Married couples must have kids within 3 years

[Satenza]

 

So the Bible has no contradictions? Can you show an example of a paradigm shift within the Bible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you notice, Jesus is speaking about past beliefs in Jewish faith and shifting to a new outlook. If you want to know in depth on why, give me a PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can we find these paradigm shifts for all contradictions within the Bible though? Depite this being a recollection some time after the event occured how can you be so sure that this was even said and isn't just the objective point of view of the writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find it interesting that I keep answering your questions about my beliefs, despite you using them as ways to avoid stating the obvious about your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to think that because I beleive all morals can be questioned I can't assume i know whats best for society because i can't see a solid and definitive idea of right and wrong. If i beleive that the most important thing for society is protecting it's citizens from harm, then I can say 'You can't murder' and still not contradict myself because murdering would go against the principle of harm. I don't need an absolute right and wrong to know whats right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So now that the cat is out of the bag, why dont you explain to me how your beliefs, which are based on religion, is better than anyone else's beliefs, which are based on religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it because you believe their beliefs to be wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, then how can you condem them for not agreeing with your beliefs because they believe them to be wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree, this principle allows everyone to co-exist peacefully. Religions are all about judging, and sinning, and forgiveness, and negativity rather than the advancement of humans and individuality not for the sake of individuality but for advancing ourselves and thinking outside a set in stone section of rules. There anti-humanitarian if anything we're always under something and we can't be the supreme being even if we advance to perfection - so why bother?

[Tigra00]

Binyam:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity teaches to be tolerant of all people, sinners or not. Yes, this is true. However, there is no such thing as a "good" Christian. They acknowledge it as a sin, yes, but then they also try to change the person. Telling them of their sin and saying they should change their ways. Some will even go as far as to tell them they'll go to Hell if they do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is intolerance, if I do say so myself. Even if they don't tell them they're going to go to Hell, still acknowledging it is a sin and then telling the person this as if they should care is intolerance in itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, Jesus taught that you should tell people of their sins and try to help them, but he also said to turn the other cheek. Homosexuals don't WANT your help. They're happy as they are, and according to some scientists, can't help it. It's genetics. Therefor, blame God for making them that way, aye? Ah, there's a nice paradox for you...God created a homosexual to be the way he is...hmm...Of course, that is where people pipe up and automatically blame Satan, but whatever. That dude gets a pretty bad wrap for a being who has no power over us, only slight influence at best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm aware not ALL Christian's are total jerk-offs, but absolutely most of them are. They're pompous, intolerant, smug, snooty...Whatever you want to call their ways, they have an inferiority complex that they needn't have. What's sad is that it isn't totally their fault. They've been influenced by Church Leaders, who are usually absolute liars, hypocrits, bigots, la-de-da. Those labels could even be applied to my local Pastor, who once denied me entrance to his Church with my friend because he thought I was "bad news". Sadly for him, I'm was one of the best kids around, and FAR better than his alcoholic, whoreish daughters will ever be. But I digress...Church leader's are extremely corrupt, is my point. You have Ted Haggard, a dude who lead the biggest freakin' Christian church in America preaching against homosexuality and then leaving the church and was bagging a dude every night. That's just amazing to me. And of course, I wished to discuss that topic with people here and made a post, and if you look for it, you'll see that NOT A SINGLE Christian posted. They just didn't care to address it because it was a futile discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion. I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone. I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it. I don't have to label myself to prove it. I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is. Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too. But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: MY GOD. Tip.it, stop censoring trivial phrases and words. "Go-to-hell" has NO REASON to be censored.

[Satenza]

You have Ted Haggard, a dude who lead the biggest freakin' Christian church in America preaching against homosexuality and then leaving the church and was bagging a dude every night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention, in that documentary The Root Of All Evil? he told Dawkins to get off his land after the two discussed evolution and he thought Dawkins was calling his followers animals. Which is of course what we are.

[jjrox32]

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion. I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone. I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it. I don't have to label myself to prove it. I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is. Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too. But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... going to hell for rollerblading...... either there's something you're not telling us, or they were really, really bad christians. That stuff doesn't happen here :-k If they were truely christian, they'd welcome you with open arms....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that bolded part..... that's what the version of christianity that most people I know follow...

