A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

stevejazzx

togster wrote: »

You came in at the end of a discussion i had with Sam Vines. So really the debate was between me and him.

Fine, appreciated - perhaps don't reply?

togster wrote:

See above. And if you want please read through the debate i had with Sam.

I did man, I was following it, don't usually come in on the end of conversations but I thought your answers were weak but also that you were ducking the topic.

togster wrote:

Why so bitter?

I grasped your argument in it's entirety.

It's not that complicated.

Try and grasp mine.

Emm..could you eluciadate, so far I can only get that you're not happy with any conventional explanations of well....anything!

Re: bitter - apologies, tone was a bit harsh....mainly becasue of all the 'in you're opinion' nonsense.

togster wrote:

I'm more than ready, but i'll save if for someone, who comes with an open mind and calm demeanour.

Dramatic use of puncuation there - are you sure you're ready?

togster wrote:

Peace.

I would ask "what is peace".

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Im absolutely fine with that.Ya Doubting Thomas you.:)

Its simple you dont believe in God.

Sorry, when I said "It can play no part in my decision making process" I meant that it is invalid for anyone to include it in their decision making process. The reason I cannot include it is that it cannot be shown to be true and that applies to you too

CDfm wrote: »

But you dont believe it is possible to prove. Nice one;)

It's not that I don't believe it's possible to prove, it's a fact that it's not possible to prove. Unless you want to give me the proof now?

CDfm wrote: »

Protecting its citizens - Im fine with that.I can see circumstances where it needs to be considered.

Such as..

CDfm wrote: »

I havent overruled anything as I was never taught to be prejudiced against or condemn homosexuals.

So your parents overruled it. The bible still tells you to condemn homosexuality.
Your argument that religious reasoning is ok seems to be based on the idea that it's ok to overrule it when it doesn't make sense independently of the religion. Basically religion is alright as long as you don't really believe it and are able to apply common sense to it, only picking the good parts and allegorising the parts you don't like

CDfm wrote: »

The Bible says we shouldnt judge so in general we dont. You dont have to be religious to be prejudiced against homosexuals. Homophobia exists all by itself. I believe Viking society was anti homosexual and discri9minated against it.

No you don't have to be religious to condemn homosexuality. What's your point? The bible still tells you to do it

togster

stevejazzx wrote: »

I did man, I was following it, don't usually come in on the end of conversations but I thought your answers were weak but also that you were ducking the topic.

Weak from your point of view. But that's ok

stevejazzx wrote: »

Emm..could you eluciadate, so far I can only get that you're not happy with any conventional explanations of well....anything!

I can't explain it any further than i already have.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Re: bitter - apologies, tone was a bit harsh....mainly becasue of all the 'in you're opinion' nonsense.

I was trying to make a point. I think you know what i meant by in your opinion now? Simply that your opinion and mine is different. Neither is wrong or right.

Look i don't expect you to get it. Not many people do

stevejazzx wrote: »

are you sure you're ready?

I know i'm ready therefore yes i'm sure

stevejazzx wrote: »

I would ask "what is peace".

It is whatever you want it to be, because it will be unique to you :cool:

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

I was trying to make a point. I think you know what i meant by in your opinion now? Simply that your opinion and mine is different. Neither is wrong or right.

I'd love to see this put into practice:

"No doctor I won't take chemotherapy, I believe that cancer is no more difficult to get over than the flu. Your opinion is based on mountains of evidence and mine is based on nothing but neither of us is right or wrong"

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Protecting its citizens - Im fine with that.I can see circumstances where it needs to be considered.

Please tell me the circumstances where state sponsored murder would be appropriate and should be considered.

MrP

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biologically predetermined, as such I will hold my view that we really don't know. It's something that people can theorise upon.

The way I see it, I dont have a choice to be anything other than heterosexual, I cant choose to get aroused if i look at a attractive man no more than I cant help but get aroused when there's a attractive woman knocking around. It also works the same way for homosexuality. I think that's about as biologically conclusive as you can get.

