Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality

(PhysOrg.com) -- "This is the first we know in the history of medicine that clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality," says Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University, have brought to national attention the first systematic approach to prenatally preventing homosexuality and bisexuality. The "treatment" is targeted at one particular population of girls, but the researchers involved in the work say their findings may have implications beyond this population.

The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia. Their endocrine problem will require medical management from birth onward. Research has shown that females born with CAH have increased rates of tomboyism and lesbianism.

The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

Dreger and Feder's paper on the topic appears in the Bioethics Forum of the Hastings Center and can be read at www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioe … x?id=4754&blogid=140 .

A new consensus from seven major medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) will be published in August indicating that this use of prenatal dexamethasone is experimental and not to be treated as standard of care. This comes in the wake of Dreger and Feder leading an investigation showing that the chief proponent of this off-label use, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, treated hundreds of women with this experimental drug without proper research ethics oversight. Time magazine related that aspect of the story: www.time.com/time/health/artic … 8599,1996453,00.html .

The FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections are now investigating these formal complaints.

Citation: Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality (2010, July 1) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-07-clinicians-prenatally-homosexuality.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 01, 2010
God that is incredibly unethical and hypocritical. You can't be gay, you can't wear a condom, you can't have an abortion, you can't experiment with steam cells from a dead featus, but hey, you want to experiment on an unborn featus, BE MY GUEST!

Jul 01, 2010
This is definitely one of the most abhorrent articles I've read in some time.

Jul 01, 2010
Wow. Sounds like something the Nazis would be accused of doing.

Jul 01, 2010
While I find the implications abhorrent, there is something that may come of this. The one group of people I see wanting to use this application are people who hate homosexuals and the biggest argument they use against homosexuality is that it's a choice and that it's unnatural, yet if your using a genetic technique to prevent it, then it becomes undeniable that it IS in fact natural and NO it never was a choice. Whether that leads to acceptance is another matter (sadly I'd still suspect no) but that is one false argument against homosexuality that could no longer be repeated. Still, would this lead to some kind future with no homosexuals? Will people who wish to keep homosexuals from being 'treated' be accused of endangerment for allowing them to develop into "abnormal" adults? This is definitely going to be some kind of turning point in the debate.

Jul 01, 2010
Homosexuality or tendencies in these cases is not natural at all. It is a genetic DEFECT as are Downs Syndrome and Cerebral palsy. There are no moral or ethical problems with researchers attempting to cure those genetic defects. Why the uproar about trying to cure this one?

In cases where homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE, well that is not natural either it is a perversion. The purpose of sex is reproduction. The survival of species kind of depends Heterosexualality. Homosexuality has no benefit to offer. those for whom it is a lifestyle choice tare of no use to the species. They cannot contribute anything to the evolutionary development . If it is in fact the consequence of a genetic defect then correcting the defect if it is possible is the right action to take.

Jul 01, 2010
So homosexuality, or sexuality in general, is a cultural choice, and we're just watching competition of cultural memes?

Doesn't that just make you want to sterilize the memes?

Jul 02, 2010
This experiment, in addition to be unethical, is also quite contradictory to its own point. Someone else was making this exact same point, which is that the only people especially interested in preventing homosexuality are the same vehemently against procedure with an unborn fetus... But it's okay to risk fetal abnormalities with a chemical they poorly understand and isn't even a part of the natural evolution? In this case, they can't have their cake and eat it, too.

And Briantllb, the scientific research into homosexuality and principles of evolution actually much to say on the subject of you being wrong.

Jul 02, 2010
Isn't homosexuality nature's population control?

Cause that's how I look at it. And it's damn unfortunate sometimes, because I would rather most of them breed than religious fanatics who preach about divinity.

It's cool that we can pinpoint what's going on, very cool. But the social implications of some of these studies are definitely questionable and the atmosphere in North America is much to volatile to even begin to think about publishing this to the masses.

I sincerely hope mass media will continue to ignore most science and report on how many wardrobe changes Lady Gaga has made in the past 1/2 day.

Jul 02, 2010
Why is everybody focusing on the homosexuality part? What about the "serious endocrine disruption" part?

http://en.wikiped...nditions

It looks to me that as you are the people focusing on sexuality, you are the discriminating bunch. This trial is obviously meant to treat this condition, and as a study doctors observe the result in sexual preference to validate previous research. In no way did I interpret this as someone deciding to "cure" homosexuality, as the rest of you did.

PJK
Jul 02, 2010


It looks to me that as you are the people focusing on sexuality, you are the discriminating bunch. This trial is obviously meant to treat this condition


From the article:

The prenatal treatment at issue, however, DOES NOT TREAT OR PREVENT the CAH.
...the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality.

Jul 02, 2010
The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia.

It treats a symptom of CAH, which is development of ambiguous genitalia. This is the reason for the treatment, and homosexuality happens to be linked to this. What is disturbing is that so many refuse to accept that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality or bisexuality, can be caused by a disease or a health condition.

Jul 02, 2010
Like for any disorder, disease or abnormality, humans try to develop ways to deal with the issue and of course there are people that both agree and disagree with the developed remedies. But the truth of the matter is that it has to happen!

Jul 02, 2010
It is outrageous (tho not unexpected) that physorg would publish this rubbish! It seems that the authors (and how a 'religionist' got on the team is a different matter) are taking us back to the pre-1940's ... What will be their next target gene: blackness?? muslim-ness?? The field of Religio-Science has much fodder, if people such as these authors and those who support them have a say!
(On their downside, i read that the 'Creationist Museum' is now in bankruptcy )

Jul 02, 2010
Otto, you're a busy troll. This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate, not your version of petty tyranny and your twisted values. You represent every anti-intellectual force that has caused suffering and confusion since we crawled out of the caves. This world feeds you by mercy, Otto, perhaps you should give thanks for it.

As for these "scientists" trying to classify a natural mammalian behavior as a disease, I recommend they be publicly denounced and their vile politics exposed. Unethical research should be remedied by revocation of licenses.


Jul 02, 2010
First of all I have to point out that this article is incredibly miss leading. The title explicitly states "First Experiment to Attempt Prevention of Homosexuality in womb". This immediately grabs all of our attention no matter where you are on the fence about homosexuality. In truth this article is talking about the issue of ambiguous genitalia and its POSSIBLE future uses, not the Prevention of Homosexuality in the womb. The experiment itself is not unethical the articles method to grab your attention maybe, and the experiment's possible future usage definitely is.

Jul 02, 2010
This is seriously the most disturbing article I've ever read on here...

Jul 02, 2010
O.K. I can understand the ambiguous genitalia repair, that seems like a completely reasonable repair to be made. If in the meantime, it reduces the occurrence of homosexuality as a bi-product then fine, since that is only a side effect of physical body repair. If they however just try to stop homosexuality in fetuses that do not require the procedure for actual physical malformation then it's very unethical. How would you even know you succeeded? You would never know if they were actually going to be homosexual. Who knows, if they were born homosexual it may not be a failed cure, but rather the result of you tampering with a heterosexual fetus. You may have caused it."tomboyism"? Is that a real term?

