How much GOD loves Us!

[rise]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: rise

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: rise
genetically predisposed? lol. so, an excuse to be gay?

gay is a choice, not genetic.

Keep telling yourself that.

If it makes you feel so much better about it, you can lie all you like. But once again, do not try to claim that gays do not deserve the same rights, because then you're stepping into the realm of bigotry and fascism.

I'm so sorry that gays make you feel uncomfortable (no I'm not, blow it out your ass), but stop lying. To make this statement proves that you have a complete lack of understanding of the science behind sexuality, or the recent discoveries about homosexuality and genes.

Lastly, it does not matter if you think your little story book written by nut-jobs 2000 years ago says that gays are bad, that doesn't make it true. It doesn't even make it a valid opinion to be looked into, because thats just what it is. A story book.

I'm not sure why you have these views, but I'm pretty sure it's not because you're a bad person. You've probably been misled and taught this your whole life like all the rest of them, and for that I pity you.

i said gays are bad? make me uncomfortable? no...

i said there is no gay gene, which there evidently isn't.

pity me, lol. sure, go ahead. i also take cash donations.

You can't really say there is no gay gene considering we haven't figured out what all the genes in our body do. We still have a ways to go as far as genetics is concerned.

whats the difference though? if people choose to believe in things we can't really or fully understand yet, be it genetics or God, why should one bash the other?

tolerance i say.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'd like to take a crack at this if you don't mind. My view is that there is no third impulse. What you call the third impulse is only our rationalization for the second impulse.

We have come to the point where we examine our own urges and actions and try to find the reasons behind them. One thing we often don't address when we try and figure out the reasons for our own behavior is that we are essentially wild animals living in our own environment. We can be observed and explained as easily as any species is observed and explained in any wildlife documentary.

I'm not saying that you could fit the intricacies of science and mathematics, or the minutiae of the various ways that we succeed and become wealthy into an hour long segment. Those are just the end results of a few basic drives that are shared by most other species on the planet, only we take them much further. So much farther do we take them that it's not all that difficult for a rational human being to begin to disassociate the complex end results from the relatively simple urges that drive them.

Propagation of the species is very likely the primary driving force behind many actions that we consider selfless or altruistic. Why do we think that's so bad? My best guess is that we like to think that we truly are in sole control of what we do. For some reason we don't want to associate ourselves so intimately with the other species living around us as to admit that the same essential imperatives drive us all. The only difference being the complexity and effectiveness of the methods we use to meet the needs of those imperatives.

Awesome post, exactly the type of insight i was looking for. I had never heard that before.

thank you

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: dugweb

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: dugweb

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: dugweb

I guess my question wasn't clear enough, or in your race to insult me you missed the point. But i bolded where you touched on it. I was asking basically where the "standards of humanity" come from.

Your question was clear, just unbelievably ignorant. The "standards of humanity" have evolved over 100,000 years of humanity living by them, codifying them and refining them as necessary. The mass of humanity, all the people throughout history down through uncountable generations have come up with a fairly simple definition of what's right and what's wrong. This is NOT something ambiguous like "right turn on red" or "is it okay to order pineapple and ham on pizza". It's RAPING CHILDREN. That has been a no-no throughout time. The very fabric of humanity has written that into their moral makeup and their laws for as long as those things have existed. What answer do you want? That some person just decided it was wrong on a whim and we've all followed along?

would every evolving species come to this same conclusion? Are animals just behind us in their discovery of what is right and what is wrong?

i dont know if you're trying to sound 'intellectual' by posing these 'profound' questions, because frankly they're pretty fucking retarded.

i was trying to illustrate my point, obviously not doing a very good job at it.

I just wanted an opinion of how moral law is explained from an atheist's perspective, because I honestly don't know. I would have been just as happy to have this exchange over PM's, but i thought that it could have been taken too personal. From what i gather I guess it's believed we just evolved to think the way we do about what is and what isn't the right way to act.

This is an easy one. There is no objective morality. Morality is subjective and always has been. What was acceptable in the time of Alexander the Great is considered barabarism today. Morality evloves and shifts.

As for where it comes from? That's an easy one too: society thrives when it is "moral". It mirrors evolution in the sense that what works survives and what doesn't dies.

As for what is moral, it all comes down to the "golden rule": do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't park in the red on school days. This makes it easier to get along with each other and thus easier to survive.

Morality DOESN'T come from nowhere, and it CERTAINLY doesn't come from god.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Where there is a Yin, there is a Yang.


