth. I said that it was not a requirement. You failed to respond to the point about marriages being given to people that the state knows will not have children. As long as having children is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage it is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage.
Some of them will be rewritten to accomodate this exception. Some of them are just IGNORED like they are in SF and New Paltz. I suppose it would be better to do all this legally, but that again, doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
Please list the laws that you think will be rewritten.
Your belief and mine differ about homosexuality. It's this definition that defines the whole argument: Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is - heterosexuality is the natural order. Being black or hispanic isn't a choice and therefore their civil rights are (to me at least), defendable.
There is substantial medical and psychological evidence to indicate that it is not a choice, but I doubt that matters to you. As for the matter of choice, you're missing the point. Interracial marriages are legal not because people don't have a choice about what race they are but because race is irrelevant to the subject of marriage. Given the conditions under which marriage licenses are granted, orientation appears to be irrelevant as well. Certainly no one has yet presented a valid argument against it.
"These are undeniable facts.."
Uhmmm.. To use netspeak: Bwahahahahaha! If this argument has proven ANYTHING, it's that there are no such things.
Don't be dishonest. That line came after my listing of the conditions under which marriage license are currently given. Do do deny that licenses are given to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or who simply don't want children?
I think that your side bends reality around thousands of years of tradition for self-interest. Evidently, you don't agree with me.
I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value. There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm society so there is on reason to ban it.
So it's all a joke, right? I'm glad you can laugh about it. This is what I mean about the 'institution' of marriage being weakened. But what the hell, its no big deal, right?
It does not follow that someone making (what I will for the sake of argument call) an "artistic statement" will damage the institution of marriage. You're being hysterical.
Uhmmm, that's a little extreme for an example, isn't it? Yates is hardly a common model - there will always be exceptions.
It's a data point, one more than you've provided. It shows that a traditional christian family is no guarantee that any children produced will be raised well, or at all.
You wouldn't be here yourself without a mom and dad (no matter how badly they treated you). And you know what? NO homosexual alive today became a person otherwise - even artificially. Until that basic biology changes, this exception (in the form of marriage), should remain one.
You are making a common error: assuming that marriage and its associated civil benefits are for the purpose of providing for children. A lot of people believe this, but the facts show otherwise. Marriage licenses are routinely granted to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or who simply don't want children. Meanwhile, such licenses are routinely denied to homosexual couples that are raising children through adoption or artificial insemination. Marriage is a partnership between two adults which may or may not result in children. These are undeniable facts, however much the religious right would like to claim otherwise. The benefits to marriage (which go beyond financial considerations) are to facilitate and benefit that partnership.
I understand this all too well. I'M not the one rewriting the traditional definition of marriage here:
'The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.'
So if you can rewrite what this means, why stop there? What IS age but a number, right? My point is that your type sets no boundries, no limits. That would be discriminatory, right?
This argument is not based on reality No one is suggesting that the marriage laws be rewritten. What the court has decided is that the existing law allows homosexual couples to get married.
You are making the same arguments that were made against interracial marriages years ago. They were stupid then than they're stupid now.
WTF - whose being 'dishonest' now? Of course I agreed with that decision because their local gov't officials were BREAKING THE LAW. You know, like they are in SF. Of course, you won't see a beatdown there, but in light of the attitude displayed there, I wouldn't mind it.
You're the one who said that because I talked about the use of the National Guard to facilitate desegregation I was reminiscent of Hitler (echoing my earlier comment). That implied that you disagreed with the use of the Guard, if not with desegregation in general.
Well, that's the whole thing about opinion. I explained my point of view but I didn't expect him or you to accept that. I happen to think there's plenty of evidence, but then when you define reality so differently, there's going to be little, if any common ground.
If you really had evidence you'd be able to show some. Your problem is that you think that assertions made by groups like the Family Research Council constitute evidence. It's a common mistake.
No, no dishonesty (unless you think you were really supposed to believe it), rhetorical statements. I truly believe that the breaking of the definition of marriage will lead to such travesties. You don't have to share that view, but that doesn't make me a fucking LIAR!
