First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Christianity a copy cat religion?
125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Reality Of Th...
Offline
Posted 8/3/12
You all can question my morals all you want. My morals have nothing to do with the fact that child molestation is wrong.
For a man to have sex with a 9yr old is wrong no matter what time you live in. And when it was accepted it was accepted in ignorance.
Please stop defending the position of a child molester. Please stop defending the position of slave owners. Accept the facts.
Both of these things are wrong. And if there is a such thing as an all knowing, ever present god then he or she would know this.
And if there is a god then why did he permit such acts ? Or condone them ? I have children. Do you ? I have daughters. Do you ?
I can assure you that there is nothing sexual about a 9yr old girl. And I'm keeping it at a young age for sake of argument. There is actually nothing sexual about a 12yr old girl either. Its disgusting to even think that there would be. My daughters are with me everyday of my life and their friends are always around the house. There is nothing sexually attractive about them or their many friends. And even back in those days when it was ok a man had to choose to do it from his own desires. I'm sure there were men that lived back then that preferred older women.
If their is an all knowing god then he would also know the science and psychology that prove that a little girl isn't ready for the things that only a woman is. An all knowing god would have not allowed child molestation or slavery or child and baby murder. You call me self righteous but I'm not the one defending something that is obviously wrong and obviously has victims. A child that suffered molestation is never cured. A child that suffered such horrible things is a victim for life. And your god is ok with this. And a god that commands that a family be split apart because of slavery regulations is just as wrong. Have you been split from a parent as a child ? It is something that you never forget. This is also a child that becomes a life long victim. Human experience is your defense ?? Give me a break. What experience that creates a life long victim of mental and emotional damage is proof of an all knowing god ?
125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Reality Of Th...
Offline
Posted 8/3/12
Oh, and child protection laws have nothing to do with over barring parents that demand perfection and never show love or affection towards their child. Child protection laws are simply to protect children. Bad parenting is bad parenting no matter what laws you are under. Again I have personal experience in this subject.
Posted 8/3/12

ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:

Oh, and child protection laws have nothing to do with over barring parents that demand perfection and never show love or affection towards their child. Child protection laws are simply to protect children. Bad parenting is bad parenting no matter what laws you are under. Again I have personal experience in this subject.
It has everything to do with how an over-barring and ignorant person like yourself, who would uncritically defer to an impractical, inflexible, and unwise human laws of retributive justice system. While you're ignoring how the child protection institutions that were setup to enforce said laws, are in fact emotionally and spiritually destroying families and further ruining children's lives.

Barry Schwartz: Using our practical wisdom
In an intimate talk, Barry Schwartz dives into the question "How do we do the right thing?" With help from collaborator Kenneth Sharpe, he shares stories that illustrate the difference between following the rules and truly choosing wisely.

Now the striking thing about this is that psychologists have known this for 30 years. Psychologists have known about the negative consequences of incentivizing everything for 30 years. We know that if you reward kids for drawing pictures, they stop caring about the drawing and care only about the reward. If you reward kids for reading books, they stop caring about what's in the books and only care about how long they are. If you reward teachers for kids' test scores, they stop caring about educating and only care about test preparation. If you were to reward doctors for doing more procedures -- which is the current system -- they would do more. If instead you reward doctors for doing fewer procedures, they will do fewer. What we want, of course, is doctors who do just the right amount of procedures and do the right amount for the right reason -- namely, to serve the welfare of their patients. Psychologists have known this for decades, and it's time for policymakers to start paying attention and listen to psychologists a little bit, instead of economists.

And it doesn't have to be this way. We think, Ken and I, that there are real sources of hope. We identify one set of people in all of these practices who we call canny outlaws. These are people who, being forced to operate in a system that demands rule-following and creates incentives, find away around the rules, find a way to subvert the rules. So there are teachers who have these scripts to follow, and they know that if they follow these scripts, the kids will learn nothing. And so what they do is they follow the scripts, but they follow the scripts at double-time and squirrel away little bits of extra time during which they teach in the way that they actually know is effective. So these are little ordinary, everyday heroes, and they're incredibly admirable, but there's no way that they can sustain this kind of activity in the face of a system that either roots them out or grinds them down.