Sam Vimes

Mickeroo wrote: »

The way I see it, I dont have a choice to be anything other than heterosexual, I cant choose to get aroused if i look at a attractive man no more than I cant help but get aroused when there's a attractive woman knocking around. It also works the same way for homosexuality. I think that's about as biologically conclusive as you can get.

That makes perfect sense to me. Even attraction itself is biologically determined as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't begin until we hit puberty and we get a rush of hormones. But then I don't have an unsubstantiated and unproven belief system that I assume to be correct about everything until (and even when) conclusively proven otherwise.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

If it is dangerous to make major decisions based on your religion, then it is equally dangerous to make major decisions based on your athiesm.

The only decision i've ever made based on my atheisim is to stop going to mass. :pac:

Húrin wrote: »

I see no reason to think this. If we could all see your evidence, wouldn't we all be atheists? Also, there is the issue of different people seeing the same evidence and interpreting it different ways.

No, I'm not an atheist based on evidence. Theres no evidence for or against a god. I guess that makes me more agnostic? If somebody says they've seen solid evidence of the non existence of a god they're more or less just as deluded as someone who says they know a god exists. I'm only an atheist when it comes to specific man made gods, I dont deny there could have or could be some sort of creator behind it all. A true god would be out of the realms of our understanding, the gods people around the world go out of their way to worship seem all to human in their traits to me. Deism,agnosticism, atheism all in one? Aren't these names we make up for ourselves silly?

Apologies for rambling. I completely agree with what you said about Persepolis.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

Please tell me the circumstances where state sponsored murder would be appropriate and should be considered.

MrP

When there is not non lethal means available to protect society or the public at large. Society should have recourse to defend itself in exceptional circumstances. Not all societies are as developed or have penal systems such as ours -but this wasnt always the case and it isnt the case worldwide.

So yes it is a "self defense" right.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry, when I said "It can play no part in my decision making process" I meant that it is invalid for anyone to include it in their decision making process. The reason I cannot include it is that it cannot be shown to be true and that applies to you too

But I dont agree with you.

It's not that I don't believe it's possible to prove, it's a fact that it's not possible to prove. Unless you want to give me the proof now?

Well you want scientific proof. You have free will and made up your own mind and that should be good enough for you.

So your parents overruled it. The bible still tells you to condemn homosexuality.

My parents didnt overrule it and no the bible hasnt told me to condemn anyone -it says Im not to judge.

Your argument that religious reasoning is ok seems to be based on the idea that it's ok to overrule it when it doesn't make sense independently of the religion. Basically religion is alright as long as you don't really believe it and are able to apply common sense to it, only picking the good parts and allegorising the parts you don't like

No you don't have to be religious to condemn homosexuality. What's your point? The bible still tells you to do it

The bible says- Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged". and "render unto Caesar" in Matthew, Luke and Mark points towards agreeing with secular law on the matter.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd love to see this put into practice:

"No doctor I won't take chemotherapy, I believe that cancer is no more difficult to get over than the flu. Your opinion is based on mountains of evidence and mine is based on nothing but neither of us is right or wrong"

Nice one Sam - but tackle something with a proper ethical dilemma like euthenasia and impress me.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But I dont agree with you.

In what other areas of your life do you accept unsubstantiated claims that rely on the idea that the laws of nature were broken to give them authority and base important decisions on the assumption that they are true?

CDfm wrote: »

Well you want scientific proof. You have free will and made up your own mind and that should be good enough for you.

I'm a bit lost here. What does free will have to do with the existence or non existence of proof?

CDfm wrote: »

My parents didnt overrule it and no the bible hasnt told me to condemn anyone -it says Im not to judge.

Yes I know it says you're not to judge but it also describes these acts as immoral. Which part are we to accept and how do we come to the conclusion that one part is the perfect word of god and another can be overruled?