[Locke]

Can we find these paradigm shifts for all contradictions within the Bible though? Depite this being a recollection some time after the event occured how can you be so sure that this was even said and isn't just the objective point of view of the writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your objection is nothing more than a disbelief in the Bible. I can't prove it to you one way or the other, nor will I attempt to try. If you want to have a serious discussion about Christian apologetics, I'd be happy to do so. Give me a PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to think that because I beleive all morals can be questioned I can't assume i know whats best for society because i can't see a solid and definitive idea of right and wrong. If i beleive that the most important thing for society is protecting it's citizens from harm, then I can say 'You can't murder' and still not contradict myself because murdering would go against the principle of harm. I don't need an absolute right and wrong to know whats right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't think that. You believe that the most important thing is protecting citizens from harm, therefore you do your best to force that subjective belief on them. My criticism is when you look at someone else's belief, and say it is wrong to force their belief on society. Your belief has no more weight than anyone else's, because all beliefs are subjective. What I think is good for society, might not be justifiable under your "harm" principle, but it is justifiable under my "absolute morality" principle, and since both are subjective to you, both carry equal weight. You just don't seem to understand that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree, this principle allows everyone to co-exist peacefully. Religions are all about judging, and sinning, and forgiveness, and negativity rather than the advancement of humans and individuality not for the sake of individuality but for advancing ourselves and thinking outside a set in stone section of rules. There anti-humanitarian if anything we're always under something and we can't be the supreme being even if we advance to perfection - so why bother?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where you become a giant hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU think that your belief allows everyone to co-exist peacefully, but you forget it does not allow those who like to murder and steal exist peacefully. It is only your belief that this is the best way to advance society, it is not an absolute truth that this is the best way to advance society. Since it is a subjective belief, it carries no more weight than any other belief, aka, it is no more right than any other belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why can you not see this?

[jjrox32]

YOU think that your belief allows everyone to co-exist peacefully, but you forget it does not allow those who like to murder and steal exist peacefully. It is only your belief that this is the best way to advance society, it is not an absolute truth that this is the best way to advance society. Since it is a subjective belief, it carries no more weight than any other belief, aka, it is no more right than any other belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a question: Does ANY belief system, including athiesism, allow murders and thieves to live peacefully?

[Locke]

 

YOU think that your belief allows everyone to co-exist peacefully, but you forget it does not allow those who like to murder and steal exist peacefully. It is only your belief that this is the best way to advance society, it is not an absolute truth that this is the best way to advance society. Since it is a subjective belief, it carries no more weight than any other belief, aka, it is no more right than any other belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a question: Does ANY belief system, including athiesism, allow murders and thieves to live peacefully?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure. There are villages in the South Pacific where theft is a cultural norm.

[Satenza]

 

Can we find these paradigm shifts for all contradictions within the Bible though? Depite this being a recollection some time after the event occured how can you be so sure that this was even said and isn't just the objective point of view of the writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your objection is nothing more than a disbelief in the Bible. I can't prove it to you one way or the other, nor will I attempt to try. If you want to have a serious discussion about Christian apologetics, I'd be happy to do so. Give me a PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't prove to me one way or the other the Bible's word is infalliable then your morals based on it are not infalliable which is what I have been saying. Putting you into the same boat as me, and making your arguments based on contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to think that because I beleive all morals can be questioned I can't assume i know whats best for society because i can't see a solid and definitive idea of right and wrong. If i beleive that the most important thing for society is protecting it's citizens from harm, then I can say 'You can't murder' and still not contradict myself because murdering would go against the principle of harm. I don't need an absolute right and wrong to know whats right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't think that. You believe that the most important thing is protecting citizens from harm, therefore you do your best to force that subjective belief on them. My criticism is when you look at someone else's belief, and say it is wrong to force their belief on society. Your belief has no more weight than anyone else's, because all beliefs are subjective. What I think is good for society, might not be justifiable under your "harm" principle, but it is justifiable under my "absolute morality" principle, and since both are subjective to you, both carry equal weight. You just don't seem to understand that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're beleifs are based on absolute morals from the Bible, the only restraint the harm principle puts onto people is their ability to harm. We don't live in a state of nature and the states purpose is to protect the individual so this rule should be an automatic assumption of what each state does. Basing laws off the Bible takes things too far, it's protecting us from harm then going futher too forcing people to abide by the rules in the book not what the state is actually there to do. Does banning homosexual marriage protect the individual? No it holds prejudice against the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree, this principle allows everyone to co-exist peacefully. Religions are all about judging, and sinning, and forgiveness, and negativity rather than the advancement of humans and individuality not for the sake of individuality but for advancing ourselves and thinking outside a set in stone section of rules. There anti-humanitarian if anything we're always under something and we can't be the supreme being even if we advance to perfection - so why bother?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where you become a giant hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU think that your belief allows everyone to co-exist peacefully, but you forget it does not allow those who like to murder and steal exist peacefully. It is only your belief that this is the best way to advance society, it is not an absolute truth that this is the best way to advance society. Since it is a subjective belief, it carries no more weight than any other belief, aka, it is no more right than any other belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why can you not see this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I already said the protection of the individual is and should be the only purpose of the state. Allowing harm isn't protecting the individual and so therefore it's not allowed. Thats the reason the social contract exists because as I am sure you are familliar life without the state would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" according to Hobbes. I am not asking you too give me reasons as to why this has the same weight as your state. I'm asking why you beleive yours would be better?