NSFW

http://www.youporn.com


God bless them every one :laugh:

dammit where is the admin privillege when I need it! whats with these sites going all flash-encoding happy!

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: dugweb
I was asking basically where the "standards of humanity" come from.

edit: to be more specific, if they (the standards of conduct) come from nature (i.e. we're born with the knowledge of good vs. evil) do all living organisms have this same knowledge? If not, why?

I have no formal education in this area but this is my assumption based on my own observations and learnings.

I don't think humans are born with the knowledge of knowing "right from wrong". I think we are born with most of the basic instincts of other animals (survival, procreation, etc). What separates us is our ability to learn, communicate and socialize. We are taught and learn the concepts of right and wrong through upbringing and social interaction. Society determines what is right and wrong and that is "taught" to children as they grow within the society. As society evolves so do our concepts of right and wrong. That is why most of us believe it is wrong to sell/force our 14-15 year old daughters into marriage today.

Its quite easy to observe it in action today. Children who are brought up in dangerous inner city environments have a different view on "right and wrong" then children brought up in a safe middle class neighborhood. Even emotions, such as compassion, develop differently in the two because of their environment. Another example of how "right and wrong" are taught is suicide bombers. The vast majority of us think that it is "wrong" to blow ourselves up with the goal of killing civilians at the same time. But because the way some people where taught they believe it to be not only "right" but their duty.

As far as protecting children, I believe its the combination of basic instinct and "societal right and wrong". We instinctively protect and care for our children, as do many other animals. As a result of that instinct as well as social evolution we have decided that harming or abusing children is a horrible crime that should carry very harsh penalties.

 

[tealk]

John 11:25 - "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Of course if you ask anyone who is gay whether or not they've ALWAYS liked the same sex, they will ALWAYS say yes. None will admit it's a SEXUAL preference that doesn't need nor deserve rights nor protections under current civil liberties. It's a preference...a choice...plain and simple. There are a few cases where the genetics and hormones may have gotten mired up where a boy was born more girl than boy and vice versa...but they're an incredible minority when it comes to homosexuality. More choice than design for the majority of the gay population.

You're straight from the 1950s, aren't you?

I present to you a challenge: choose to spend a week being gay. That is, being physically attracted to men and desiring a relationship, both emotional and sexual, with other men.
Let me know how that works out for you. Heck, go for a day instead of a week.

 

[Ktulu]

Wow, why is this thread still alive?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
Wow, why is this thread still alive?

Because the OP keeps "resurrecting" it, if you'll pardon the pun

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ktulu
Wow, why is this thread still alive?

Because the OP keeps "resurrecting" it, if you'll pardon the pun

hahahaha

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: tealk
John 11:25 - "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"

truer words have never been spoken!!

I thought this thread had died, but as of 3:01pst on 9/10/07, IT LIVES!!~

 

[jonks]

Arise Lazarus! Jesus was the first necromancer, I am now become the second. Phear me!

But in the meantime, remember kids, no sex before marriage! http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...y=bdf400df34e41b93636a

 

[TheShiz]

I think more christians need to pay more attention to their stupid books:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
--1 Tim. 2:11-14

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: McGyver
"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

- Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine didn't quite understand the Christian thing.

 

[TheShiz]

As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35 NAB)

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

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2

But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father?s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father?s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 19:27

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35 NAB)

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

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2

But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father?s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father?s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 19:27

I like how you take out a whole lot of quotations from various parts of the bible without keeping an ounce of perspective.

Do you even know what you're quoting, or do you just store those quotes up and paste them to prove whatever warped agenda you're trying to convey on the intranets?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: McGyver
"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

- Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine didn't quite understand the Christian thing.

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: TheShiz
As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35 NAB)

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

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2

But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father?s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father?s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 19:27

I like how you take out a whole lot of quotations from various parts of the bible without keeping an ounce of perspective.

Do you even know what you're quoting, or do you just store those quotes up and paste them to prove whatever warped agenda you're trying to convey on the intranets?

So... we should "keep perspective" about the misogyny in the bible... but not the homophobia in the bible? Who chooses which parts we should have "perspective" about, and which parts we should take literally? If you need to take "perspective" about your divine-word-of-god-book, what does that mean for the quality of this god's word? Does the word of god just not age well?

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

And I'm sure you're a defacto master on the subject. You're the type who just accepts whatever unsubstantiated comments people make on any sort of subject, as long as it fits your little view of the world and society in general.

Originally posted by: preslove
So... we should "keep perspective" about the misogyny in the bible... but not the homophobia in the bible? Who chooses which parts we should have "perspective" about, and which parts we should take literally? If you need to take "perspective" about your divine-word-of-god-book, what does that mean for the quality of this god's word? Does the word of god just not age well?

