In response to our declining christain morality
-
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man. Damn won't death be great. Christians are full shit. I've never met one that really wants to die. Even though they tell you they are going to paradise.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The problem is the 'I' right at the beggining. You speak on your own authority. Jesus speaks on the authority of his father in heaven. Neither your opinion nor your reasoning founded on your assumptions and your humanly limited understanding can ever challenge that. Nor can mine or anyone elses.
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man.
I am living life to the full and have no fear of death, yes. Surprised that you'd want that too, no.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
No. I speak the truth and I don't think you understand me because the truth is not in you. If you think I'm easily manipulated then you clearly know nothing about me. Don't feel sorry for me, my eternal future is secure, look to your own. Your argument is, in the end, not with me but with God. It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Mike Mullikin wrote:
g. I just haven't chosen to discuss my personal religious experiences with you yet.
In other words, you haven't had enough time to make it up yet. I asked you what experience you had, and you said from the media.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, I'm grouping Christianity and Islam (along with Judaism and others) into one group called "organized religion".
And applying the properties of Islam upwards to organized religion. I thought you were a developer. Don't you know how inheretance works?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I pass judgment of the whole based on the collective actions of the individual religions. Not unlike you passing judgment on atheists as a group based on the actions of the ACLU.
I don't pass judgement on atheists as a group because of the ACLU. I pass judgement on their flawed ideology. I have personally known probably dozens of atheists in my life and discussed and learned the foundations of their beliefs from them. I've also read various justifications for secular humanism and books on ethics, philosophy and their origins. I contend that atheism is specifically flawed and harmful and I always back up what I say with why. I don't say "atheism sucks because communism sucks and I randomly decided to lump them together".
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Just because I haven't told you about my personal experience with Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Give it a rest already.
Even though you're pretending you have some sort of valid first-hand accounts, you've failed to relay the reasons, no matter how vague you would want to make them. Your stated reason for condemning Christianity was the media. You have yet to give a reason beyond that.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Red Stateler wrote:
You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
What's lame is him letting the actions of a few be representative of the whole.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Simple. Because if you look at religion outside of the context of the religion itself you can see how it has been molded / modified by man and not by an omnipotent being. Why would God give people the ability to reason only to ask them to disregard their reason in favor of blind faith.
Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses. If your belief system requires that historical texts be disregarded, then I'd have to say that yours is based on a lack of reason.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I grew up with some friends who came from a Muslim nation. People in that nation are indoctrinated into Islam just Christians are indoctrinated here. It's not God that is controlling these people, it is other people.
Or like atheists are indoctrinated in our school system or in Europe or in communist nations. Once again, your belief system depends on the opposite of reason as it assumes that you have a special monopoly on it and Christians simply have no access to it. That is backwards and a fundamentalist belief shared by Muslims. Also, Christians are not coerced into Christianity here as Muslims are in the Middle East, so your "reasoned" comparison is lacking. Oh yeah, and you failed to answer my question. Exactly how did you logically calculate the odds of an afterlife?
"Your premise is flawed since it assumes that reason is abandoned with religion. As I pointed out yesterday, reason and science actually sprouted from the religious. Secondly, how is the Bible "blind faith"? As I also recently pointed out, it's a historical text written by witnesses." Actually if you remember the dark ages an era with a significant lack of forward scientific and technological advancement due to the catholic church. -- Although it was never the more formal term (universities named their departments "medieval history" not "dark age history"), it was widely used, including in such classics as Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where it expressed the author's contempt for "priest-ridden," superstitious, dark times. -- Also, modern justice systems have long proven that "eye witnesses" are incredibly unreliable and prone to inserting what the witness thought happened where their memory might not serve them.
----------------------------------------------------------- Completion Deadline: two days before the day after tomorrow
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of doing and enjoying good deeds without the need of supernatural creators or self proclaimed prophets.
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture. but, believe what you will, I do.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture.
Red spends far more time on this board promoting an "anti" posture towards atheists than Mike does towards religion - doesn't that completely invalidate what you said?