Jul 02, 2010
Its been done in adults already. By correcting hormones in gay peoples brains with hormone treatment they became atractted to the opposite sex. I can not remember where it was I read of the experiment. I have no issue, if parents don't want a gay child then so be it - money talks

Jul 02, 2010
I agree with a lot of people here. This treatment has nothing to do with Homosexuality, but birth defects.

If the treatment cures birth defects there is nothing wrong with it, it would be nothing more objectionable than fixing an unborn baby's heart defect.

BTW for all you progressives who lack scientific information, homosexuality has NOT been proven to be in the genes.

If for arguments sake there is a cure for homosexuality in the womb, there would be nothing wrong in using it.

Jul 02, 2010
This article appears really quite mis-titled. It is indeed about intersexulaity and impaired in-womb genital development. But, as said, it is likely that this will be exploited by those who wish, by eugenics, to eliminate homosexuality. We knew this eventually would be coming, which makes Gideon's comments all the more interesting. Arguments using natural law philosophy against homosexuality have been bankrupt for years, as can be seen in Briantlib's post. His logic is really quite screwed up.


Jul 02, 2010
Briantlib, if sex is solely for reproduction, why is there a human drive to have sex apart from reproduction. Secondly, given that most people are heterosexual, and thus most sex in the world is heterosexual sex, and thus most sex for non-reproductive purposes is heterosexual, your argument also condemns this form of sex as being a perversion. As per your comment, I suggest you stop having sex immediately lest you be a self-labeled pervert.

Your effort to give an evolutionary reason here against homosexuality is naive, stupid, and likely an overreach to justify highly sinful religious beliefs. For one, there would not be homosexuals if it were not selected for. Since there are homosexuals, evolution selects for them. I would say more, but perhaps telling you to "eat feces" would suffice.

Jul 02, 2010
They are clearly stating that they want to cure homosexuality, and they also clearly stated that
"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

This is just disgustingly vile and wrong.

Jul 02, 2010
So..they're trying to cure the disease even though

"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

Hmm.

[MOST] clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. [BUT] the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

Jul 02, 2010
Interesting moral question. If there is a test for homosexuality in unborn humans, and if there was a cure for homosexuality in unborn humans is it wrong to cure these unborn children of homosexuality?

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.

However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.

Jul 02, 2010
Interesting moral question. If there is a test for homosexuality in unborn humans, and if there was a cure for homosexuality in unborn humans is it wrong to cure these unborn children of homosexuality?

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.


Pro-Choice advocates are in favor of an adult human female having control over her body. It isn't an issue of the value of fetal life.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.


"normal life"? What the hell is normal? If the baby was homosexual by natural development then that is normal. You reprogramming it isn't normal.


Jul 02, 2010
However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.


First, you are assuming pro-choice advocates endorse abortion for medical reasons. That may not be the case for all. Second, downs children are substantially more handicapped than a homosexual. Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will burn in hell. Sorry to generalize, but it seems to be a theme you support. Who "hates" homosexuals more? The people who want to let them live the way they were developed or the people who want them "cured" because they are going to hell?

Jul 02, 2010
if sex was only for reproduction and food only for survival we wouldn't have porn and burgers

Jul 02, 2010
Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will


And I ascertain that you are a Godless Socialist (more insincere commie double speak).

Reproductive technology will eventually turn the womb into a manufacturing plant.
Let's make measurably better babies, and deselect for more than just reproductive problems (like not having genitalia or using them inefficiently). We can rebuild them. We can make them stronger, faster, smarter, less sticky.

Oh, and deselect for rap. I hate rap.

Jul 03, 2010
Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will


And I ascertain that you are a Godless Socialist (more insincere commie double speak).

Reproductive technology will eventually turn the womb into a manufacturing plant.
Let's make measurably better babies, and deselect for more than just reproductive problems (like not having genitalia or using them inefficiently). We can rebuild them. We can make them stronger, faster, smarter, less sticky.

Oh, and deselect for rap. I hate rap.


I am a godless socialist. Well, I am godless, and I support many social programs, but not all. I am godless, that's the important part. I am a free market socialist. I support free market with socialist boundaries to establish a basic standard of living.

Jul 03, 2010
Okay, how can you seriously be for abortion but against this? It's not like they're doing anything to an entity that's already been born. Until it is born it really shouldn't matter what the mother does to what is essentially a part of her own body.

Outlawing this kind of procedure is step 1 to outlawing all different kinds of genetic engineering, which itself is just a step further in the direction of making the world into a haven for totalitarianism of all kinds.

Jul 03, 2010
PS: I am not against homosexuality. I am against people having NO CHOICE in their sexuality. It would be just as bad for a person to be homosexual and want to be heterosexual as it would be for a person to be heterosexual and want to be homosexual.

Jul 03, 2010
It is such a bootless argument that is made by the people saying that this is to help those with NO CHOICE in their sexuality. Are you paying attention to your logic? By the same logic, you claim that those without the CAH, that are otherwise "normal" should also be "cured" because they also do not have any choice in their sexuality.
Which leads to my next point arguing against those ridiculous others that argue for the genetics of homosexuality. There IS, in fact, scientific evidence in support of this, which you would know if you actually looked the papers up for yourself.

yyz
Jul 03, 2010
One concern mentioned in the Time article but not discussed here is - the approach to research here undermines a patients right to informed consent. From the article:

"It....enables doctors to do human research without gaining proper approval. All participants in human medical research are, by law, entitled to the protective oversight of an institutional review board (IRB), a committee that safeguards the interests of research volunteers and ensures they have been fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of an experimental treatment. If doctors are simply treating a patient with an off-label drug, they are not required to obtain written informed consent from patients. But if doctors give treatment with the intent to gain knowledge, they are technically doing research, which must receive IRB approval."

Those receiving this treatment are at least due informed consent.

http://en.wikiped...ocedures


Jul 04, 2010
I think we need a new amendment to separate church from science. If you just take those two words they are absolutely different. Religion cannot evolve, if there ever was a first book... it is the only one that can possibly be correct. Science can only evolve as more FACTS are discovered. Science is a power we created and cultivated over thousands of years.

And for the record I thought all were created equal? Don't start messing with God's perfection now.

Jul 04, 2010
What does this experiment have to do with religion? Nothing. Atheists can be just as worried about their child being born with no sexual choice as theists can be. Serously, don't try to make this idea into something it's not.

Jul 04, 2010
Would anybody be complaining if this treatment protocol "cured" kleptomania?

If the best hope for treating a facial defect is experimental prenatal surgery, is that unethical? Is there any debate about "choosing" a unique appearance in such a case?