The dishonesty is in stating your opinion as though it were fact. I don't doubt that you honestly believe what you're saying, but I tend to agree with
Ah, I see we're getting into insult territory now...
This is where any meaningful civil discourse ends unless you have something reasonable to say for yourself.
Don't flee from hyperbole; If you don't want to continue this discussion just say so.
If you really wanted to have a good argument, you'd find a way to weasel out of explaining how our lawmakers/breakers are operating in SF currently. I see that you didn't/couldn't do that. Why not just simply admit that what they are doing is WRONG? Righteous indignation stuck in your throat?
The argument that the mayors of SF and that town in NY whose name I can't be bothered to look up are making is that the anti-homosexual-marriage laws violate the Constitutions of their respective states. Based on the fact that the wording of the Constitutions in question is very similar to that of Massachusetts, it's not an unreasonable argument. Civil disobedience in the face of invalid or unjust laws is a proud tradition in the United States, starting from the American revolution. The way you talk, it sounds like you would have opposed that revolution.
Too bad, because I've enjoyed 'chatting' with you all the same.
If you're going to run away, don't try to blame me. You snipped every argument I made to focus on one line; that's pretty cowardly.
This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I tell my liberal friends to let go of their hate. The hate for anything you disagree with shows it's disrespect - don't think that I or the majority of Americans you spit on don't see it.
Actual, it's the neocons like you who are filled with hate. Your messages reek of hate for homosexuals and for freedom. Moderates like me have a live-and-let-live attitude that makes us seek equality for all.
---Dutch woman marries herself:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_750542.html?m enu=news.quirkies
Gee, when I read this article it says that although her local equivalent to a Justice of the Peace is humoring her, the marriage has no official standing. I wonder what the article said when you read it that made you think it was relevant.
I couldn't put it better than the Family Research Council on why homosexual marriages damage the traditional family.
I applaud you on your sense of irony. You say that you won't trust a poll conducted by the "liberal media" (not that I'm arguing for the validity of self-selected internet polls) but you try to present the Family Research Council as an unbiased source?!? Clearly you are hoping for a +1, Funny mod.
"...the most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what 'marriage' is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.
Newsflash: people's understanding of marriage has changed, and for the better. No longer do spouses feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships because they think divorce makes baby jesus cry.
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
This isn't evidence; this is merely opinion. If you have actual facts (as opposed to christian propaganda) to back your argument up, please present them. As for fears about homosexual adoption, homosexual couples are already adopting children and there are no independent studies to suggest that there are any disadvantages to those children. What's im
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights - that's what's stated but that isn't it at all. The real problem can only be seen by those who have the foresight and moral outrage to realize what's next.
:).
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Very common, very stupid, and very wrong. Unless you can show some evidence for your paranoid delusions.
When you continue to breakdown the fundamental building blocks of family, you risk the destruction of this country. Today it's gay marriage - which makes no sense to me since a man/man or woman/woman can never hope to bear children on their own - something that the majority of us will do.
You imply that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. This is a common argument but one that (surprise!) ignores the facts. The facts are that marriage licenses are routinely granted to heterosexual couples that are beyond childbearing age, medically infertile or simply don't want children, and are routinely denied to homosexual couples that are raising children through adoption or artificial insemination. Marriage rights in the United States have nothing to do with children.
Marriage is a commitment for society as well as to your partner. It is a civil act and forms the basis for society at it's core.
It's a condition that grants very real benefits, but only to certain couples. It's an inherently unjust situation. You imply that married couples repay society for the benefits they get, but I doubt you'll be able to provide any actual evidence of your claim.
You liberals think nothing of mocking the traditional view, but it's a view that was formed over thousands of years. Without preamble, you would have the true meaning of it destroyed or at least severely weakened.