So canny outlaws are better than nothing, but it's hard to imagine any canny outlaw sustaining that for an indefinite period of time. More hopeful are people we call system-changers. These are people who are looking not to dodge the system's rules and regulations, but to transform the system, and we talk about several. One in particular is a judge named Robert Russell. And one day he was faced with the case of Gary Pettengill. Pettengill was a 23-year-old vet who had planned to make the army a career, but then he got a severe back injury in Iraq, and that forced him to take a medical discharge. He was married, he had a third kid on the way, he suffered from PTSD, in addition to the bad back, and recurrent nightmares, and he had started using marijuana to ease some of the symptoms. He was only able to get part-time work because of his back, and so he was unable to earn enough to put food on the table and take care of his family. So he started selling marijuana. He was busted in a drug sweep. His family was kicked out of their apartment, and the welfare system was threatening to take away his kids.

Under normal sentencing procedures, Judge Russell would have had little choice but to sentence Pettengill to serious jail-time as a drug felon. But Judge Russell did have an alternative. And that's because he was in a special court. He was in a court called the Veterans' Court. In the Veterans' Court -- this was the first of its kind in the United States. Judge Russell created the Veterans' Court. It was a court only for veterans who had broken the law. And he had created it exactly because mandatory sentencing laws were taking the judgment out of judging. No one wanted non-violent offenders -- and especially non-violent offenders who were veterans to boot -- to be thrown into prison. They wanted to do something about what we all know, namely the revolving door of the criminal justice system. And what the Veterans' Court did, was it treated each criminal as an individual, tried to get inside their problems, tried to fashion responses to their crimes that helped them to rehabilitate themselves, and didn't forget about them once the judgment was made. Stayed with them, followed up on them, made sure that they were sticking to whatever plan had been jointly developed to get them over the hump.
In fact, the way how you're behaving suggest that your personality, and your very own subjective sense of self, is nothing more than the end result of your own authoritarian upbringing/parenting/conditioning. When radical religious group are a subgroup of extremists, than you're just the opposite side on the same coin of extreme.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/3/12 , edited 8/3/12

ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:

You all can question my morals all you want. My morals have nothing to do with the fact that child molestation is wrong.
For a man to have sex with a 9yr old is wrong no matter what time you live in. And when it was accepted it was accepted in ignorance.
Please stop defending the position of a child molester. Please stop defending the position of slave owners. Accept the facts.


Please stop projecting your 21st century western moral values where it does not belong. You are very haughty, you know that, you demand that we accept your moral and your standards as more correct than the Christian set of morals and their standards, the Islamic set of morals and their standards, or the Buddhist set of morals and their standards, you also shown us nothing which would convince us definitively that your values, what you think is right and wrong, is indeed in line with some universal morals and one that we should accept and apply in every circumstance. Until you can prove that, you have no argument.



ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:
Both of these things are wrong. And if there is a such thing as an all knowing, ever present god then he or she would know this.
And if there is a god then why did he permit such acts ? Or condone them ? I have children. Do you ? I have daughters. Do you ?


They are wrong in your context, they are not wrong within the context of their own time...as how it should be observed. Why are they wrong? There is nothing to show that they are wrong within the context of their time- it was acceptable practice, and our morals are, in part, what we are bred to believe. You are bred to believe your morals are correct, my parents raised me on Confucian morality- who is to say my moral values are any more correct than yours or the culture in which Mahomet lived. What you are suggesting here is that what my culture believe is correct- what is applicable here is in fact applicable in every other culture in the other, regardless of context. You say that you have children, and daughters- very nice, how is this relevant? The pathetic has no place in logical arguments. For example, you say that it is disgusting that someone should let their child get married off at nine- someone from another culture may look down upon your raising your daughters so freely, and suggest that their feet be bound and they be taught obedience to the father and mother, to prepare her to be obedient to her future husband, mother in law, and father in law.




ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:I can assure you that there is nothing sexual about a 9yr old girl. And I'm keeping it at a young age for sake of argument. There is actually nothing sexual about a 12yr old girl either. Its disgusting to even think that there would be. My daughters are with me everyday of my life and their friends are always around the house. There is nothing sexually attractive about them or their many friends. And even back in those days when it was ok a man had to choose to do it from his own desires. I'm sure there were men that lived back then that preferred older women.