What if it is found that susceptibility to temptation to homosexual behavior is increased by prenatal exposure to bis phenol A or other hormonal analogs not naturally present? We know these chemicals cause gender abnormalities in fish hatched in waters polluted by them. Would more people then understand this as a problem that needs to be addressed?

Jul 04, 2010
The misconceptions on display here about the "religious right" and Christian belief regarding homosexuality are not surprising, given that approval of homosexuality accompanies rejection of God and His word (Romans 1 in the Bible).

Aside from "God hates fags" heretics, Christians do not hate homosexuals. Their behavior is abominable, but so are adultery, fornication, drunkenness, etc. But we don't want them exiled; then they can't hear us. "God ... wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

There is a difference between being tempted to a sin (whether influenced by environment or by genetics) and giving in to the temptation (behavior). Christians do not expect drugs to "cure" a besetting sin, be it illicit sex, slander, or other evil that bars entry into God's kingdom. We warn of sin's consequences and point to Christ as the Answer because it would be hateful not to do so. (I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."

Jul 04, 2010
The PROBLEM is that in trying to prevent a life style (because it can be conclusive that even if you are born gay, it becomes or is a conscious life style, as is being athletic, etc.) it then is viewed as terrible and in need of a "cure." This is not being created for the well-being of homosexuals, it is being created for the well-being of the homophobes. This is ridiculous.

To the guy who said homosexuality is a defect like down syndrome and other born defects, you may have it right, but in homosexuality nothing is impaired...Homosexuals interact, behave, adapt, and contribute to society as good if not better than the next heterosexual. You CAN NOT compare homosexuality to down syndrome! Homosexuality does not need a cure!!

Jul 05, 2010
I would say interfering with a fetus' development is all the same, whether it is to cure a disease or reverting a certain genetic tendency toward homosexuality. In both cases you permanently alter the person that results and the person technically becomes a different person and the past one is neutralized. Say, for instance, my ADHD was eliminated genetically in the womb - I would have led a totally different academic, social, and professional life, my being would be different, and technically I would have never existed.

The moral debate should be on whether alteration is ethical, not what types. Personally I think it should be up to the parents to decide on how to alter their child - homosexuality editing or not. Some will, some won't - maybe some will actually force their child to be homosexual or transgendered - who knows.

In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures (though they may not, as they will fear for their current mode of existence if their physiology/psychology is changed).

Jul 05, 2010
Interfering with a fetus' development is all the same, whether it is to cure a disease or reverting a certain genetic tendency. In both cases you permanently alter the person that results and the person technically becomes a different person and the past one is neutralized. Say my ADHD was eliminated in the womb - I would have led a totally different academic, social, and professional life and technically I would have never existed.

Philosophically the debate should be on whether alteration is ethical, not what types. Personally I think the parents should be free to decide on how to alter their child - homosexuality editing or not. Some will, some won't - maybe some will actually force their child to be homosexual or transgendered - who knows. Homosexual couples will probably have children through manual DNA recombination techniques too.

In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures (though they may not, as they will fear for their current mode of existence if their physiology/psychology is changed).

Jul 05, 2010
You can't kill a potential. It never existed.

That being said, I am pro-choice, not only in that I support the woman's right to choose, but also in that I believe that a person shouldn't be born with only one option when it comes to sex.

If someone chooses to be homosexual that's fine with me, but I find it very unfortunate for those who are homosexual and WANT to be heterosexual, since they never had any say in it whatsoever.

Jul 05, 2010
You people have been politically corrected. To death.

This is wonderful. If homosexuality can be cured; what a glorious day for its millions of suffers.


Jul 05, 2010
So what is really wrong with ambiguous genitalia?

A lot of people would really like to be able to go both ways.

Jul 06, 2010
Hilarious comment stream. By the way, does anybody know if research into the prenatal prevention of heterosexuality is underway somewhere?
Anyway, keep the 'dialogue' flowing, cats -- the comedy masquerading as 'reason' is making many people happy!

Jul 06, 2010
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/

Jul 06, 2010
Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.

The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection, http://www.scienc...459.htm, demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family.

Jul 06, 2010
As Hitchens said before: religion poisons everything.

How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.

Jul 06, 2010
You wanna be more specific? You have any links to non-religious info to support this? Anybody?

I can provide that, you actually commented on the article when it appeared on physorg. http://www.inform...04832632

Effectively the societal benefit of homosexuals are in the assimilation of males into a nurturing role. They're more likely to provide the benefits of male upbringing while ensuring the nurturing nature of women through genetic similarity.

Basically, helping the women raise the children in pre-civilized society.

Jul 06, 2010
I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.
Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away. The research is rather recent and isn't really too politically correct.

Jul 06, 2010
Croghan: Ahh, sorry about that. It looks like when the link is converted, it points it in the wrong direction.

***.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm, change the *** to www and it should point you to the article. A very interesting study.

Jul 06, 2010
Otto wrote: "Romans 1:26-1:27" It looks like you're taking Romans out of context :) When you examine Romans as a whole, and account for the historical times, it is clear that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

Romans interpretation by scholars

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols.

(Continued)

Jul 06, 2010
How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.
It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.
Ratio can be offered, but then it has to be accepted by the intended recipient to become effective. Without consensual acceptance it won't work as brainwashing never has worked in history.

You're completely correct. I can only hope you didn't take my statement literally or as preference.
I wonder if there are observed examples in modern-day primitive societies which might bear this out?
Thailand comes to mind.

Jul 06, 2010
Romans continued
Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

Therefore, it is very obvious that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

Jul 06, 2010
otto wrote: "I don't recall ever seeing anything about the scientific 'benefits' of homosexuality to the species."

You obviously missed my link =)

Jul 06, 2010
Alpha males and homosexual males share one very common characteristic. They both know that sexual attraction is not a choice. The alpha male knows that females dig the "bad guy", while the beta males don't get any sex because they do not realize that very fact. In the same way, homosexual males know that sexual attraction is not a choice as well.

Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: I have read both sides. -One side (The anti-gay side) cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it's wrong with no evidence.
They even added the word "homosexual," a word that wasn't even used this way till the 1800's.

-The other side actually looks at and relates the historical times, provides plenty of evidence using the Bible itself, looks at the Bible as a whole, relates the context to other lines and passages, interprets them properly, doesn't distort their meaning, translates the Greek words properly and sees how they are used in various locations of the Bible to get a clear definition, and provides sufficient evidence. It's easy to see why the latter wins out.

Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Jul 07, 2010
Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship.
Uh, no it wasn't.
Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities.
No, that's not true either.
Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.
Christian and Jewish law are quite clear that immoral acts were effectively anything other than face to face heterosexual interaction for purposes of having a child. Perhaps you should re-read the book, especially where Jesus commands his followers to be more knowledgable than the Pharisees in matters of spiritual law.