[Tigra00]

 

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion. I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone. I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it. I don't have to label myself to prove it. I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is. Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too. But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... going to hell for rollerblading...... either there's something you're not telling us, or they were really, really bad christians. That stuff doesn't happen here :-k If they were truely christian, they'd welcome you with open arms....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that bolded part..... that's what the version of christianity that most people I know follow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I told you everything in full truth. I laughed at the lady at the time. I was just a little kid, too, lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was also told I was going to hell for saying "Damnit" on the same side-walk the church was on...Though I wasn't infront of it or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely true. :P

[jjrox32]

 

 

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion. I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone. I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it. I don't have to label myself to prove it. I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is. Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too. But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... going to hell for rollerblading...... either there's something you're not telling us, or they were really, really bad christians. That stuff doesn't happen here :-k If they were truely christian, they'd welcome you with open arms....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that bolded part..... that's what the version of christianity that most people I know follow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I told you everything in full truth. I laughed at the lady at the time. I was just a little kid, too, lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was also told I was going to hell for saying "Damnit" on the same side-walk the church was on...Though I wasn't infront of it or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely true. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK.... either that was a VERY extreme church or something's not right. Now I know why people have a bad view of churches..... that's just ridiculous.

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion. I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone. I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it. I don't have to label myself to prove it. I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is. Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too. But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... going to hell for rollerblading...... either there's something you're not telling us, or they were really, really bad christians. That stuff doesn't happen here :-k If they were truely christian, they'd welcome you with open arms....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that bolded part..... that's what the version of christianity that most people I know follow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I told you everything in full truth. I laughed at the lady at the time. I was just a little kid, too, lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was also told I was going to hell for saying "Damnit" on the same side-walk the church was on...Though I wasn't infront of it or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely true. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK.... either that was a VERY extreme church or something's not right. Now I know why people have a bad view of churches..... that's just ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Shrug*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seems to be a pretty normal church to me. We have Luthern church and a Catholic church in my town...My twon has 565 people...Bit over-kill. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not some psycho Baptist church, is what I mean.

[das1330]

wow, i cant belive thats not a joke :shock:

 

 

 

until i saw that it was to make a point

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh and you must have some really, really crazy people in the churches where you are. the crazy people on tv are usually like born again christans who are usually crazy. most of the churches i know are not loud, not crazy, usually very nice and defanantly dont tell you your going to hell for rollerblading. LOL

[Tigra00]

In all fairness, I guess it was because I was rollerblading in front of a church, not just rollerblading in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Still, very dumb. :lol:

[One Too Far]

 

 

 

You're beleifs are based on absolute morals from the Bible, the only restraint the harm principle puts onto people is their ability to harm. We don't live in a state of nature and the states purpose is to protect the individual so this rule should be an automatic assumption of what each state does. Basing laws off the Bible takes things too far, it's protecting us from harm then going futher too forcing people to abide by the rules in the book not what the state is actually there to do. Does banning homosexual marriage protect the individual? No it holds prejudice against the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yep cause by banning homosexual marriage you say that cause they are ''sinners'' they dont deserve to marry to the ones they truly love while you also said that evryone sins so if some one steals a apple one day cause he has no money and a few years later got money and wants to buy stuf from a shop he should be banned from evry shop cause he has done that sin?