First, you ignored my argument that people developed differently under different circumstances, instead, you elect to inject your own opinions on the sexual attractiveness of young girls, which is unnecessary. Why, does your opinion matter? Your opinion is not, as you may realise, the opinion of everyone, your opinions do not matter. They are simply your opinion. You have to provide some fact, some semblance of logic to prove your point. You can't say- Oh, I prefer older women, and therefore everyone share my taste. You have not assured me anything, you only given me a glimpse into your taste, which is not what is being asked.



ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:If their is an all knowing god then he would also know the science and psychology that prove that a little girl isn't ready for the things that only a woman is.


If you had bothered to read, you would have known that no, Science has not proven that, it has proven that American girls are not physically or mentally ready for sexual activities (though, I am starting to doubt that you have any source to back that claim up). Difference in diet and in rearing tend to produce different physical and mental development.



ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote: An all knowing god would have not allowed child molestation or slavery or child and baby murder.


An all knowing God need not confirm to your morals, you are assuming you are right, then saying that because I am right, God must, therefore, be wrong. The Bible provides an answer to that. Refer to the Book of Job, with commentary.



ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:You call me self righteous but I'm not the one defending something that is obviously wrong and obviously has victims.


You are self-righteous, you are applying your morals to a time where your morals are inapplicable. You apply your morals to cultures where your morals are inapplicable. This is based upon the idea that your morals are somehow 'right', but you have yet to show anything to prove that your morals are right. You say it is obviously wrong- you see it as obviously wrong, because it does not conform to your own set of morals. Have faith in this, it does not conform to my morals either. But, the difference between you and I, I know that my own morals are inapplicable within every context. You think you are right; you have an unfounded belief that you are right, but why? What exactly makes them right but that it is right within the culture you grew up in? There is no intrinsic value of the goodness of it outside of your own cultural context.




ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote: A child that suffered molestation is never cured. A child that suffered such horrible things is a victim for life.


The age associated with Childhood today is not applicable in the seventh century. How many times must that be repeated?




ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote: And your god is ok with this. And a god that commands that a family be split apart because of slavery regulations is just as wrong.


Well, he isn't my God, for one. My Gods happen to look like this:





ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:Have you been split from a parent as a child ? It is something that you never forget. This is also a child that becomes a life long victim. Human experience is your defense ?? Give me a break.


Let's look at this rationally- the bible says that if the wife was originally the property of the slave owner, when the slave is free from his term of service, he is allowed to go free, but his wife and child, still being property of the slave owner, must stay. However, if the man and his wife join the slave owner, they are both free because the wife never belonged to the Slave owner in the first place. It is logical, albeit cruel within our modern standards, but, unfortunately, our modern standards do not apply.


ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote: What experience that creates a life long victim of mental and emotional damage is proof of an all knowing god ?


Well, first, you are assuming they automatically experience mental and emotional damage and become lifelong victims, where there is no reason to suspect that. Secondly, your moral values are not applicable within a eleventh century b.c. context, or its realities and necessities, again, it is inapplicable. As I have shown, you cite the marriage of a captured woman to her captor as cruel- this, I have shown, is actually a form of kindness.
125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Reality Of Th...
Offline
Posted 8/6/12
Again I know very little about your eastern gods. But I refuse to defend the position of a man having sex with a child. You can refer to different diets and the speed of development but a 9yr old is a child in every culture and in every century. And cruel slavery laws being put into practice either prove that god was either ignorant, racist, sexist, or that Moses had no true connection to god and was simply writing to satisfy those in power. If indeed Moses even existed. And again. I know of many good parents that live under the harsh child protection laws. The laws don't create bad parents.
125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Reality Of Th...
Offline
Posted 8/6/12
Two of my children are in the next room. They are having an argument about something that I said three weeks prior. Am I a good parent if I choose to ignore the situation and let them continue to argue ? Am I a good parent if I allow the argument to become heated and resort to violence ? Or would it be most responsible for me to go into the room and stop the argument and clarify what was said three weeks prior ?
There is no need for conflict if I act. Continuing conflict causes pain and suffering and creates victims. Even now wars are being fought over religion. Conflict that has been going on for a very long time. Even now we are arguing about religion. Where is god now ? Is god content with being negligent ? Does god find pleasure in the pain, suffering, and death of mankind ? Does god not care enough to stop all religious conflict and bring peace to mankind ? How many innocent lives must be taken through ignorance ? I challenge god to show himself or herself and enlighten us as a human race to bring about the end of suffering. To grant peace. Why does god allow such things to take place ? Genocide, rape, murder done in his or her name would cease if he or she would just show up and resolve the conflict. Or that just too easy ? Oh how easily we could all live in peace if god would stop being so lazy and just get off his or her ass and walk into the next room.
If we are all his creation then does he just not care about us ? To allow mankind to bicker and fight over religious difference is negligent.
So god is a bad parent. What laws does god live under ? Does god break the rules ? Will he one day answer for his complete negligence that cost so many their lives ? Will god one day answer for all the pain and suffering that he allowed through his negligence ?
Where is your god ? Why is he such a careless asshole ? Where is his love for his creation ? There is no god.
3888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/6/12
This thread sounds like a really bad random netflix documentary.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/6/12

ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:

Again I know very little about your eastern gods. But I refuse to defend the position of a man having sex with a child. You can refer to different diets and the speed of development but a 9yr old is a child in every culture and in every century. And cruel slavery laws being put into practice either prove that god was either ignorant, racist, sexist, or that Moses had no true connection to god and was simply writing to satisfy those in power. If indeed Moses even existed. And again. I know of many good parents that live under the harsh child protection laws. The laws don't create bad parents.


Again, the point is not whether you are familiar with my religion, or whether you think that pædophila is wrong- my objection is that you are ethnocentrically applying your definition of morality, inherited from your western tradition, to an æra where it simply doesn't apply. You have to first show that you definition of right or wrong is undoubtedly true and universal and applicable. What makes those laws 'cruel', 'ignorant', 'racist', or 'sexist'? You read and apply them onto the laws, they are not in themselves 'cruel', 'ignorant', 'racist', or 'sexist'. Your main argument presupposes, first, that your morality is somehow right, and what so ever doesn't conform to your narrow morality is then wrong, but your definition of Right or Wrong is unproven- you have yet to convincingly show that your definition of right or wrong is somehow more right or wrong than the Catholic's church's morality, and they, at the very least, can pretend they have something of a foundation in the books of the Bible and God, you, on the other hand, simply have yourself and your own conviction in your rightness.
3888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/6/12
Wait time out... Right and wrong is define by the culture you are raised up in.

So why make this argument?

This is like the dog eating debate..
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/6/12

ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:

Two of my children are in the next room. They are having an argument about something that I said three weeks prior. Am I a good parent if I choose to ignore the situation and let them continue to argue ? Am I a good parent if I allow the argument to become heated and resort to violence ? Or would it be most responsible for me to go into the room and stop the argument and clarify what was said three weeks prior ?


However deep a philosophical point you are trying to make, I have to question your bringing up of your daughters- they simply have no bearing on topic at hand.


ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:

There is no need for conflict if I act. Continuing conflict causes pain and suffering and creates victims. Even now wars are being fought over religion. Conflict that has been going on for a very long time. Even now we are arguing about religion.


If you act, you are interfering with matter among your own children- they will never be able to learn and grow up unless you permit them a certain degree of freedom. By letting them fight each other, you are, in fact, acting in their best interest- they will learn not only the hardship and bitterness of conflict, but also how to resolve conflict, maturing in the process. Stifling parenting does not, as you seem to think, bring about the best result.

Secondly, you cite our argument as proof of the terrible nature of conflicts, and the suffering what it wrought. On my end, there is no suffering, only annoyance at such weak arguments, founded only upon a sense that you are correct, whether in your morality or your interpretation of Scripture. If you are suffering, it is because you are making weak arguments to defend your atheism, which, it seems to me, more like a ego-centric view of the cosmos, and the fact that certain groups and no religion doesn't adhere strictly to it means that they must be wrong.


ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:
Where is god now ? Is god content with being negligent ? Does god find pleasure in the pain, suffering, and death of mankind ? Does god not care enough to stop all religious conflict and bring peace to mankind ? How many innocent lives must be taken through ignorance ? I challenge god to show himself or herself and enlighten us as a human race to bring about the end of suffering. To grant peace. Why does god allow such things to take place ? Genocide, rape, murder done in his or her name would cease if he or she would just show up and resolve the conflict.


Theology provides two answers to the problem of evil, the first of which is the staple reply you will probably receive from your minister: 'God works in mysterious ways.'

