To the Christians here...

[rocketdodger]

Both government and religion are in the business of teaching and enforcing morality.

You are free to abstain from religion (even if it is foolish).

You are not free to abstain from civil law.

Please show me an instance of a civil law that dictates personal morality that is not somehow rooted in religion.

 

[Admiral]

Please show me an instance of a civil law that dictates personal morality that is not somehow rooted in religion.

The smoking age? I don't know many Christians that oppose smoking. To me, the smoking age appears to be a responsible attempt to address a national health concern.

Still, I think when you say "that is not somehow rooted in religion," you're being very broad. Plenty of laws could be tied to religion that aren't "rooted in religion". The drinking age, for example- plenty of religious individuals have argued against drinking, but that doesn't mean that the drinking age comes from religious teachings.

There are many, many religious individuals in the country. Just because some of them argue for a particular law doesn't mean that the law is based in religion.

 

[elliotfc]

Oops I assumed a wrong definition. Regardless... are you claiming that humans could survive if we dumped all of our thought and relied solely on animal instincts?

I don't think we can dump all of our thought, even if we tried.

On the other hand, though, organized religion does assert that people trying to take their fate into their own hands is morally wrong.

I'm not sure what this assertion is based on. With free will, we have no choice but to take our fate in our own hands.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Darkness is a horrible analogy. You experience darkness, you wouldn’t experience oblivion.

Horrible is pushing it, innit? Lemme put it this way...anestehsia...now there's a corker of an analogy...come up with ten analogies that are better than darkness.

Here's a horrible analogy. Death/oblivion is like eating a muffin.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Why are christian fundamentalists so negative and aggressive? all to ready to beleive in the apocalyptic as well, it must be really gloomy nad depressing

Yes, but that's why God created Hello Kitty stickers. -Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I will make my postion clear for me religion, like nationalism and patriotism is a sign of a primitive society that still has a long way to go, they are vetiages of our ape troop loyalties left over from our evolutionary developement, we have the abilty to see through it and gerow out of it

Don't forget spelling.

No wait, I take that back. You have.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Evidence for God....ranges from the extremely weak to the non existant.

I just noticed that your user name backwards is cardcd. -Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Ah, ok, and how will we go about verifying the afterlife? It remains tautologous.

I know how to verify the afterlife, but I'm not in a hurry.

You don't think it's a problem how unconcerned you are about having your assertions actually be correct?

No, you have it wrong. I don't think it's a problem about having my assertions acutally be incorrect.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The most bigotted groups in the world happen to have been religious ones, particularly towards homosexuals, women and people of races foreign to their own, not to mention people of other religions.

A group like the KKK wasn't essentially religious. Their isssues (and they varied over the decades) had to dowith hatred and resentment of other groups; as the "established" population, it followed that they shared the same religion, and yes, they certainly used that religion to add respectablity to their agenda.

I think you should realize that since, I dunno, 99% of all people who have existed in the past millenia have been religious, it would folow that religious people/groups will have done most of the things, good or bad, in history.

-Elliot

 

[ceo_esq]

I know how to verify the afterlife, but I'm not in a hurry.

 

[rocketdodger]

The smoking age? I don't know many Christians that oppose smoking. To me, the smoking age appears to be a responsible attempt to address a national health concern.

Yes, smoking is a health concern which has been scientifically proven, and it is also generally accepted that kids make very bad choices. So why are you claiming it has something to do with morality? If the law was to the effect of "smoking is morally wrong, don't do it," then you might have a case.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not sure what this assertion is based on. With free will, we have no choice but to take our fate in our own hands.

If you want specifics in YOUR religion then take a look at Genesis 11:6-7. All anyone needs to know about "Christianity" is right there...

 

[Admiral]

Yes, smoking is a health concern which has been scientifically proven, and it is also generally accepted that kids make very bad choices. So why are you claiming it has something to do with morality? If the law was to the effect of "smoking is morally wrong, don't do it," then you might have a case.

Right. In which case... can you clarify your point? I thought you were referring to something other than what you were saying.

If you define "moral" as being "religious," than your point is tautological. I was considering "moral" laws as being laws that restrict individual freedoms for reasons other than protecting others' rights, but I can see why you wouldn't draw that distinction. So what definition of "moral" laws are you suggesting?

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, smoking is a health concern which has been scientifically proven, and it is also generally accepted that kids make very bad choices. So why are you claiming it has something to do with morality? If the law was to the effect of "smoking is morally wrong, don't do it," then you might have a case.

Morality is rarely, if ever, that simple, so I don't know what your point is.

*Of course* morality is practically always connected to other concerns, be they connected to scientific study or general human nature.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If you want specifics in YOUR religion then take a look at Genesis 11:6-7. All anyone needs to know about "Christianity" is right there...

It is ludicrous to take two verses from Genesis and declare that to be the essential element of Christianity. At least you could take two verses from the NT.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

If you define "moral" as being "religious," than your point is tautological. I was considering "moral" laws as being laws that restrict individual freedoms for reasons other than protecting others' rights, but I can see why you wouldn't draw that distinction. So what definition of "moral" laws are you suggesting?