Since you're playing the Greek translation role, would you care to translate this line for me?

ie Sous Khristos

Jul 07, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic: "Uh, no it wasn't." "No, that's not true either."

Lol, nice arguments. Now wheres your proof? Oh thats right! The anti-gay side never offers valid proof =)

"Perhaps you should re-read the book, especially where Jesus commands his followers to be more knowledgable than the Pharisees in matters of spiritual law."

I have re-read the book, all of it, not 4 passages that you pick out and try to twist God's words.

"Since you're playing the Greek translation role, would you care to translate this line for me?

ie Sous Khristos"

Ahh, either bad trolling, or bad reading comprehension. Which one is it? I never said i was a biblical scholar. However, i cite the sources of biblical scholars and historians to prove my point.

Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: "You're wrong. All sides cherry pick to support their views. "

Lol, OoooO, more comments without any backup :) I have clearly proven how your side takes lines out of context. Unfortunately for you, you haven't done the same for my side, because you can't :) My side takes the whole bible into account. As an example, one of my websites gives every instance of abomination in the old testament, and proves that it's always associated with idolatry.

"The bible is a vast cloud of amorphous bullshit that can say whatever you want it to say."

While i can agree with you to an extent on this, my "bullshit" has more evidence going for it than the anti-gay's sides "bullshit" =)

"They were concerned with what the people did in THIS life and knew full well there was no place to go after death but back to the dust"

If you're trying to turn this into an athiest vs theist debate, i don't care about that subject =) I'm arguing about homosexuality, not whether or not God exists.

Jul 07, 2010
otto1923: "Oh I would say, and if you were being objective and detached you would agree with me, that 90% of the sex people are having today is little more than mutual masturbation. "

But most gay couples are not having mutual masturbation nor idol sex nowadays. Most of it is real sex. What's your point? =)

Jul 07, 2010
Otto wrote: "You guys are so hopelessly myopic"

If you're trying to troll, you are doing it all wrong :) A good troll incites anger. But none of the people in here look angered or even annoyed. Merely getting responses is not trolling, because anyone can do that. What makes a troll unique is their ability to incite anger. If you've managed to talk to us for this long, and haven't even raised a hair on our skins, you are clearly doing something very wrong. =) 4chan-type trolling fails 99% of the time because it is very obvious, and uses the same techniques that veteran users can easily see.

Jul 07, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic: "Uh, no it wasn't." "No, that's not true either."

Lol, nice arguments. Now wheres your proof? Oh thats right! The anti-gay side never offers valid proof =)
You might want to understand my views before you profess to call me antigay. Secondly, you may want to cite your own sources before you attempt to state there's a lack on my side.
ie Sous Khristos"

Ahh, either bad trolling, or bad reading comprehension. Which one is it? I never said i was a biblical scholar. However, i cite the sources of biblical scholars and historians to prove my point.

You're not proving anything. Your religion is horridly contrary to your stance. If you don't believe in it why say you do and go through the ridiculous contortions you're doing here?

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-gay, nor am I a fan of any form of descrimination based upon religious edict and ignorance.

Jul 07, 2010
skeptic heretic wrote "You might want to understand my views before you profess to call me antigay. Secondly, you may want to cite your own sources"

Lol what? I already cited my own sources. And you have clearly not provided evidence of your views.

"You're not proving anything. Your religion is horridly contrary to your stance."

Lol, and this my friend, is what we call intolerance. The difference is though, i have backed up my views with links, evidence, and logic, which you have failed to do.

"If you don't believe in it why say you do and go through the ridiculous contortions you're doing here?"

Ahhhh, more claims without evidence i see.

Jul 07, 2010
otta wrote: "All of xian history backs me up."

Let's see it then :)

otta wrote "I would say that gay 'couples' are in a minority, and so would you."

They are in the minority, just like black people in America, blue-eyed people, and left-handed people. I don't deny this.

otto wrote: "to cite only one example of 1000s of incidents which happen every day in pickup joints and restrooms around the world"

These incidences happen regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, since straights far outnumber gays, it is logical to assume that those incidences have a far higher occurrence among straight people.

"Nah, just being observant and commenting on it sincerely. You ARE myopic."

More name-calling :D Fail troll is fail.

Jul 07, 2010
otta wrote: "Ha. Read a history book. I am thinking that, like most other xians, you are being purposely deceptive by misrepresenting what you really know."

Let me translate what you just said

otta wrote: "I do not have any evidence to back up what i said. I made my argument and now i want you to find the evidence to support my claims"

Lol, it doesnt work that way my friend. You make a claim, you back it up.

otto wrote: "So you can conclude that sex is mostly about the enjoyment of sex, ie mutual masturbation"

Your trolling is becoming more and more obvious. Another common tactic is called circular arguments. You need lessons in the art of trolling my friend. Being that obvious is the weakness of about 99% of the trolls out there nowadays.

Jul 07, 2010
otto wrote: "Dude, youre a newbie here. What trolls do is try to incite anger, which you are doing, but mostly they are dishonest in their tactics, which you are extremely."

The truth hurts doesn't it :) A lot of trolls realize they aren't as good as they thought they were. If you were good, you would have incited anger in me by now.

otto wrote: "Maybe you want to go expose yourself somewhere else?"

If i was trolling, i wouldn't provide evidence or any links. Looks like you have a lot to learn in the art of trolling.

Jul 07, 2010
otto wrote: "Shes lost all sense of self respect."

I don't see that poster being angry, so you have failed against her as well. ^_^

Jul 07, 2010
Lol what? I already cited my own sources. And you have clearly not provided evidence of your views.
No, you said "scholars say", which scholars, provide links or textual references.
Lol, and this my friend, is what we call intolerance. The difference is though, i have backed up my views with links, evidence, and logic, which you have failed to do.
Believing in a single word of the Bible with anything more than the same passing interest that one gives Aesop's fables is illogical. Debating the Bible, a flawed, mistranslated, and obviously manually engineered text is illogical. Calling yourself a gay christian is illogical. Christianity and defense of christianity is illogical. You've done nothing logical whatsoever.
Ahhhh, more claims without evidence i see.

The evidence mounts each time you click submit.

Otto, we're being trolled by someone who is not proficient in the art. I'd recommend we move on.

Jul 07, 2010
Vollstandig.

Jul 08, 2010
skeptic heretic wrote "No, you said "scholars say", which scholars, provide links or textual references."

I said i cited those links, not wrote them =)

skeptic heretic wrote "Debating the Bible, a flawed, mistranslated, and obviously manually engineered text is illogical. Calling yourself a gay christian is illogical. Christianity and defense of christianity is illogical. You've done nothing logical whatsoever."

Ahh, notice how you dodged my links and just resorted to claiming everything "illogical" with no proof :)

skeptic heretic wrote: "Otto, we're being trolled by someone who is not proficient in the art."