You severely overestimate the value of the views that people have had over the past several thousand years. They held slaves; they persecuted people who believed differently than them; they oppressed minorities and women; hell some of them feared the left-handed! Frankly, the people of the past were morons and if it were feasible to send troops back in time to beat the shit out of them we'd probably all be better off! (Ok, so that last bit is something of an exaggeration
Don't quote the Founding Fathers. If they saw what you were trying to do they'd be disgusted. People forget that although this country was founded on reigious tolerance it was understood that meant CHRISTIAN forms of religion. In the early days of this nation they used to burn people at the stake for anything less. The Founders never intended for this sort of thing.
Actually, the founding fathers would disagree with you. The United States has never been a christian nation and it's high time people stopped lying about that.
But the worst is what's to come next out of the travesty that is gay marriage. EXAMPLE: In Holland, you recently had a woman marry HERSELF. Could this have happened with a strict definition of marriage?
I'm sure you have a cite for this claim, which you will provide in your reply.
How about a man who wants to marry his sheep?
If you honestly believe that this follows from gay marriage you are probably too stupid to understand my reply, but I'll play along: people can't marry animals because animals (and children, for that is the other idiot claim that bigots use in the slippery slope argument) cannot give informed consent.
Like my own? There are some things that are more important than SELF INTEREST. Where my tolerance becomes outrage is when the actions of others begin to affect me, my family, my nation.
You'll now explain precisely how two homosexuals getting married affects you.
Don't pretend that gay marriage is somehow innocent of that crime.
Your u
This line:
The judiciary is entitled to strike down inproper laws and interpret proper ones.
and this one:
If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist.
contradict each other.
Ok, so they don't so much contradict each other as support each other and mean the same thing. That'll teach me a lesson about reading posts too quickly. Still, when judges strike down unconstitutional laws the neo-cons always whine about "judicial activism", trying to convince people that the judges are stepping outside the boundaries of their role, when in fact they are performing that role.
Further, judges can strike down legislation that is unconstitutional
And this is exactly what happened. The judges determined that denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples violated the Massachusetts State Constitution. It was the correct decision and they were completely within their power to make it.
This line:
The judiciary is entitled to strike down inproper laws and interpret proper ones.
and this one:
If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist.
contradict each other. If the Supreme Court determine that a law is unconstitutional, it is not valid and is immediately struck down. This is part of the function of that court. Neo-conservatives don't like this, but their opinions on the subject don't matter. As much as Bush would like to get rid of the Supreme Court and other restraints on his power, he has no ability to do so.
Once upon a time the people demanding freedom were the christians wanting to support christian morals. They wrote a constitution based upon their freedom.
No. The framers of the Constitution were largely deists, and the United States was never a christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves this. It's a common misconception (to be generous) to claim that the United States was founded on christianity, but it isn't true.
It worked fine until recently, when being free and being christian were different ideas.
These have always been different ideas. Christianity is all about obedience, not freedom. Try reading the bible.
Not the only circumstance, but the tone of your post sure made it sound that way to me.
I won't pretend to like christianity but I wouldn't say I have a grudge against it. To my mind that implies a degree of significance to my life that the subject does not merit.
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll take a look sometime. I've actually been looking for something like that for awhile, so having a recommendation is nice. Is the writing style fairly informal, or more scholarly?
The style is fairly scholarly, but it isn't too dry, I don't think.
You and whoever marked this insightful really have some kind of grudge against Christianity. That's sad. I've got a reading recommendation for you - and it covers the good and bad (including the tired old Inquisition and witch trials) in case you were going to object on those grounds.
I don't know about the person who marked me insightful, but as for me I find it interesting that you claim I have some kind of grudge against christianity. Is that really the only circumstance under which you can imagine someone criticizing it? That would really show a lack of imagination. I also note that you didn't reply to any of my actual points. That's not particularly suprising, but it is rather sad.
With regards to the reading recommendation, the blurb from the publisher begins "Had Jesus never been born, this world would be far more miserable than it is." Doesn't sound very neutral to me. But since you were kind enough to make a recommendation to me, let me make one for you. This one isn't neutral either, of course, but it's non-neutral in the other direction.