I am talking about laws that restrict freedoms because such freedoms are deemed somehow "wrong." Because adults can smoke, restricting children from smoking doesn't seem to be a moral issue. Furthermore, because of the immense health care costs of those who smoke, banning it entirely doesn't seem like it would be a moral issue either (at least, forcing smokers to pay for their own care).

What about tobacco and alcohol vs. other drugs? This could be argued as a moral issue, but I think we all know it is more about $$$ than anything else.

Other things, however, are much closer to the moral end of the spectrum, with no consequences either way yet the laws are still there. Abortion laws, restrictions on stem-cell research and cloning, censorship of certain media, SSM laws, etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

It is ludicrous to take two verses from Genesis and declare that to be the essential element of Christianity. At least you could take two verses from the NT.

-Elliot

Wrong. I can take any verse from your holy Bible, the book that your religion is completely based on, and claim it to be the essence of Christianity. If you deny this for any verse, then you effectively deny all the others, at which point the holy Bible is nothing more than kids stories.

Or are you claiming that to be "Christian" means one just needs to choose their favorite biblical verse and accept it? Or even that they can completely reject the entire bible as well? What about the NT verses regarding the death of Christ, can I reject those and still be a Christian?

Unfortunately for you, your "religion" chooses to define itself and its doctrine with that book, in its entirety. A Christian may be able to ignore the glaring scientific and historical problems with the bible, but they certainly cannot deny that it is god's will in writing. Otherwise, you are not Christian.

And just so you know, that verse illustrates my problem with organized religion.

1) These people are convinced that God wishes mankind to be subordinate.
2) These people are convinced that simply ignoring those who choose not to be subordinate isn't good enough -- God will punish them unless they also intervene.
3) These people then destroy progress and happiness, claiming such destructive behavior is "the will of God."

 

[thaiboxerken]

A group like the KKK wasn't essentially religious.

Yes, it was and it still is.

Their isssues (and they varied over the decades) had to dowith hatred and resentment of other groups; as the "established" population, it followed that they shared the same religion, and yes, they certainly used that religion to add respectablity to their agenda.

It is the religion that gives these people the superiority and exclusivity complex that they act upon.

I think you should realize that since, I dunno, 99% of all people who have existed in the past millenia have been religious, it would folow that religious people/groups will have done most of the things, good or bad, in history.

You should also realize that when the holy books that the religious people worship with contains and condones bigotry, racism and hatred that it's probably where they are learning these values from.

 

[Admiral]

]You should also realize that when the holy books that the religious people worship with contains and condones bigotry, racism and hatred that it's probably where they are learning these values from.

To repeat, you can't assume that the reason some Christian groups are so violent is that there are Bible verses that talk about violence. Your argument goes like this:

1)Some Christians (or Muslims or Jews or any religious group) are violent.
2)There are verses in the Bible (or Koran or Torah) that are violent.
3)Therefore, the Bible verses cause the violent behavior.

You've never proven that the religious texts cause this bigotry.

Well, now you're going to say that only religious individuals are bigoted. But you haven't yet responded to my argument about Josef Stalin. Lenin wrote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses"- as a result, Stalin wasn't just a secular leader, he was a violently atheist one. He purged the country of all religion, trashing churches and murdering religious officials. If that's not bigotry, what is bigotry?

There are bigoted Christians, bigoted Jews, bigoted Muslims, and bigoted atheists. Your assumption that religion is the only cause of bigotry, just because a number of biogoted individuals choose to pervert their religion to support their bigotry, is fallacious.

One other thing- can you tell me honestly that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is more bigoted than Stalin?

 

[ceo_esq]

Wrong. I can take any verse from your holy Bible, the book that your religion is completely based on, and claim it to be the essence of Christianity. If you deny this for any verse, then you effectively deny all the others, at which point the holy Bible is nothing more than kids stories.

Interesting faulty dilemma you pose. What you said was "All anyone needs to know about 'Christianity' is right there" in two OT verses. To suggest that this idea is wrong is not to deny the validity of any verse in the Bible.

Even Jesus himself thought it was possible, without prejudice to the validity of everything else in Scripture, to distill the most essential parts of it (see Matthew 22:36-40). He simply wouldn't have agreed with your selection of verses. And considering that the man himself (according to the story) on at least that one occasion tried to reduce to a couple of lines the most important things for his followers to understand, and Genesis 11:6-7 in isolation don't convey those things, there's precious little with which to defend your earlier statement. If any little excerpt from Scripture tells us "everything we need to know" about Christianity - which I doubt - then it's probably Matthew 22:36-40. At least that's what its founder allegedly thought was most important.

Unfortunately for you, your "religion" chooses to define itself and its doctrine with that book, in its entirety.

By the way, the idea that Christianity is completely and exclusively based on the Bible (sola scriptura) is a relatively recent innovation in Christianity which we owe mainly to the Protestant Reformation. I don't think that describes Elliot's religion.

1) These people are convinced that God wishes mankind to be subordinate.
2) These people are convinced that simply ignoring those who choose not to be subordinate isn't good enough -- God will punish them unless they also intervene.
3) These people then destroy progress and happiness, claiming such destructive behavior is "the will of God."

Just so I'm clear - "these people" means "Christians", right? Don't they believe that mankind is subordinate (regardless of choice) simply by virtue of the creator-creature relationship? And whence the charges of destroying progress and happiness?