CDfm wrote: »

The bible says- Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged". and "render unto Caesar" in Matthew, Luke and Mark points towards agreeing with secular law on the matter.

the bible also says "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination" (leviticus 18:22) and makes several similar references in the new testament

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Nice one Sam - but tackle something with a proper ethical dilemma like euthenasia and impress me.

An ethical dilemma is subjective, it can be argued that there is no right or wrong there. Togster was arguing that there is no right or wrong in anything which is demonstrably not true and I have just demonstrated as much.

Likewise, whether or not god exists is not subjective. If he does then no amount of wishing or word play on my part will change that fact and vice versa

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In what other areas of your life do you accept unsubstantiated claims that rely on the idea that the laws of nature were broken to give them authority and base important decisions on the assumption that they are true?

Ok so you mean that science and knowledge is finite. You are basing what you say on a model cetiris paribus.So we know everything we need to knowand all important discoveries have been made. I didnt know that.

I'm a bit lost here. What does free will have to do with the existence or non existence of proof

Its your decision and you are free to make it and I dont have to accept your logic.

Yes I know it says you're not to judge but it also describes these acts as immoral. Which part are we to accept and how do we come to the conclusion that one part is the perfect word of god and another can be overruled?

the bible also says "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination" (leviticus 18:22) and makes several similar references in the new testament

Its still not my job but its between the individual and God.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ok so you mean that science and knowledge is finite. You are basing what you say on a model cetiris paribus.So we know everything we need to knowand all important discoveries have been made. I didnt know that.

No that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that we cannot behave as if we know something to be true when we know no such thing. I'm not sure how you got that from my point tbh

CDfm wrote: »

Its your decision and you are free to make it and I dont have to accept your logic.

Fair enough it's a free country. But if you're going to talk about it on a discussion forum you should be able to do so without resorting to, for example, making out that I said all important discoveries have been made when I said nothing even approaching that

CDfm wrote: »

Its still not my job but its between the individual and God.

I never said it was your job to punish them. All I said was that your religion requires you to consider homosexuality activity to be immoral and it does, in several places. Giving me another passage that apparently contradicts that only damages the authority of the bible

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that we cannot behave as if we know something to be true when we know no such thing. I'm not sure how you got that from my point tbh

How would you set about proving God exists then in all dimensions?

Fair enough it's a free country. But if you're going to talk about it on a discussion forum you should be able to do so without resorting to, for example, making out that I said all important discoveries have been made when I said nothing even approaching that

Well I dont see you starting a thread looking fopr CSI Miami type tests on other historical figures such as Plato or Aristotle or have I missed that one.

I never said it was your job to punish them. All I said was that your religion requires you to consider homosexuality activity to be immoral and it does, in several places. Giving me another passage that apparently contradicts that only damages the authority of the bible

So you require me to judge them:)

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd love to see this put into practice:

"No doctor I won't take chemotherapy, I believe that cancer is no more difficult to get over than the flu. Your opinion is based on mountains of evidence and mine is based on nothing but neither of us is right or wrong"

lol

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

How would you set about proving God exists then in all dimensions?

you can't and that's why believing in him is wishful thinking and not rational and why you shouldn't live your life as if he has been proven. A good start would be showing the the stories that are the basis for this god are well substantiated and consistent but you can't do that either

CDfm wrote: »

Well I dont see you starting a thread looking fopr CSI Miami type tests on other historical figures such as Plato or Aristotle or have I missed that one.

Plato and Aristotle are philosophers. Their work stands on its own merits and where it comes from doesn't really matter. Their authority is not reliant on there having been people called Plato and Aristotle, ie I'm not accepting it because Aristotle said it, I'm accepting it because it makes sense. And most importantly I have no reason to doubt that those men existed and wrote those works.