[Locke]

If you can't prove to me one way or the other the Bible's word is infalliable then your morals based on it are not infalliable which is what I have been saying. Putting you into the same boat as me, and making your arguments based on contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it. My belief in absolutism does not contradict itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're beleifs are based on absolute morals from the Bible, the only restraint the harm principle puts onto people is their ability to harm. We don't live in a state of nature and the states purpose is to protect the individual so this rule should be an automatic assumption of what each state does. Basing laws off the Bible takes things too far, it's protecting us from harm then going futher too forcing people to abide by the rules in the book not what the state is actually there to do. Does banning homosexual marriage protect the individual? No it holds prejudice against the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming a good. Subjective. Trying to pass it off as an absolute. Contradiction. How many times are you going repeat the same mistake?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I already said the protection of the individual is and should be the only purpose of the state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming a good. Subjective. Trying to pass it off as an absolute. Contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allowing harm isn't protecting the individual and so therefore it's not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming an absolute good again. Contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats the reason the social contract exists because as I am sure you are familliar life without the state would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" according to Hobbes. I am not asking you too give me reasons as to why this has the same weight as your state. I'm asking why you beleive yours would be better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I believe in absolutism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing: You believe YOUR beliefs are better, you just won't admit it because you know if you do it would be a glaring contradiction in your philosophy. Every time you respond you completely ignore the ridiculous contradiction you are making in your own philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do not believe in an absolute good, your "harm principle" cannot make society absolutely better. Quit saying "protecting from harm" is best for society, because you don't believe in an absolute best, only a subjective best. Quit contradicting yourself with every post you make.

[Satenza]

 

If you can't prove to me one way or the other the Bible's word is infalliable then your morals based on it are not infalliable which is what I have been saying. Putting you into the same boat as me, and making your arguments based on contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it. My belief in absolutism does not contradict itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basing your state on absolutes which are based on a falliable Bible consequences in the morals that make your state falliable and subjective. I 'refuse' to beleive it because you can't prove to me absolute morals from the Bible exists. Either there isn't a paradigm shift for every contradiction in the Bible (or plain stupid orders) or the writers could have used their own objective opinion to write about what they want others to beleive. If you're saying that your morals require faith to beleive in then they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that morals from the Bible are innate ideas and everyone knows and agree's with them? Well i don't beleive in some of the morals it teaches and neither to millions of others. If they where absolute wouldn't everyone have the same opinion of what is right and wrong? My ability to question your morals means they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do not believe in an absolute good, your "harm principle" cannot make society absolutely better. Quit saying "protecting from harm" is best for society, because you don't believe in an absolute best, only a subjective best. Quit contradicting yourself with every post you make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The state was created for protection of it's citizens. We entered a social contract to be protected - therefore preventing harm has nothing to do with morals, but to protect the individual. Also subjective consensus morality is a better term for the morality the harm principle could be defined under.

[Locke]

Basing your state on absolutes which are based on a falliable Bible consequences in the morals that make your state falliable and subjective. I 'refuse' to beleive it because you can't prove to me absolute morals from the Bible exists. Either there isn't a paradigm shift for every contradiction in the Bible (or plain stupid orders) or the writers could have used their own objective opinion to write about what they want others to beleive. If you're saying that your morals require faith to beleive in then they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't make them subjective. Just because people refuse to acknowledge them does not make it subjective. You're right, I can't "prove" morality, nor will I try to. That doesn't even make sense. But that doesn't mean they can't be absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that morals from the Bible are innate ideas and everyone knows and agree's with them? Well i don't beleive in some of the morals it teaches and neither to millions of others. If they where absolute wouldn't everyone have the same opinion of what is right and wrong? My ability to question your morals means they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your ability to question them means you have free will, not that they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The state was created for protection of it's citizens. We entered a social contract to be protected - therefore preventing harm has nothing to do with morals, but to protect the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to your subjective philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, no matter how you spin it, what you believe the responsibility of the state is in regards to legislating morality, is your subjective opinion. And since you believe no one's subjective opinions are right, you have to admit yours isn't any more "right" than mine.