If i was trolling, i wouldn't provide any evidence or links. Unfortunately for you, i already knew that you and otto were trying to troll, and failing miserably at it :D

Jul 08, 2010
Frajo, your folly is that you assume that there are camps in the first place. How would you suggest grouping these people? Which "camp" would I fall into? Would you put Otto and I in the same camp? Would you put Marjon and yourself in the same camp?

This is another illogical argument. You're grouping people by belief or lack of belief. You and I both disagree that there are Unicorns roaming the Midwest as we've never seen them. That doesn't automatically mean that our views on the issues of the Midwest are congruent.

Jul 08, 2010
Was that not Larry (Wide Stance) Craig - another one of the 'family values' Republicans?

Why stop there? Hoiw about we look at all the other moral highground attributes that the religious right expounds upon?

Higher incidences of abortion, unwed mothers, violent crime, std infection, divorce, domestic violence, and on and on and on amongst "conservative christians". All statistics available from the Barna Research Group.
http://www.barna.org/

What's even more humorous is how they project their social poisons upon those of us who not only know better, but also act better.

Jul 08, 2010
frajo:

The following people are trolls:

skeptic heretic
otto

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality.

Jul 08, 2010
For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun.
Debating YECs and brutally ignorant people about scientific matters is not fun, it is necessary.
They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality.
Strawman argument, when did either Otto or myself say that gay marriage is verbotten or that homosexuality is wrong?

I've stated and questioned you on one thing and one thing only: your belief in the Christian God, when the edicts of Christianity call for your death due to your preference in sexual partners.

I've called you out on your intellect, not your topic of choice. Your continual restatement that I'm antigay rights is pure trolling.

Jul 08, 2010
Continued: They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Jul 08, 2010
skeptic_heretic wrote: "Debating YECs and brutally ignorant people about scientific matters is not fun, it is necessary."

Lol, you actually thought i was gonna let you troll another poster :D Think again my friend.

skeptic_heretic wrote: "Strawman argument, when did either Otto or myself say that gay marriage is verbotten or that homosexuality is wrong?"

OoooO, now trying to take what i say out of context. I am talking about trolls in general =) But of course, that's a common tactic trolls use.

skeptic_heretic wrote: "I've stated and questioned you on one thing and one thing only: your belief in the Christian God, when the edicts of Christianity call for your death due to your preference in sexual partners."

I've already disproved that above :)

Jul 08, 2010
You've proven your stripe. Enjoy the moderator ban hammer, whenever they get around to it.

Jul 08, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic wrote: "Enjoy the moderator ban hammer, whenever they get around to it."

Sorry, but i have not broken any rules :) And i will continue to make people aware of your trolling.

Jul 09, 2010
I generally agree with shadow man (on the Biblical issues).

I too have generally found that the ultra-conservative (hateful) types are the least aware of the actual content and context of the Word.

Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate - but rather to love (even our enemies). Therefore, haters are not acting as faithful followers.

It's very sad really... very sad, indeed.

Jul 09, 2010
I have a copy of "the Skeptics Annotated Bible' on my hard drive ..searching for it I found this, 'Homosexuality in the Bible' - a quick read shows the Bible to be somewhat ambivalent toward gay behaviour, even as it the measures are extreme.
Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. "

Jul 09, 2010
Sorry for the double post but Lev 20:13 makes the punishment for such acts plain as well.

"Lev.20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.

In any event, the practice that the title leads one to believe is the reasoning for the research is ethically deplorable.

Jul 09, 2010
Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Nah, that's just his cynicism coming through. He teaches love, but knows many won't accept the lesson.

Jul 09, 2010
The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?
Nah, only the Old Testament does that. The new testament just concedes that it's man's nature to be violent. To Say otherwise, would be presumptuous (to say the least!) Truly, Jesus taught peace. But, not being stupid, he knew only a relative few would accept the lesson.

Jul 09, 2010
Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

Jul 09, 2010
Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.
Wouldn't that be like blaming every mistake you ever made on your teachers? And, since teachers know you won't absorb all the information they provide, wouldn't that similarly mean they intend for you to screw up?

It's a teacher conspiracy! :)

Jul 09, 2010
Jesus led his followers into jerusalem on the hebrews holiest day, marched into the temple, threw out all the lawful currency traders there, and confronted the sadducees face to face and told them he was their king. He then calmly awaited martyrdom as an example for the millions who would follow. This is a clear expression of audacity, of Force of Will. Not Peace.

You cant have revolution without martyrs. Jesus taught the world how to do this as no one else ever had.
And this is why democracy perseveres. He taught us to question authority, and the status quo. How is that a bad thing?

Jul 09, 2010
Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New. That the Old Testament law is to be set aside is both in the Old Testament (where it predicts the New Covenant) and in the New Testament. "Hebrews" comes to mind as a good resource (off the cuff). By "fulfilling the Law," He means it's done... finished... kaput.

Jul 09, 2010
The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.
Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.

Seriously, it was primarily written by believers and scholars, not politicians. That some happened to have political connections is largely irrelevant, as they obviously weren't well enough connected (hence the persecutions).

Jul 09, 2010
Maybe in your particular sect or denomination.
Like I said, few (self-described) Christians actually know the content and context of their own Book. Realization of this initiated the Protestant movement, but sadly, people often fall into apathy and let wannabe leaders tell them what to believe.

Like Jesus, they need to question authority. They need to question the status quo. Unfortunately, few are willing to shoulder the responsibility.

Jul 09, 2010
Bullshit. You too are critically Naive. See a [witch]doctor.
That's not much of an argument. What happened? Did you run out of steam?

Jul 09, 2010
Supposing that is true, who then is the architect?

Also, I am not Alizee. I have only the one screen name (no sockpuppets).

Jul 09, 2010
...it must have been conceived by scholar philosophers, probably those in places like Alexandria or tarsus.
Wow. You give a lot of cedit to those ancients. Do you really think they could possibly predict that something they supposedly made up would so change the world?

It seems it's you that's making up the fairytales now! LOL.

Can you say, "conspiracy"

Jul 09, 2010
Who knows? Doesn't matter. A trap set for all those enamored with the Star Culture. Only matters what They did, and are doing, and Why.
Who? Doing what? Why?

Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Otto is a confirmed troll :) Prove him wrong with facts, but never let him incite anger, that's what he wants.

Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Otto is a confirmed troll :) Prove him wrong with facts, but never let him incite anger, that's what he wants.
I'm not angry. Do I appear angry?

What I am is amused.

Jul 09, 2010
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/

Jul 09, 2010
ubavontuba: Nah, you don't appear angry at all. I'm just giving you a heads up that he's a troll =)

Jul 09, 2010
No, but you might concede upon reflection that people like Nero and Constantine did a great deal to tailor the emergent form of roman Catholicism, by Force, in culling all xians whose beliefs did not conform. And Jews of course. Xianity was a powerful backfire set against Hebrew proselytism which had threatened to engulf empire. In the end Rome had to destroy the entire state.
So you're saying they had to cut out their own heart, to spite themselves?