The second answer, which is an extension of the first is this: 'Man is a limited being, he can only see a portion of the universe, God is an infinite being, his infinite nature allows him to see everything. When we see evils within a small portion, we may, like a critic analysing three or four lines of a poem, may find some discordance with the metres, the spondee interrupting the flow of iambs, or with the word choices, like an obscure word or imperfect rhymes, but, if we examine the larger picture, this discordance works towards a greater perfection, the entirety of the poem, just as God works towards the greater perfection of the universe.'

The greater perfection is argued amongst theologians, such as the ability of the world to generate and regulate itself with a few natural laws, to allow genuine human freedom with regards to their action, including the negative consequence of it, or a host of other higher goods that can only be obtained by the allowance of evil.

This view can be summed up thus:

All nature is but Art unknown to thee;
All Chance, Direction which thou canst not see;
All Discord, Harmony not understood;
All partial Evil, universal Good
And, spite of Pride, in erring Reason’s spite
One truth is clear, ‘Whatever IS, is RIGHT.’




ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote: Or that just too easy ? Oh how easily we could all live in peace if god would stop being so lazy and just get off his or her ass and walk into the next room.


Much literature has been written on Theodicy, and it would do you well to read them, as they represent what believers believe. For my part, my religion doesn't demand any form of Theodicy, the Gods are rather like the Greek Gods, with less dalliance and more organised and bureaucratic.



ATHEIST-ANARCHIST wrote:
If we are all his creation then does he just not care about us ? To allow mankind to bicker and fight over religious difference is negligent.
So god is a bad parent. What laws does god live under ? Does god break the rules ? Will he one day answer for his complete negligence that cost so many their lives ? Will god one day answer for all the pain and suffering that he allowed through his negligence ?
Where is your god ? Why is he such a careless asshole ? Where is his love for his creation ? There is no god.


You attack on religion, then, is that God simply doesn't conform to what you think is right and wrong based upon your immediate perspective, when God may have worked towards greater perfection, and he doesn't conforms to your moral standards, when God's standards may be more correct. Just as you view other culture through your own biased lens, so too do you view God with your own limited lens. There is wars and genocide caused by religion- but from the same source born forget the advances brought on by religion, the Church's funding of Science during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, for example, or the rich philosophical tradition each religion has produced who are inspired by their religion to create a philosophical position to support it, Descartes for example. There are many people who have cause terrible things to happen using God as justification, just as there are many who, through their zeal and love of God, cause the actualisation and realisation of a multitude of felicities. The question of Theodicy is one that is highly debated and will continue to be debated, show then that the universe isn’t perfect in its whole, and then you can accuse God of negligence. *


*Note: The argument from evil works basically so: Assume God exist, God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it follows that the universe must be wholly good, there is evil, therefore God is bad. The problem with this is twofold, first, that defines Omnipotent to be Absolutely Omnipotent, which is to say, God is all powerful in that he can do everything. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, this definition is no longer used within most Theological circles- God is not absolutely omnipotent, God is, rather, Omnipotent in so far as it is logical. This is used to solve the Omnipotence paradox, God cannot create a stone he cannot lift because he is Omnipotence, and it would be illogical for something all powerful to create something that he cannot lift. The second is a more serious objection and tied, somewhat, to the first objection, that is, supposing God exist, how does one show that the universe is not wholly good, and that evil does not, in fact, work towards some greater perfection? Therefore, it depends on an unproven assumption to prove its point.
3888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/7/12
You can't say the church was the sole reason behind the Renaissance.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/7/12

Jinkst wrote:

You can't say the church was the sole reason behind the Renaissance.


But I said that the Church funded the science- not that it was the sole patron of the Renaissance.
3888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/7/12
I really don't think so many of those priest was just a scientist in robes. All what they wanted you to believe was to get closer to god (touch) but curiosity is hardwired into us as any other animal.

But the arts the church can claim and language.

Lets all grow up and get over this topic. Because it does nothing to progress forward thinking or enlighten anyone, it just bickering to see if your right. But in hind-sight non of you will change your mind and we like as human beings we are better then this or at least tolerate it.

Why put borders in a world that was once so vast. Who apple is it if your branch grows outside of of your fence. No matter what we just don't know science can't explain everything just look at black holes that as close of image of god we can muster. But say the same thing of those crazy UFO drawings in caves, we don't know if they was licking crazy shrooms and had a bad nightmare. But we benefited both from religion and science so why waste energy trying to disprove another.

Rome needed Romulus as human kind needed Gregory XIII
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.