Religion — Page 45

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language, I thought I was in the Random Thoughts thread.

TV's Frink said:

Pardon my language

Wna i byth maddeuwch y ffieidd sydd yn Saesneg.

If you want a good overview of how The Bible came together and why it is worth reading even if you are not a believer see if you can get a hold of a copy of this through your library, it is very good and well worth watching.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-the-bible.html

Nanner Split said:

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8]jesus is my friend[/url]

 Way to proofread, butt-head.

JEDIT: Jesus, that's pretty fantastic.

JEDIT2: Satan is My Friend

Satan is Yog-Sothoth's bitch. That's what Satan is.

Perhaps, but it is clearly fabricated and symbolic, regardless of whether or not it was meant to be taken literally. Which Biblical passages are you thinking about? I can only think of the one where Jesus prohibits divorce, in which his quotation still works just fine if the story isn't literal, and the one in one of the Pauline letters in which the author contrasts Jesus with Adam. That one also still works if the creation story isn't taken literally.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Nope, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that you hold moral values that you consider right. Do you know where those values came from? From society. And that society's values are descended from Judeo-Christian values. That's all I'm saying here.

And that is exactly what I was trying deny. You make it look like Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of the society itself (I apologise if that is only my impression). Yet it is just a small evolutionary piece. At some point it even completely opposed (indirectly though Church) many of the moral standards of modern western society. And it still continuous to oppose (indirectly though Church) some of moral standards of western society today. I mean you may try blame everything on the Church as an institution and say religion has nothing to with it. But I am a very practical person and cannot accept such excuse.

You are absolutely incorrect.  Do some research.  Two major components contributed tremendously to our culture: Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman.  To say otherwise reveals nothing but ignorance.  I am speaking especially specifically about our morals.  Look at the virtues of Far Eastern civilization.  It is very different.  A big part of that is because of their religion.  Even atheist China still bears great influence from the values of Confucianism and Buddhism.  You may disagree, but I'm sorry, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

darth_ender said:

Oh my gosh. You mean Christianity did all that? I didn't know. Gee

I did not say Christianity did that. I quite clearly said Church did that in the name of Christianity. But anyway that was not really relevant to this discussion. I just wanted to point out that religion directly or indirectly was a major amoral factor in Europe for a several centuries. There was a struggle to actually move the society away from that direction.

 It still doesn't take away from the fact that I know more on that topic than you do, nor that such amoral actions represent the whole of the Catholic Church, Christianity, or religion in general.  And as I pointed out, atheism is capable of just as much immorality and evil.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

darth_endersaid:

In other words, morals are not universal. There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right. Not unless there is a Supreme Being. Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society. Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

I hope you use the term warfare in a bit of hyperbole. I do not wish to cause contention, though I debate passionately. I really had no side point. I just used a lot of words to convey my point, which I summarized in the above quote.

Well and I did not argue against that simply because I agreed with that part. But further in you post, you gave a huge credit to religion for modern western moral norms, which I argued against.

You stated that I needed to provide my points clearer.  Thus I underlined my points.

Ultimately, my point was one thing, which I am stating again, though it is underlined above:

Morals are not universal (unless there is a superior Lawmaker).  They are defined by society.

Frank your Majesty said:

I thought you wanted to say the ten commandments are in contrast to survival of the fittest, or something similar.

If you don't take the bible literally, you can easily say that God creating earth and life in seven days was a way for people 2500 years ago to imagine how everything started. You can still believe in Heaven and Jesus dying for your sins. That's the essence of not taking something literally.

Of course, evolution is nowhere mentioned in the bible, but neither is electricity and yet, even members of the Westboro Baptist Church use electric light.

         I've found no need to avoid a literal interpretation of world and life origins, even if we accept evolution of the directed sort.

        "Let there be light." The heavens were stretched out as a tent (a small indistinct wad into a large, stretched, more complex structure : The big bang is all the rage with the eggheads.

         "...the circle of the earth." which can be interpreted as "...the roundness of the earth.": Magellan would like a word with you.

        "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.": A feller named Albert was all over that.

        There is a much abreviated description of an "evolutionary" progression from light, to celestial bodies, to seas and aquatic life, to terrestrial advanced life (including mankind. Adam was a special 8th day creation) within a period of 6 days (see: that Albert feller.): A guy named Charley had something to say about this.

        Granted, there is very little material to work with. But if you are willing to indulge some metaphorical and figurative language, a literal interpretation does not necessarily contradict "science".

       P.S. Oh, and the Westboro "Baptists" are agitprop shills tasked with performing for the 'Two Minute Hates' of the shill MSM newscasts. The purpose is to provoke maximum HATRED in their enlightened tools and stooges for Christians and their children who try to be sincere and independent of the Luciferian Unity "Church". This will make things easier come 'The Great Culling' after 'The Big Glitch' to save the planet from 'Global Warming'.

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language

Well you know I hate it when you don't use proper English. I pardon you this time but next time spell it with "s".

 Forgive me for humoring you, and I don't mean to be a bad neighbor, but I think we Americans consider in an honor to spell words words our own way.  It gives us our version of English its own flavor, its own color, and I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change our behavior.

You see, we Americans are of a different caliber than the Brits.  We like our version of English to be front and center in the world stage.  So forgive me my little political maneuver here on this board, but I think I stand with the rest of my American friends when I say, without apologizing, though I mean no offense, that we will continue to proudly maximize our own spelling in our dialog with the rest of the world.  It's best for all you Brits to just get with the program.

;)

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Perhaps, but it is clearly fabricated and symbolic, regardless of whether or not it was meant to be taken literally. Which Biblical passages are you thinking about? I can only think of the one where Jesus prohibits divorce, in which his quotation still works just fine if the story isn't literal, and the one in one of the Pauline letters in which the author contrasts Jesus with Adam. That one also still works if the creation story isn't taken literally.

Jesus is traced directly back to Adam in the Luke genealogy. Jesus said that in the beginning God created them male and female, making it clear that man was created specifically by God and not a product of millions of years of evolution. Paul also refers to Adam and Eve and in 1 Timothy writes about the original sin and the order of creation of Adam and Eve. It's pretty clear that they are described as real people and the events of Genesis are regarded as facts rather than myth.

 Nevertheless, such does not rule out the possibility.  You know, as a Mormon, it is clear to me that while some of our doctrine actually meshes better with ancient Christianity than other religions (such as the deification of man), other items seem to be matters of an increase in understanding (such as gradations in heaven).

Aside from the possible completely symbolic nature of Genesis, is it possible that there is truth as well, such as a local Deluge and an homo sapien named Adam?

There is much science doesn't understand, yet theories are developed and modified.  A theological theory among the ancients does not mean it cannot be further developed over time.

No, it's just that you aren't funny.

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

No, it's just that you aren't funny.

I am sure I would feel the same why if I were the subject of my humour.

 In America we spell it "way."

Should I even point out that the movement to end slavery in the United States was very much led by the church?

Also religion in general and in the Unite States Christianity in particular lets people face death without fear.  Right now it doesn't look like my mom's sister is going to make it and the only thing that is keeping my mom from breaking down is knowing that my aunt will go to a better place. 

Now even if you don't believe and think this is something our brains have made up then surly you have to agree that this does give us an advantage and it is of value to the human race.

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language

Well you know I hate it when you don't use proper English. I pardon you this time but next time spell it with "s".

"Z" is cooler than "S".

Color, harbor, glamor, etc. should always be spelt with a "U", though.