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Wow I wish I was looking foward to death like you man.
I am living life to the full and have no fear of death, yes. Surprised that you'd want that too, no.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
You speak nonsense. And you are so easily manipulated. I feel sorry for you.
No. I speak the truth and I don't think you understand me because the truth is not in you. If you think I'm easily manipulated then you clearly know nothing about me. Don't feel sorry for me, my eternal future is secure, look to your own. Your argument is, in the end, not with me but with God. It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
It's not an argument you can win but it is surely one you will loose in a big way if you continue to place yourself above God, your opinions above his commands, your conclusions above his wisdom. Respect for God is the begining of wisdom. umm, isn't this supposed to go in the jokes thread? :wtf:
----------------------------------------------------------- Completion Deadline: two days before the day after tomorrow
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
DavidCrow wrote:
What's lame is him letting the actions of a few be representative of the whole.
X| Even ignoring Islam - as organized religions Christianity and Judaism are still more interested in controlling peoples actions and taking their money than they are about providing any real help.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of doing and enjoying good deeds without the need of supernatural creators or self proclaimed prophets.
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture. but, believe what you will, I do.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
if that were honestly true you wouldn't expend quite so much energy to promote an "anti" posture.
Spend a few hours going through old threads (with a religious tilt) and you'll most definitely find you and Red expending many, MANY times more energy promoting religion than I've spent knocking it.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Again you assume too much. My personal experiences are only one part of my overall "experience" and are not relavent to the conversation.
Actually it's very relevant. You're making a value judgement about religion apaprently without any first-hand experience. You're passing judgement on Christianity based on media reports of Islam. That's just lame.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, but then again I wrote "organized religion" not "Christianity". However, I do apply my observations of both when using terms like "organized religion". Don't you?
If you pass judgment on all organized religions based on one, then there is obviously a problem since each particular religion is a subset of organized religion and its properties therefore do not necessarily apply to the whole. Do we need a class diagram?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, school curriculum's (evolution)...
Yes, those are all fine examples of how secular humanists have reinterpreted laws. Those laws, being on the books and properly democratically derived, have all been overthrown at one point or another by secular humanists attempting to control the majority. There is absolutely nothing wrong with laws that reflect Christian morality. In fact, by saying that any of these laws are invalid for that fact only serves to push your competing secular humanist agenda.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...then Google for it. The man invokes the name of God in just about every speech he makes.
So what? That offends your sensibilities, so suddenly religion is a method to control the unwashed masses? Where on earth do you get that from? Besides, you changed it from invoking God to using God to justify war in the middle east.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
He is in "control" of a lot of peoples lives and futures when sends soldiers off to do his bidding.
So? If he were a secular humanist and sent people to war then that would be OK? I have to say that everything you're claiming here basically speaks to one single point. You are a secular humanist and your values are simply in competition with Christianity. Not having any personal experience with Christianity or basis for you opinions against it (besides the media), you're
Red Stateler wrote:
In other words, you haven't had enough time to make it up yet.
And that is exactly why I don't tend to argue these types of things using personal experience. It's open to all kinds of lies. Yours included...
Red Stateler wrote:
And applying the properties of Islam upwards to organized religion.
Sure, concentrate on the Islam stuff and ignore the Judaism and Christian points I made. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
I always back up what I say with why.
Really? Since when? :confused:
-
A.A. wrote:
From an Islamic perspective, you reason so that you may discern the true message from falsehood. Once you are convinced of that, you do not go on questioning every detail (especially in the matters of the unseen) because you are already convinced it is from the creator. That is not to say you do not try to understand it.
So you use your brain to make a conclusin and then never question that conclusion?
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
So you use your brain to make a conclusin and then never question that conclusion?
I don't think the point I was making came across. To put it differently if you are convinced you have found the true message that is revealed by God you do not choose what pieces to accept to suit your preference and desires. These include the matters of the unseen, such as what happens after death and the details of the afterlife. This is different from say, growing up on a particular religion than finding not only elements of truth but also element of falsehood. If one grew up on a false or corrupted religion finding the message of the religion itself to be confused and contradictory, then one has a duty to search for the truth.
Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why is it incorrect? Because you say so??
Because you have limited experience and have made a value judgement with a lack of data. I thought you condemned such things! :rolleyes:
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If science could absolutely disprove the existence of God
That is an impossibility. :)
"This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
So you use your brain to make a conclusin and then never question that conclusion?
I don't think the point I was making came across. To put it differently if you are convinced you have found the true message that is revealed by God you do not choose what pieces to accept to suit your preference and desires. These include the matters of the unseen, such as what happens after death and the details of the afterlife. This is different from say, growing up on a particular religion than finding not only elements of truth but also element of falsehood. If one grew up on a false or corrupted religion finding the message of the religion itself to be confused and contradictory, then one has a duty to search for the truth.
Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
A.A. wrote:
If one grew up on a false or corrupted religion finding the message of the religion itself to be confused and contradictory, then one has a duty to search for the truth.
So you, growing up in the one true religion must never question anything about it to preserve the illusion that it's not confused and contradictory and full of human interpretations that the church muckedy mucks use to beat each other over the heads with to garner more followers and power?
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That is an impossibility.
Because those who make the religious rules and want to stay in power rig the game so their followers can't question it? :rolleyes:
No, there are some things that are mathematically impossible. This is one of them. Anything outside of mathematics is just circumstantial evidence. You can't prove God exists or not. It is strictly faith.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
Give me a break. I'm telling you right now. When you die there is 0% chance that the after life (if there is one) is as described in the bible. There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell. As if I will concisously suffer for Billions of years because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life. Much of biblical morality was needed in a society without birth control. The Bible was a great framework for creation of a stable society. But times change, and Christianity is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. I would argue that increasing "social anomie" - Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals - is a major part of our problem. Since our victory in World War II, Americans do lack purpose. No matter how money you make, you're still gonna die, so what's the point? The solution is not to find Jesus, but rather for all of us to use our god given intelligence, imagination and technology to figure out why the hell we are here in the first place. IMHO, the purpose of humanity might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity. Once we figure that out, perhaps we can start living for each other instead of living in a state of purposelessness and these murders / suicides will decrease.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
There is flat out no chance that you will be in heaven with Jesus and I will spend eternity rotting in hell.
I thought you were talking about the Bible ? The Bible does not describe what you're talking about.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
because I chose to use my brain instead of blindly following a book full of non-sensical contradictions that don't apply to modern life
It's always fascinating to me to hear the opinions people who plainly have never read the Bible, have on what it apparently contains.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
might just be to figure out the purpose of humanity
If there's no God, how can there be a 'purpose' ? The answer might as well be 42.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Why is there only one species that has the ability to contemplate its own existence? We are the only species on Earth that no longer lives to procreate. We have moved beyond the rules of nature. Why?
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Why is there only one species that has the ability to contemplate its own existence?
A very anthropocentric view. We barely understand our own intelligence, much less the other mammals that appear to have something equivalent: whales and baboons, for example. We have no idea how far their awareness extends. Language does add something to the awareness equation but to say a lack of advanced syntactical grammar is evidence of lesser intelligence is merely conjecture.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
We are the only species on Earth that no longer lives to procreate. We have moved beyond the rules of nature. Why?
Because we haven't. We live the rules of nature every single day, we just think we don't. We live in a positive feedback system: there is no counterforce to what humanity is doing. We've become so capable of manipulating the world around us for our own purposes that we have ceased being aware of where we should have stopped. It's a conceptual block, not a physical one. Nothing frees us from the laws of physics and the consequences of nature; global warming, increasing pollution of our own fresh water sources, and the need for ever more powerful fertilizers should convince you of that.