[Satenza]

 

Basing your state on absolutes which are based on a falliable Bible consequences in the morals that make your state falliable and subjective. I 'refuse' to beleive it because you can't prove to me absolute morals from the Bible exists. Either there isn't a paradigm shift for every contradiction in the Bible (or plain stupid orders) or the writers could have used their own objective opinion to write about what they want others to beleive. If you're saying that your morals require faith to beleive in then they are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't make them subjective. Just because people refuse to acknowledge them does not make it subjective. You're right, I can't "prove" morality, nor will I try to. That doesn't even make sense. But that

 

 

 

doesn't mean they can't be absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not you can't prove morality which i know you can't it's that you can't prove the Bible is compltley factual which you base your absolute morality on. Suppose Matthew saw something Jesus said, disagreed with it and wrote it to mirror his own opinion or simply got it wrong. I really can't see how you can place so much faith on a reccolection of an event which happened years before and base your absolute morality on something that could be subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The state was created for protection of it's citizens. We entered a social contract to be protected - therefore preventing harm has nothing to do with morals, but to protect the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to your subjective philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's not the purpose to protect it's citizens then what is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, no matter how you spin it, what you believe the responsibility of the state is in regards to legislating morality, is your subjective opinion. And since you believe no one's subjective opinions are right, you have to admit yours isn't any more "right" than mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As i said, just because i beleive in subjective morality does not mean i can't agree or disagree with certain principles. I can estimate the relevance each system has in reality and go off of that can't i?

[Moop]

Thats not fair O_o

[Locke]

It's not you can't prove morality which i know you can't it's that you can't prove the Bible is compltley factual which you base your absolute morality on. Suppose Matthew saw something Jesus said, disagreed with it and wrote it to mirror his own opinion or simply got it wrong. I really can't see how you can place so much faith on a reccolection of an event which happened years before and base your absolute morality on something that could be subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I can't prove it, but that doesn't matter. If morality is subjective anyway, why do you care what I base it on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's not the purpose to protect it's citizens then what is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You assume that there is only one kind of protection. I happen to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As i said, just because i beleive in subjective morality does not mean i can't agree or disagree with certain principles. I can estimate the relevance each system has in reality and go off of that can't i?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know you can agree and disagree with what you like. The problem is you think it's okay to force YOUR morals and ideas on people, but it's not okay for people you disagree to do it. You fail to see that no matter what I base my sense of morals on it has just as much weight as yours because "good" is relative.

[spikerkid]

That's a stupid idea. 2 reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People can't afford it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and women might not want to go through all the pain 3 times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it'll pass

[____]

erkid"]I don't think it'll pass

Read thread - then post reply.

[Binyam]

Christianity teaches to be tolerant of all people, sinners or not. Yes, this is true. However, there is no such thing as a "good" Christian.

 

 

 

Let me remind you of a word you seem very fond of using:

 

 

 

bigÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷otÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ry [big-uh-tree]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun, plural -ries.

 

 

 

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

 

 

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Entry: bigotry

 

 

 

Part of Speech: noun

 

 

 

Definition: prejudice

 

 

 

Synonyms: Jim Crowism*, bias, discrimination, dogmatism, fanaticism, ignorance, injustice, mindlessness, narrow-mindedness, partiality, provincialism, racialism, racism, sectarianism, sexism, unfairness

 

 

 

Antonyms: fairness, open-mindedness, tolerance

 

 

 

Source: Roget's New MillenniumÃÆââââ¬Ã¾Ãââ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)

 

 

 

Copyright ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâé 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

* = informal or slang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prejÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷uÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷dice[prej-uh-dis]

 

 

 

noun, verb, -diced, -dicÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ing.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

 

 

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

 

 

 

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

 

 

 

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

 

 

 

Now, you have stated:

 

 

 

My twon has 565 people

 

 

 

How can you state empirically then:

 

 

 

However, there is no such thing as a "good" Christian

 

 

 

Are you trying to tell me that in all your years, with all of your experience, in a town of 565, that you have met every Christian ever?? That, sir, seems quite impossible. So then, it seems to be that you are making decisions about a religion that currently has approximately 2.1 billion followers, and exponentially more followers if you count every Christian throughout history, based on what is extremely limited experience.

 

 

 

That is intolerance, if I do say so myself. Even if they don't tell them they're going to [bleep], still acknowledging it is a sin and then telling the person this as if they should care is intolerance in itself.