Hmm... Maybe it's that man must believe in something. For you, perhaps your rejection of religion forces you to find these ...substitutions.

Well, it's been amusing, but I must go now. Have a nice day. :)

Jul 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 09, 2010
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

Then one would wonder why Jesus would instruct those who wish to be Christian to be "of greater knowledge of the laws than the Pharisees".

I hear often that Jesus came through and changed all the rules but this doesn't jive with Christian dogma. If Jesus is an avatar of God as Christianity holds then why would he change his mind if he is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and not subject to causality? Just a few logical reasons for this would be
1. God doesn't exist and Jesus was a philosopher on the human condition. His divinity is a mortal invention
2. God exists but Jesus was not his avatar and Chirstianity is wrong
3. It's a total sham and JC did not exist.

All equally valid and, given the established evidence, more valid than the current dogma of all Christian sects. No one can say there isn't a God, however, once you claim to know something of him you immediately invalidate your stance.

Jul 10, 2010
Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New.
That's NOT what the passage says. 'Jesus' is very explicit here and elsewhere that the NT is an extention of the OT- it's why they are canon. Jesus and the disciples quote the Law and the prophets, major and minor, many times. Of course, heresies in your particular cult or coven may differ.
Obviously, you've been cherry-picking then. Really.

Hebrews 8:6- 8-13. Says that God found fault (yes, fault) with the Old Covenant and replaced (yes, replaced) it with the New Covenant. I quote: "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one."

Jul 10, 2010
More:

Jeremiah 31:31-31:34 "The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new contract (covenant)... (Looky! It's in the Old Testament!)

Romans 11:25-11:32 This passage is particularly interesting because it talks about the Jews hating the Gospels (as you seem to) and what happens to them in respect to God's prior promise.

Mathew 26:28 "...for this is my blood, sealing the New Covenant."

There is much more, but this is sufficient to get you started.

Jul 10, 2010
Then one would wonder why Jesus would instruct those who wish to be Christian to be "of greater knowledge of the laws than the Pharisees".

I hear often that Jesus came through and changed all the rules but this doesn't jive with Christian dogma. If Jesus is an avatar of God as Christianity holds then why would he change his mind if he is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and not subject to causality? Just a few logical reasons for this would be
1. God doesn't exist and Jesus was a philosopher on the human condition. His divinity is a mortal invention
2. God exists but Jesus was not his avatar and Chirstianity is wrong
3. It's a total sham and JC did not exist.

All equally valid and, given the established evidence, more valid than the current dogma of all Christian sects. No one can say there isn't a God, however, once you claim to know something of him you immediately invalidate your stance.
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.

Jul 10, 2010
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.
And right there you claim knowledge of a being you cannot have knowledge of. ie: Bearing false witness. If you're a Christian, that's a forbidden practice.

This is the problem with organized religion. Self contradictory and logically impossible to follow. Effectively you can never be good enough, regardless of how good you are at suspending your rational mind.

Jul 10, 2010
Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.
And right there you claim knowledge of a being you cannot have knowledge of. ie: Bearing false witness. If you're a Christian, that's a forbidden practice.
Wrong. The Bible explains this relationship quite clearly, in many places.

Regardless, just as we can observe the behavior of a parent with his children and make valid assumptions about his feelings for his children - and we can even go so far as to predict probable future behavior - we can likewise do with any other socially interacting group (i.e. God and man).
This is the problem with organized religion. Self contradictory and logically impossible to follow. Effectively you can never be good enough, regardless of how good you are at suspending your rational mind.
Wrong again. There's no being "good enough" to being a Christian. That's the whole point. It's a reconciliation for the fact that no one can be "good enough."

Jul 10, 2010
Wrong. The Bible explains this relationship quite clearly, in many places.
But the Bible isn't the authority on the concept of God. You cannot use the Bible as evidence for nature when it was clearly authored by men, and not by divinity.

Regardless, just as we can observe the behavior of a parent with his children and make valid assumptions about his feelings for his children - and we can even go so far as to predict probable future behavior - we can likewise do with any other socially interacting group (i.e. God and man).
But we are not unique in that respect, and within nature all manner of relationship is represented. That means that the relationship between God and man could parallel anything within nature, including predator and prey, master and slave, torturer and tortured.

Wrong again. There's no being "good enough" to being a Christian.
Then you haven't read your bible. To be a Christian is to follow rules. Xians state that there must be submission

Jul 10, 2010
Uba- I didn't know you were one of those godlovers with self-inflicted myopia.
Technically, I'm not. I'm rather open minded about the whole thing. I simply choose to be a Christian because Jesus is worth believing in - if not for the religion, then for the philosphy.

By helping me look beyond my own selfish needs and desires, being a Christian genuinely helps me to be a better citizen.

Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person. For instance: It taught me to forgive others when they screw up, but more importantly, it taught me to forgive myself when I screw up.

People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.

Jul 10, 2010
People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.
Well then why isn't that the content of the faith?

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
Now youo've taken the philosophical parts of Christianity and seperated them from the religion. The philosophy of Christianity isn't from Christianity. It's from far earlier sources.

Why keep the detrimental part of the dogma intact to promote the good when the good itself can be performed without the dogma? In short, you can be Christlike without being Christian.

Jul 10, 2010
"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -rev22
In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.
-and��2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.

Jul 10, 2010
-The bible is the complete and perfect word of god hisself IN IT'S ENTIRETY. You really shouldn't be claiming that god makes mistakes or forgot something in the OT- you'll burn in the lake of fire with the rest of us.
LOL. You bring the beer, I'll start the barbecue.

Jul 10, 2010
Let otto set aside his incendiary persona for a moment:
Ahh ...and I was having fun.
Pauls letter to the Hebrews is an argument that the gospel is a continuation of, and not a replacement for, the Law. Throughout the book Paul uses the Law as proof that jesus is a High Priest of a New Covenant (contract), a new agreement to abide by the Law.

Gods first 'covenant' was not faulty in itself. The people he made it with were faulty. 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people..." A covenant is an agreement between parties to abide by the Law. The Law is still valid but god seeks a new agreement with the people to abide by it, the covenant being jesus himself and the NT
Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.

Jul 10, 2010
-God makes repeated covenants which are basically agreements to abide by his laws in return for deliverance. His people break these agreements many times but god comes up with new agreements each time. The Laws as described in the OT do not change, only the ways of observing them; xians still practice the ritual sacrifice with the eucharist; the 10 commandments still stand; etc.
Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.

We keep the Ten Commandments because Jesus told us to, not because it's in the Old Testament. He clearly told us the Old Law was done ..finished ...kaput, save for the Ten Commandments. He then added another: Love others as you'd like to be loved (paraphrased).