You're confused for a number of reasons:
You've understood that this word of God was transcribed 3 thousand to 2300 years ago, so that's a step up. Congratulations on that, your parents must be really proud.

Now, you've assumed that Christians accept that every single bit of textual commentary provided by the authors of Leviticus. Leviticus was a social code written in the 9th or 8th centuries B.C. (notice how I say 9th to 8th because the calender goes backwards when it comes to B.C. or "B.C.E" if you insist on being politically correct). In other words, God was not necessarily the author of the book, it was written by a people who were interpreting how God's word and attitude would best be reflected in their own society.

You will find that the Judaic sections (i.e. Old Testemant) of the Bible is against the consumption of Blood and pork and so forth, yet Christians readily eat pork and meat, not just because the New Testament is A-ok with it, but because different cultures didn't have a problem with it.

In regards to your comments about homophobia and misogyny. Such blatant ignorance. Note, I'm not calling you stupid, or even an idiot, but that is truly defacto ignorance.

The civilization founded in what is now Israel that truly flowered in the 9-8th centuries B.C. DID have "misogyny." HOWEVER, every civilization in the world had misogyny. Why? Because civilizations didn't have the luxury of feminism and every single woman making a choice for herself. Hell, most men didn't have that luxury. It's not a case of strong versus weak, but a case for survival. As the ancient people saw it, society needed to be strucutured, or else the whole thing fell apart.

To better respect God's word and the country He gave them, I imagine the Israelites were merely codifying a series of laws they saw would honor Him. Note I said "They saw."

Even so, the Israelites did have lax rules on women. They were treated with respect. They could testify in court (something women living in Assyria and Babylon couldn't, roughly the same time period) they could own land, they could sign legal documents. Of course there were standard norms like widows remarrying, but they weren't followed, and in any case, a widow remarrying or being pressured to, is hardly different from contemporary society, and I'm sure most women are quite content with the way things are structured now.

Again, you're confused between the actual interpretations reflected in individual societies as reflected by their writings, VERSUS, the actual word of God, and the point that Christianity fundamentally believes that those who believe will be saved. That doesn't necessarily mean automatic damnation, you may be presented with a choice, I don't know, I'm not dead yet, if you know the answer, as I'm sure you must, please enlighten me.


So, in response to your actual question: Does the word of God just not age well?

That's a pretty ridiculous question, because if you had studied any sort of basic class on even anthropology or Western Civilization, you would understand that the way we perceive and the way the ancients perceived is not fundamentally different, but it does vary, and the way the ancients, either Israelites, or Hellenistic Jews, saw it, life needed to be a certain way to more effectively honor God.

 

[Kirby]

Great, I see that one of the biggest troll thread on AT has been revived.

Thanks jonks. :disgust:

 

[Cabages]

I DONT KNOW WHAT WERE YELLING ABOUT!

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: thirdeye
*peaks in, quickly leaves*

Werd

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

And I'm sure you're a defacto master on the subject. You're the type who just accepts whatever unsubstantiated comments people make on any sort of subject, as long as it fits your little view of the world and society in general.

ROFLMAO!!! Speaking of unsubstantiated bullshit, you're clearly a master of the subject.

I stopped reading your drivel when I got to "In other words, God was not necessarily the author of the book, it was written by a people who were interpreting how God's word and attitude would best be reflected in their own society." because that simple sentence proves you're merely talking out of your ass. "Necessarily"???? God is not the author of ANY of the book. Not a single word, not a single passage. Even the thumpers themselves admit that the bible was written by ordinary people. Hell, the most adamant biblical apologists are still forced to admit that the New Testament, the part the Christians choose to believe in the most, was written well after the events they claim to show.

Your great cosmic muffin, even if he did exist, did not write a single word of those fairy tales. Not one. Every single silly little scribble comes from a person who says that they spoke to god personally or that spoke to a person who says that they spoke to god personally. Want a list of all the people that claimed that they too spoke to god and were speaking his words right before they climbed into a tower with a rifle and a good scope? How about a list of those people who claimed to have spoken to god personally right before they planted a bomb in his glory?

It's pretty funny, if somebody came up to you on the street and said that they spoke to god and that he wants you to stop watching TV you'd be sure that they're completely nuts and would get away from them as quickly as possible in the hopes that they don't snap and hurt you. But people 3000 years ago who made outlandish claims about selling your kids into slavery, murdering the infidels, burning animals and other outlandish claims, those people you accept without question. That's why we laugh at you.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

And I'm sure you're a defacto master on the subject. You're the type who just accepts whatever unsubstantiated comments people make on any sort of subject, as long as it fits your little view of the world and society in general.