As I said earlier if you wanted to tell me there was a guy called jesus 2000 years ago who had some followers then the bible must just be considered enough evidence. But Aristotle never claimed to be the son of god, never claimed to perform miracles and never said I had to accept him as my saviour or burn for eternity. In that case an old story is not good enough evidence because history is littered with such stories and the only one we're expected to believe is the jesus one. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence

CDfm wrote: »

So you require me to judge them:)

I don't know what exactly you mean by judge. Do you mean punish them or just consider it to be wrong? Or option C?

btw I don't require anything. Your bible instructs you that these acts are immoral however

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you can't and that's why believing in him is wishful thinking and not rational and why you shouldn't live your life as if he has been proven. A good start would be showing the the stories that are the basis for this god are well substantiated and consistent but you can't do that either

Exactly you cant. What was that about all knowledge being finite??

Plato and Aristotle are philosophers. Their work stands on its own merits and where it comes from doesn't really matter. Their authority is not reliant on there having been people called Plato and Aristotle. And most importantly I have no reason to doubt that those men existed and wrote those works.

You want to cherrypick your own standard of proof. Your world -your way -like an ad for a female hygene product.

As I said earlier if you wanted to tell me there was a guy called jesus 2000 years ago who had some followers then the bible must just be considered enough evidence. But Aristotle never claimed to be the son of god, never claimed to perform miracles and never said I had to accept him as my saviour or burn for eternity. In that case an old story is not good enough evidence because history is littered with such stories and the only one we're expected to believe is the jesus one. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence

They dont require remarkable evidence -they require faith. You are free not to believe. You just require a different standard of historical proof than you require for other events.

I don't know what exactly you mean by judge. Do you mean punish them or just consider it to be wrong? Or option C?

btw I don't require anything. Your bible instructs you that these acts are immoral however

So you accept that the bible doesnt instruct me to judge.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Exactly you cant. What was that about all knowledge being finite??

It is possible that at some stage in the future we will acquire the necessary knowledge and abilities to be able to prove/disprove God but as it stands it is not possible to prove, which you acknowledge in this very post when you say it requires faith.

CDfm wrote: »

You want to cherrypick your own standard of proof. Your world -your way -like an ad for a female hygene product.

No I don't want to cherry pick my standard of proof. I use the same standard of proof for everything, where the strength of the evidence required is proportional to the unlikelihood of the claim. It is in fact you who wants to cherry pick your standard of evidence because as a sensible person you apply the same standard as me to everything in your life except your religious beliefs (but not everyone else's), where accepting it without evidence suddenly becomes a virtue. In any other area of life it makes you gullible and credulous.

CDfm wrote: »

They dont require remarkable evidence -they require faith. You are free not to believe. You just require a different standard of historical proof than you require for other events.

If you want to assert with confidence that an extremely unlikely claim is true then you do need remarkable evidence but if you want to say "I have nothing to support this claim but I really really want it to be true so I'm going to believe it despite this" then all you need is faith. But don't go pretending that it's rational to believe something just because you want to or that you're not taking a risk by accepting it as true without supporting evidence.

And that of course leaves open the possibility of Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Ganesh, fairies, goblins, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster and the great ju ju at the bottom of the sea. There is no proof of any of these claims so what makes christianity so special that you accept it without proof but none of the other thousands of equally valid claims? Cherry picking your standard of evidence?

CDfm wrote: »

So you accept that the bible doesnt instruct me to judge.

Ummm, no that's not what I said. Again, it depends on your definition of the word judge. It doesn't tell you to punish them yourself like a judge in court but it does tell you that you should judge them to be immoral.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is possible that at some stage in the future we will acquire the necessary knowledge and abilities to be able to prove/disprove God but as it stands it is not possible to prove, which you acknowledge in this very post when you say it requires faith.

Ok - when you have the technology.