Jul 10, 2010
Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.
Correct, but this is as the invention of Jesus supposedly satisfies the conditions of the OT bringing the need for the NT of Jesus, creating the ideology of Jesus as the Avatar of God. Hence the story of the stolen ass so that the Messiah of the OT prophecy would be fulfilled by the King of the Jews entering their City on a donkey.

Jul 10, 2010
Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.
Correct. It fulfilled the Law; it didnt replace it.

It fulfilled the terms of the Covenant, which was carried by the Ark. That was the original Jewish Law. "In it, rested the essence of God". Jesus was the return of the word in Christianity. Fulfilling the Covenant and replacing it.

It's old Torah prophecy. Uba is correct.

Jul 10, 2010
But the Bible isn't the authority on the concept of God. You cannot use the Bible as evidence for nature when it was clearly authored by men, and not by divinity.
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But we are not unique in that respect, and within nature all manner of relationship is represented. That means that the relationship between God and man could parallel anything within nature, including predator and prey, master and slave, torturer and tortured.
Which only serves to show you can believe any ol' thing you might imagine.

I choose to believe in my beliefs, because they suit me. You're free to make your own choices.
Then you haven't read your bible. To be a Christian is to follow rules. Xians state that there must be submission
Submission to God, not to the rules of men. Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).

Jul 10, 2010
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But God cannot be.
Submission to God, not to the rules of men.
But who has made us aware of the rules of God? A man. There are no laws of God that haven't been given to us by anything other than a man. You require extraordinary evidence to make extraordinary statements.
Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).
Then why the concept of Heaven?

Jul 10, 2010
"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
Meaning, of course, it's being replaced.
-It is not the Law which is obsolete but only the contract the hebrews made with god to abide by it.
The Law and the Contract are one and the same.
"6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.'
Meaning, of course, Jesus' teachings supersede the Old Law.
-Again it is not the Laws that are new but the ministry of them- the way they are delivered to the people- which has been updated
If not to you, it's apparent to me that your interpretations are skewed by your own predeterminations.

Jul 10, 2010
God is offering better and more enticing lies of eternal life (which is really only freedom from the fear of death in this life):

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

-Which Paul blatantly admits to.

Over and over the NT repeats this mantra because it is its most powerful bribe. God promises unending free tickets at NirvanaDisney to compel the people to love only him and his #1 Pudel jesus;
A strange way of putting it, but not inaccurate.

and to obey all those appointed by him unto the death, so wahr mir gott helfen.
Wrong. He repeatedly admonishes us to beware of false leaders.

(the evil otto has returned)
LOL.

Jul 10, 2010
People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.
Well then why isn't that the content of the faith?
Presuming you mean as practiced by various churches, that's a very good question ...indeed.
Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
Now youo've taken the philosophical parts of Christianity and seperated them from the religion. The philosophy of Christianity isn't from Christianity. It's from far earlier sources.
But it's all there in one convenient package.
Why keep the detrimental part of the dogma intact to promote the good when the good itself can be performed without the dogma? In short, you can be Christlike without being Christian.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?

Jul 10, 2010
But it's all there in one convenient package.
I don't think it's all there. There's no statements on the equality of people. No statements against slavery or censorship. No edicts against human rights abuses. It's an incomplete work.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?
The prohibitions against people who don't fit the Christian edicts of personal life, the equality of women. Slavery, etc...

Jul 10, 2010
And yet, and yet... you still express the assurance typical of Believers, that their own particular interpretation of the gospels is gospel, and not subject to scrutiny.
Really? It's not intended.
Your discounting of the OT for instance... you must know that millions of xians every bit as knowledgable as you hold views opposed to yours,
The Bible teaches us that the majority will get it wrong. Therefore, I prefer to be in the minority.
and yet each will not budge unless an epiphany update finds them born again in a new and identical iteration.
An excellent description of what it is to become a born again Christian!

Thats the problem when you place 'faith' in something insubstantial. Youre always at odds with people who feel your beliefs are threatening theirs.
Well that's true of anything.

Often it's the opposite, faith in the substantial will put you at odds against those with preconceived notions.

Jul 10, 2010
Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person.
So would ecstacy, another drug of the same ilk.
Oh I doubt drugs can make you more compassionate.

Anyway, beyond the obvious problems with drug abuse, drugs take you away from the realities of life. Christianity helps you enjoy the realities of life.
Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.
I prefer the Truth.
That is the truth.

Jul 10, 2010
In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.
In your opinion. Which differs from millions of other pious godfearing people
Good. That's how I prefer things.
This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.
Dude. It SAYS "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". You sure you dont want to retract that? You dont NEED a barbeque in hell-
I don't see the conflict.

Jul 10, 2010
Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.
No it doesnt. Read my rational, measured arguments again.
LOL. You crack me up.
The covenants are not the OT. The ministries are not the OT. The OT in its entirety- the prophesies, the Laws, the stories, the lineages, all of it- is necessary to justify and legitimize the NT and the identity of jesus as god. Paul and jesus himself both say this.
That's (presumably) why Jesus told us to hang on to it.
Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.
Looky at that. I apparently presumed correctly! (Or as stated above, I'll grant you the NT is an evolution from the OT.)

Jul 10, 2010
Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.
But God cannot be.
One way of viewing it is He is nature, or He is the essence of nature.
Submission to God, not to the rules of men.
But who has made us aware of the rules of God? A man. There are no laws of God that haven't been given to us by anything other than a man. You require extraordinary evidence to make extraordinary statements.
Actually, the Bible was written by many men, over many generations. Even so, it makes a unique sense when taken in its entirety. Like consciousness inexplicably arises from the apparent chaos of neurons, Truth arises from the apparent chaos of the Bible.
Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).
Then why the concept of Heaven?
Obviously, it serves as an enticement to help folks want to be Christian, but maybe there's more to it...

Jul 10, 2010
But it's all there in one convenient package.
I don't think it's all there. There's no statements on the equality of people. No statements against slavery or censorship. No edicts against human rights abuses. It's an incomplete work.
I'd say The Golden Rule covers that.
To what detrimental parts do you refer?
The prohibitions against people who don't fit the Christian edicts of personal life, the equality of women. Slavery, etc...
What prohibitions? What are you talking about?

Were you raised in the Catholic Church, by any chance?

Jul 10, 2010
Show me where it states this unequivocally and why you think it does. Please.
Even better: "The term Torah (...or "law")..."

Source: http://en.wikiped...ical_law

Thats what they think about you. Whos right? Neither.
Perhaps.
You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.'

"People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and the absense of pain." -Epicurus
But again, it's disassociated from reality.
The OT is indispensible to the NT. You say that its not. Which is it? You cant say its obsolete and yet is still necessary for Pauls argument. Or is Pauls argument superfluous and Jesus just 'is'? Who needs the NT then -?
I only said; save for the Ten Commandments, OT law isn't applicable to Christians.

Jul 10, 2010
We're wearing you out i think.
LOL.

Show me where it states that 'Law' and 'covenant' are one in the same (and I will offer an equally credible source to prove that theyre not).
You mean you want redundant terms in the same sentence?