 

 

 

So, once again, you are qualifying your statements, based on your experience. Since we have now quantified your experience (19-20 years old living in a town of 565), your statements carry very little weight here. Once again, I point you to Dictionary.com:

 

 

 

bigÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷otÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ry [big-uh-tree]

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun, plural -ries.

 

 

 

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

 

 

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Entry: bigotry

 

 

 

Part of Speech: noun

 

 

 

Definition: prejudice

 

 

 

Synonyms: Jim Crowism*, bias, discrimination, dogmatism, fanaticism, ignorance, injustice, mindlessness, narrow-mindedness, partiality, provincialism, racialism, racism, sectarianism, sexism, unfairness

 

 

 

Antonyms: fairness, open-mindedness, tolerance

 

 

 

Source: Roget's New MillenniumÃÆââââ¬Ã¾Ãââ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)

 

 

 

Copyright ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâé 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

* = informal or slang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prejÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷uÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷dice[prej-uh-dis]

 

 

 

noun, verb, -diced, -dicÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ing.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

 

 

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

 

 

 

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

 

 

 

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

 

 

 

Indeed, Jesus taught that you should tell people of their sins and try to help them, but he also said to turn the other cheek.

 

 

 

I thought you have never read the Bible?

 

 

 

I've never read the Bible, so does anyone know? I'm curious

 

 

 

Are you trying to tell me now that you are a Bible scholar?

 

 

 

Homosexuals don't WANT your help. They're happy as they are, and according to some scientists, can't help it. It's genetics. Therefor, blame God for making them that way, aye?

 

 

 

I think you would be very hard pressed to find reputable genetic research that can empirically state that sexual orientation is solely caused by genetics. Most reports that I have read have leading researchers stating otherwise.

 

 

 

Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors

 

 

 

At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role

 

 

 

Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality

 

 

 

I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors

 

 

 

I'm aware not ALL Christian's are total jerk-offs, but absolutely most of them are. They're pompous, intolerant, smug, snooty...Whatever you want to call their ways, they have an inferiority complex that they needn't have. What's sad is that it isn't totally their fault. They've been influenced by Church Leaders, who are usually absolute liars, hypocrits, bigots, la-de-da. Those labels could even be applied to my local Pastor, who once denied me entrance to his Church with my friend because he thought I was "bad news". Sadly for him, I'm was one of the best kids around, and FAR better than his alcoholic, [bleep] daughters will ever be. But I digress...Church leader's are extremely corrupt, is my point.

 

 

 

My beef with Christianity comes from a life-time of being "done wrong" by them, weither it be personally or just seeing it. There are two churches in this town, one I was denied entrance to, as I said, and the other I would sometimes rollerblade past and be told I was going to Hell. FOR ROLLERBLADING. Then you go home and turn on the TV and see people like Peter Poppoff and Benny Hinn absolutely robbing and conning people in the name of Christ. It's ridiculous. I just recoil from anything having to do with that disgusting religion.

 

 

 

Judging Christianity based on your experiences with Christians, while admittedly, very easy and natural to do, is actually wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is how I look at it: The Bible teaches that being a Christian is about a personal relationship with God. So, with that in mind, the only thing that I can judge is where I stand in my beliefs. I don't have the right to tell you or anyone else how you should or should not live your life. That is between you and God, whether you believe in Him or not. The way that I "tell" others about my beliefs, is how I live my life. It has to be that way, because I can tell you all I want about what I believe, but if you don't see that in the way I conduct myself, it is meaningless. Hence, the "controversial" statement from the book of James "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself". Now, if asked, by all means, I will talk about my beliefs, but I won't go running about forcing my beliefs on others, because that does nothing but alienate people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, with that said, not every person that professes to be a Christian believes this way. The problem is when people fall into religiosity. Jesus spoke of this on numerous occasions when dealing with the Pharisees and warned of it frequently when speaking with his followers. Paul also spoke of it extensively in the book of Romans. The issue here is when people get so caught up in their religion that they lose focus of what the religion is all about. My feeling is that this is what you encountered as a youth in your home town. However, to make a blanket judgement on all Christians, based on this, does precisely the thing that you claim to hate about them. It alienates them based on unquantified experiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have Ted Haggard, a dude who lead the biggest freakin' Christian church in America preaching against homosexuality and then leaving the church and was bagging a dude every night. That's just amazing to me. And of course, I wished to discuss that topic with people here and made a post, and if you look for it, you'll see that NOT A SINGLE Christian posted. They just didn't care to address it because it was a futile discussion.