Originally posted by: preslove
So... we should "keep perspective" about the misogyny in the bible... but not the homophobia in the bible? Who chooses which parts we should have "perspective" about, and which parts we should take literally? If you need to take "perspective" about your divine-word-of-god-book, what does that mean for the quality of this god's word? Does the word of god just not age well?

You're confused for a number of reasons:
You've understood that this word of God was transcribed 3 thousand to 2300 years ago, so that's a step up. Congratulations on that, your parents must be really proud.

Now, you've assumed that Christians accept that every single bit of textual commentary provided by the authors of Leviticus. Leviticus was a social code written in the 9th or 8th centuries B.C. (notice how I say 9th to 8th because the calender goes backwards when it comes to B.C. or "B.C.E" if you insist on being politically correct). In other words, God was not necessarily the author of the book, it was written by a people who were interpreting how God's word and attitude would best be reflected in their own society.

You will find that the Judaic sections (i.e. Old Testemant) of the Bible is against the consumption of Blood and pork and so forth, yet Christians readily eat pork and meat, not just because the New Testament is A-ok with it, but because different cultures didn't have a problem with it.

OK, so you're not a biblical literalist. Quite a few christians believe that the bible is the literal word of god. Sorry for assuming that you believe that idiotic belief.

In regards to your comments about homophobia and misogyny. Such blatant ignorance. Note, I'm not calling you stupid, or even an idiot, but that is truly defacto ignorance.

The civilization founded in what is now Israel that truly flowered in the 9-8th centuries B.C. DID have "misogyny." HOWEVER, every civilization in the world had misogyny. Why? Because civilizations didn't have the luxury of feminism and every single woman making a choice for herself. Hell, most men didn't have that luxury. It's not a case of strong versus weak, but a case for survival. As the ancient people saw it, society needed to be strucutured, or else the whole thing fell apart.


To better respect God's word and the country He gave them, I imagine the Israelites were merely codifying a series of laws they saw would honor Him. Note I said "They saw."

Even so, the Israelites did have lax rules on women. They were treated with respect. They could testify in court (something women living in Assyria and Babylon couldn't, roughly the same time period) they could own land, they could sign legal documents. Of course there were standard norms like widows remarrying, but they weren't followed, and in any case, a widow remarrying or being pressured to, is hardly different from contemporary society, and I'm sure most women are quite content with the way things are structured now.

How is it ignorant to call those particular passages misogynist? Sure, Jewish legal tradition eventually gave women all the rights you're talking about, but that scholarship occurred AFTER those passages were written. But guess what? That dude named PAUL came along and abrogated Jewish law and THREW OUT all those rights, along with stuff like the Jewish refusal to accept testimony given under torture. The christians spent quite a few centuries after that coercing heresy confessions out of people so they could burn people at the stake. When Paul thew out Jewish law, he thew out all christian claims on the rights you specify. Christianity never developed most of the Jewish rights that we would today think of as humane, but rather, it was secularists working against the backwards christian church.

I have a great deal of respect for Judaism, but very little for christianity for just these reasons.

But you misunderstood my point, which is that the misogynist passages are OBVIOUSLY stupid and backward to all of us, while the homophobia is also stupid and backwards only to a small percentage of christians. If you are one of the small percentage of christians that thinks homosexuality is not a sin, just like a woman not isolating herself while she's having her period is not a sin, then cool. But, if you cherrypick from leviticus and still call homosexuality a sin, then you are a bigoted hypocrite.

Again, you're confused between the actual interpretations reflected in individual societies as reflected by their writings, VERSUS, the actual word of God, and the point that Christianity fundamentally believes that those who believe will be saved. That doesn't necessarily mean automatic damnation, you may be presented with a choice, I don't know, I'm not dead yet, if you know the answer, as I'm sure you must, please enlighten me.


So, in response to your actual question: Does the word of God just not age well?

That's a pretty ridiculous question, because if you had studied any sort of basic class on even anthropology or Western Civilization, you would understand that the way we perceive and the way the ancients perceived is not fundamentally different, but it does vary, and the way the ancients, either Israelites, or Hellenistic Jews, saw it, life needed to be a certain way to more effectively honor God.

Again, you're not a literalist. My bad for assuming you were.

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I think more christians need to pay more attention to their stupid books:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
--1 Tim. 2:11-14

ok... and?