No I don't want to cherry pick my standard of proof. I use the same standard of proof for everything, where the strength of the evidence required is proportional to the unlikelihood of the claim. It is in fact you who wants to cherry pick your standard of evidence because as a sensible person you apply the same standard as me to everything in your life except your religious beliefs (but not everyone else's), where accepting it without evidence suddenly becomes a virtue. In any other area of life it makes you gullible and credulous.

Do you really apply the same standard of proof to absolutely everything.

If you want to assert with confidence that an extremely unlikely claim is true then you do need remarkable evidence but if you want to say "I have nothing to support this claim but I really really want it to be true so I'm going to believe it despite this" then all you need is faith. But don't go pretending that it's rational to believe something just because you want to or that you're not taking a risk by accepting it as true without supporting evidence.

But you already have said you dont have the nesscessary knowledge or expertise.

And that of course leaves open the possibility of Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Ganesh, fairies, goblins, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster and the great ju ju at the bottom of the sea. There is no proof of any of these claims so what makes christianity so special that you accept it without proof but none of the other thousands of equally valid claims? Cherry picking your standard of evidence?

Your scraping the bottom of the barrel their. Wot -no teapot :rolleyes:

Ummm, no that's not what I said. Again, it depends on your definition of the word judge. It doesn't tell you to punish them yourself like a judge in court but it does tell you that you should judge them to be immora

Its quite clear cut. I dont do the judging.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ok - when you have the technology.

Right. And until then we're only guessing so basing a decision on the assumption that it's true carries inherent risk no?

CDfm wrote: »

But you already have said you dont have the nesscessary knowledge or expertise.

That's my whole point! That you can't confidently assert that it's true and all you can do is hope that it's true, which carries inherent risks if you make decisions based on that hope.

CDfm wrote: »

Your scraping the bottom of the barrel their. Wot -no teapot :rolleyes:

LOL

I list a load of things that are just as close to being proven as your closely held religious beliefs and you say I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel. Well if I am you are too mate. A billion muslims would disagree that Allah is scraping the bottom of the barrel

CDfm wrote: »

Do you really apply the same standard of proof to absolutely everything.

Lots of things in life don't really matter, for example I don't care if the grand canyon exists or not because it doesn't make any difference to my life. But when there are questions over something's validity and the question is very important to the nature of the universe then the standard of proof is very high. As I said, the strength of the evidence is proportional to the unlikehood of the claim.

It's also proportional to the risk I'm taking by accepting it, such as the earlier example I gave that if you're praying for something but you don't realistically expect the prayer to have any effect it doesn't really matter if God exists or not because you're not relying on him but, for example, an aunt of mine is a member of a small hardcore christian group who have very strict views on morality. Her children had sex out of wedlock so she now doesn't talk to them and has never met her grand children. If it turns out she's wrong she has destroyed those relationships for no reason. Think of it like the criminal court versus the civil court. In criminal proceedings someone could go to jail for the rest of their lives so you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt but in civil cases it's done on the balance of probability because the consequences are not as bad in that usually it's only about money owed or similar

Also, if I have an inclination towards wanting something to be true, for example the movie Zeitgeist which attempts to rubbish a lot of religious claims, I put that to the most scrutiny. I would love if Zeitgeist was true because if it was it would seriously damage the case for christianity but I investigated it and found they made most of it up. I didn't just accept it because I wanted it to be true.

CDfm wrote: »

Its quite clear cut. I dont do the judging.

Are you or are you not instructed that homosexual acts are immoral?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right. And until then we're only guessing so basing a decision on the assumption that it's true carries inherent risk no?


That's my whole point! That you can't confidently assert that it's true and all you can do is hope that it's true, which carries inherent risks if you make decisions based on that hope.

Im not trying to convert you and its up to you what you believe. It works for me.

LOL

Back to the teapot -does it have a teacosy

It's also proportional to the risk I'm taking by accepting it, such as the earlier example I gave that if you're praying for something but you don't realistically expect the prayer to have any effect it doesn't really matter if God exists or not because you're not relying on him but, for example, an aunt of mine is a member of a small hardcore christian group who have very strict views on morality. Her children had sex out of wedlock so she now doesn't talk to them and has never met her grand children. If it turns out she's wrong she has destroyed those relationships for no reason. Think of it like the criminal court versus the civil court.