-
Are you admitting that Greek mythology was a religion? Then maybe today's religions are tomorrow's mythologies? Although I am familiar with Greek and Norse mythology/religion, I have never heard of how they came about. I believe back then, a god was created for everything, which means it was done out of habit, but I could be mistaken.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I have never heard of how they came about. I believe back then, a god was created for everything, which means it was done out of habit
In a sense. The Greek form of godhood was very similar to that of Native Americans: creatures who had very human flaws but who had some particular power over something or another. Pan was evil but had power over nature. Zeus was king of the gods but was a womanizer and hated his wife. Hera was god of marriage but was a spiteful, selfish woman. I could go on. These are gods invented by people who are very close to the world they live in, and who need both an explanation and some comfort from its dangers. Unlike "pie in the sky" Christianity that has a distant, unknowable, untouchable God, the Greek gods were very real beings that the people could identify with. That is how the Christian God was first envisioned (and why a human form of it was necessary - just like the Greek gods). It has become a somewhat more ethereal concept over the millennia, however. The form of God that Christianity and Islam hold today is possible only when survival isn't an issue. But you won't see any Christian agree to that. Epistemology is a very interesting subject..
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
The ideas of loving your neighbor had to exist before the bible because someone had to think them up in order to write them in bible.
I can agree with you on that point. Using the Bible as an example, Jesus was probably not the first person to say many of these things. Simply put Jesus was simply the first person with a lot of influence on a lot of people to say many of these ideals and someone was enamored enough to write them down for the first time. Do you know of another document in the Christian religion that has these items written down before the Bible? Is there another text from another religion that has these ideals that was written from the Bible? (I will admit I do not know and there could be, but my point is the same.) In many cases, ancient books that are used in religions for moral values were probably the first ones written that helped eliminate the need for the word of mouth values that passed before.
Brett A. Whittington Application Developer
bwhittington wrote:
Is there another text from another religion that has these ideals that was written from the Bible?
Yes. The Bible is essentially a rehash of many of the world's religious and mythological texts of the time. I don't know their names unfortunately but a philosophy friend of mine once pulled out several books MUCH older than the Bible and showed me the stories in them, most of which you can find versions of in the Bible. Stories like the flood exist in nearly every pre-Christian religious text.
bwhittington wrote:
In many cases, ancient books that are used in religions for moral values were probably the first ones written that helped eliminate the need for the word of mouth values that passed before.
Unfortunately "eliminating the need for word of mouth" encourages dogma. Once something is written down we give it an importance far beyond something spoken, even if it doesn't deserve it. All of this aside, it doesn't matter where the text came from. Good ideas are good ideas, their history notwithstanding.
-
Why is there only one species that has the ability to contemplate its own existence? We are the only species on Earth that no longer lives to procreate. We have moved beyond the rules of nature. Why?
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Why is there only one species that has the ability to contemplate its own existence?
Home sapiens is the only remaining representative of the genus homo probably because we're the bloodthirsty ape and relentlessly hunted our cousins to extinction. Or at best assimilated them. I guess we'll know if they manage to extract some sequencable DNA from those Neanterthal skeletons.
-
bwhittington wrote:
Is there another text from another religion that has these ideals that was written from the Bible?
Yes. The Bible is essentially a rehash of many of the world's religious and mythological texts of the time. I don't know their names unfortunately but a philosophy friend of mine once pulled out several books MUCH older than the Bible and showed me the stories in them, most of which you can find versions of in the Bible. Stories like the flood exist in nearly every pre-Christian religious text.
bwhittington wrote:
In many cases, ancient books that are used in religions for moral values were probably the first ones written that helped eliminate the need for the word of mouth values that passed before.
Unfortunately "eliminating the need for word of mouth" encourages dogma. Once something is written down we give it an importance far beyond something spoken, even if it doesn't deserve it. All of this aside, it doesn't matter where the text came from. Good ideas are good ideas, their history notwithstanding.
I can agree with all your statements. But how do they counter argue my point that the Bible can still be used as a moral compass today? Surely, people should not discount everything the bible (or any other text) says. That is essentially what the OP was trying to say.
Brett A. Whittington Application Developer