 

 

 

On the contrary, I would argue that not a single Christian posted because they realized you were only trying to start a fight. Knowing that, it isn't worth it. What are you trying to say? That Christians cannot sin? Paul, who is, arguably, the greatest of the Apostles said:

 

 

 

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

 

 

 

In my last post I told you:

 

 

 

 

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

 

 

 

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

 

 

So you are telling me that Christians should have been drawn in when you posted "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, HERE IS A CHRISTIAN, A PASTOR EVEN, SINNING!!!" It seems you underestimated us.

 

 

 

I feel that, if there's a God floatin' around in dimensional space or something...His relationship with me is mine and mine alone.

 

 

 

You know, you are absolutely right. Your relationship with God is yours and only yours.

 

 

 

I don't have to go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it.

 

 

 

You shouldn't go to church with a bunch of phonies to prove it, that would be wrong. You would be surprised, however, how many churches there are that don't have a bunch of phonies in them. Sometimes you have to look though. The purpose for going to church should not be to prove anything. It should be to learn. Certainly you would agree that there are others with greater knowledge and experience than you. Having those people teach you is a good thing. This applies to any subject, not just religion.

 

 

 

I don't have to label myself to prove it.

 

 

 

Nope, no labels required.

 

 

 

I don't have to be a great zealot crusader for "the cause" to prove it. It's just how it is.

 

 

 

Having zeal for what you believe is not a bad thing. Using that zeal to force your beliefs on others would be wrong though, so in this we are also in agreement.

 

 

 

Apparently, the guy loves me for some reason, and that's cool. If he exists, hell, I'll love him too.

 

 

 

You're absolutely right, he does love you, and he does exist ;)

 

 

 

But I don't need to join a freakin' cult to say that.

 

 

 

Once again, absolutely correct. Joining a "freakin' cult" would not be advisable.

 

 

 

Why do you?

 

 

 

Do I? See, I thought we were getting along so well there, then you started making assumptions about me again.

[Satenza]

 

It's not you can't prove morality which i know you can't it's that you can't prove the Bible is compltley factual which you base your absolute morality on. Suppose Matthew saw something Jesus said, disagreed with it and wrote it to mirror his own opinion or simply got it wrong. I really can't see how you can place so much faith on a reccolection of an event which happened years before and base your absolute morality on something that could be subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I can't prove it, but that doesn't matter. If morality is subjective anyway, why do you care what I base it on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It matters a lot. You base your morals on something which could be subjective and claim your morals and only your morals to be absolute. Theres no justified true beleif, it's just an assumption from you that the Bible is fact, doesn't hold the writers own subjective opinion and doesn't account for any mistakes after writing about an event years after it actually happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It holds the same weight as my beleifs but at least I can say they may not be right, change could happen and my morals can change over time. I really can't see how you expect the human race to develop and advance if you force down your absolute morals upon us and expect us to conform to a society thats 2000 years old, when what you base your morals on isn't even factually true. I thought you might like this quote I agree with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's not the purpose to protect it's citizens then what is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You assume that there is only one kind of protection. I happen to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anything other than protection from harm is taking state interferance too far - in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As i said, just because i beleive in subjective morality does not mean i can't agree or disagree with certain principles. I can estimate the relevance each system has in reality and go off of that can't i?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know you can agree and disagree with what you like. The problem is you think it's okay to force YOUR morals and ideas on people, but it's not okay for people you disagree to do it. You fail to see that no matter what I base my sense of morals on it has just as much weight as yours because "good" is relative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My one moral idea - restricting people from harm. Unlike your absolute morals based on the Bible - which can be interpreteted in different ways. Which have tonnes of codes to follow, which have contradicting morals to follow - I'm sure a paradigm shift does not occur for every contradiction and at the end of the day are subjective. Whether you beleive it is or not they are subjective to the person in charge and so giving that person so much control can change society into a dictatorship. Wheras the harm principle is based upon subjective consensus morality where the majoirty can decide, but they can be influenced to change what they decide.

[Locke]

I understand completely that you don't like the fact that I base my absolute morality on a book, but you are using it to avoid admitting that you are a hypocrite. This debate is over.