Sorry about your aunt -its not my belief.You live life as best you can which Im sure is what you do too.

Are you or are you not instructed that homosexual acts are immoral?

Its not for us to judge and God is mercyful. So its a matter for the individual.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its not for us to judge and God is mercyful. So its a matter for the individual.

Does that not directly contradict many passages in the bible?

Namely:
- Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
- The Levitical Law (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
- Shrine Prostitutes (Deuteronomy 23:17)
- Arsenokoitais (1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Cor 6:9-10)
- What is "Natural"? (Romans 1:21-31)
- Strange Flesh (Jude 1:6-7)

CDfm wrote: »

Im not trying to convert you and its up to you what you believe. It works for me.

Maybe you're not trying to convert me but I'm trying to convert you by pointing out the fallacy in picking one unsubstantiated claim over all others and basing your life decisions on the hope that it's true

CDfm wrote: »

Back to the teapot -does it have a teacosy

HERESY!!!! The tea pot doth not have a cosy (Teapot bible. Book of chocolate digestives 18:22)

Sam Vimes

Just thought I'd give another few fine examples of where we ignore the morality of religion:

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body.

1 Corinthians 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2: 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Luke 19: 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Matthew 10: 34 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.

Leviticus 20: 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 21: 18 For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he that hath a flat nose, of anything superfluous. (I think the equal rights act takes care of that)

Genesis 1: 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you" (anyone for a joint?)

Joshua 24: 20 Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you. (seems he changed his mind when his son was born)

Leviticus 21: 9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire.

Isaiah 34: 6 The sword of the Lord is filled with blood.

Leviticus 20: 18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood. And both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Exodus 21: 20 And if a man smite his slave, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 But if he live for a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

Deuteronomy 21: 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, 19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out 20 unto the elders of his city, and 21 all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

2 Kings 6: 28 This woman said to me, "Give up your son; we will eat him today, and we will eay my son tomorrow." 29 So we cooked my son and ate him.

Isaiah 13: 15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished.

Deuteronomy 25: 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your GOD.

Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

You no more get your morality from your religion than I do. Just like me you get it from the current zeitgeist, the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate. And as long as you're doing that you are not taking the risk that you are accepting something from a fraudulent authority, you are just attributing your decisions to the wrong source. You might like to think you get your morality from the bible but the above clearly shows that not to be the case. Unless you refuse to be taught by a female teacher?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just thought I'd give another few fine examples of where we ignore the morality of religion:


You no more get your morality from your religion than I do. Just like me you get it from the current zeitgeist, the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate. And as long as you're doing that you are not taking the risk that you are accepting something from a fraudulent authority, you are just attributing your decisions to the wrong source. You might like to think you get your morality from the bible but the above clearly shows that not to be the case. Unless you refuse to be taught by a female teacher?

A bit heavy on the OT there Sam.

The current Zeitgeist - would that be the remastered version or the directors cut or Addendum the Sequel

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

A bit heavy on the OT there Sam.

The current Zeitgeist - would that be the remastered version or the directors cut or Addendum the Sequel

It's the same god in the OT so he considered those actions to be moral at one stage. It seems he changed his mind which contradicts the idea that he's perfect. The NT is closer to what our society considers moral but we still overrule large parts

Zeitgeist, as well as being a movie, is also a german word for the intellectual, political and ethical climate. Take a look at its wiki page

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Zeitgeist, as well as being a movie, is also a german word for the intellectual, political and ethical climate. Take a look at its wiki page

So your post was a tautology.:D

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You no more get your morality from your religion than I do.

Sounds like the Selfish Meme to me.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sounds like the Selfish Meme to me.

How do you mean?