Leviticus 26:15: ...if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant...

Deuteronomy 29:21: ...the covenant written in this Book of the Law...

Psalm 50:16: But to the wicked, God says: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?"

Hosea 8:1: ...the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law.

Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10, and Hebrews 10:16: "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

There's plenty more...

Jul 10, 2010
(Regarding drug use) You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.
But again, it's disassociated from reality.

So is your religion. Duh.
No it's not. I associate my religion in everyday activities and events. Unlike drugs, it's not an escape from reality. It's an enhancement to reality.

Jul 10, 2010
I think what youre saying is youve lost.
LOL. Hardly!
Jesus holds no claim to the throne of david without the prophesy and the lineage to back it up. He's just another traveling magician and snake oil salesman.
We've already been over this. "That's (presumably) why Jesus told us to hang on to it."
Paul was only selling more snake oil if the OT was not, in fact, setting the stage for the coming of this new and final Messiah.
When did I say it didn't?
Sure, you can claim he is, and cherry pick the NT for phrases which say he is, but unless the prophets were talking about jesus and the Law was written with the Lamb in mind, then he is not.
Didn't you see my Jeremiah reference? Are you not checking my references?
The OT must be valid for jesus to be. Jesus didnt abolish sacrifice; he IS sacrifice.
How can it be applicable when He said it isn't?

Have you ever worked with contracts? When you replace a contract, you usually reference the old contract.

Jul 10, 2010
-that you havent read and understood as they were actually written. Youve only presented things that, when properly interpreted, reinforce the fact that the OT and all of its laws, in spirit if not in substance, are an inseparable part of the gospels. Jesus is the embodiment of those Laws, meant by god to be delivered in a brand new form.

Too bad none of it is real and none of it ever happened.
If I break a contract, do I literally break it over my knee? No. I break the conditions of the contract.

If I void a contract do I retain the conditions of the contract? No. They are no longer applicable.

If I void a contract and write a new one, saying only these things from the old contract are still applicable, then is the whole old contract still applicable? Of course not.

Obviously, the contract and the conditions of the contract aren't literally the same thing, but in essence ...they are.

Jul 10, 2010
Here is a wiki page that might clarify things:
http://en.wikiped...iblical)
You mean like where it says:

In theology and Biblical studies, the word "covenant" principally refers to any of a number of solemn agreements made between God and the children of Israel, ...as well as to the New Covenant, which some Christians consider to be the REPLACEMENT or final FULFILMENT of these, see Supersessionism. (capitalization is mine) and when you click on the supersessionism link you get:

http://en.wikiped...ssionism

...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.

But, you're free to believe whatever you want.

Jul 10, 2010
Otto should like to disclose a prophesy at this point in time, it being saturday night in the year of our lord marduk...I have been given a Vision of Great Promise! It appears thusly:

Mel Gibson has one more movie to do. He will give himself the lead role in the production to be called "Joshua". Mel will be leading the unending hordes of israel throughout canaan, destroying, plundering, raping, killing, burning, tearing asunder and otherwise spreading the good word of god across the land. Pillar of smoke by day, fire by night.

So Spraecht OttO
Blasphemy! LOL.

Jul 10, 2010
Supercessionism. Good link. Many options, at most only one of which can be right. But which? Hold on- not door #3, that ones glowing kind of red...
That's the beauty of Christianity. You can't blow it. You're forgiven.

The OT is Useful. It is good when the Proper time comes for hating the enemy and fighting them. It is useful when one needs to feel a part of a Chosen Group which deserves salvation instead of others- like when wall st crashes or you want to pass on the shoulder.
(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P

You crack me up.

It is especially useful for studying Ecclesiastes and understanding how and why the world is so Masterfully under the Control of Empire.
But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?

Jul 10, 2010
"That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel" -that is, the covenant in which isreal promises to abide by the Law, as herein attached or referenced thereto.
Right, because the Old Testament is still in effect. duh. It's just not in effect for everyone. Didn't you read my Romans 11:25-11:32 reference in regard to the Jews?

Jul 10, 2010
Ich spreche kein Deutsch. Zwar hore ich gute Dinge uber sie. Wie ware es mit Schwedisch?

Din skal, min skal, Alla Vackra Flickor skal!

Jul 11, 2010
(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P
Yeah. Me and Joshua, and the crusaders, etc etc. Sarcasm.
...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.
Hardly, because Otto thinks all you xians are mushheads. =O
Perhaps. But Pascal's Wager is a worth some consideration.

See: http://en.wikiped...'s_Wager

Jul 11, 2010
But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?
uba makes fun of ottos musings? Just remember his theories- though rather hard to believe- are nevertheless possible. The bible is hard to believe because the things it describes are NOT possible.
I'll concede that many of the stories are parables (a story form of analogy), but who's to say what's truly possible? For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?

Jul 12, 2010
Perhaps. But Pascal's Wager is a worth some consideration.

See: http://en.wikiped...'s_Wager
Actually no it isn't. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two options, God or no God. It is fundamentally false as there are a great multitude of gods all of which state explicitly that they are jealous gods and petty towards those who preach another religion.

Effectively your chances drop significantly. With no observational evidence for the existence of any god you have divided up the "with God" side of the pie over 150 different ways, and that's jsut the current Gods, not their predecessors.
For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
Is it possible for an electromagnetic wave to interact with matter all by itself? No of course not. There have to be physical attributes that determine these mechanics, and behind them further rules that govern energy mechanics. The debate is on whether a "who" implemented it.

Jul 13, 2010
otto: It looks like your trolling is still failing miserably :D

Jul 13, 2010
Bump

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfo...ASin.htm
http://www.jesus2...int.html
http://www.christ...ing.html
http://www.stjohn...nces.php
http://www.gaychr...101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinfu

Jul 13, 2010
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.u...tion.pdf
http://www.newsci...sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnew...,00.html
http://www.livesc...nes.html
http://www.spring...k586276/

Jul 13, 2010
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Jul 13, 2010
shadow, no one is disputing whether homosexuality is natural or not, jsut about all of us agree that it is. What we're addressing with you is whether being a Christian homosexual is a logical construct.

Jul 13, 2010
No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.
However we are greatly limited by the depth of the illogical ones, to the detriment of the individual as well as the species.

Jul 13, 2010
Actually no it isn't. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two options, God or no God.


Not quite right. It ALSO assumes that there is only one god and that god is Jehovah. Which is strange since in Exodus Jehovah clearly thinks that there is more than one god.

Thou shalt not have OTHER gods before me.

and there are other signs as well.

Of course there is also the possibility that god is Allah or Odin or something even more psychotic. OR even a god that doesn't want to be worshiped. Might send you to Niffleheim for worshiping it or any other god.

Ethelred

Jul 13, 2010
Cannot totally agree with that one, SH - have you looked at voting patterns in the major democracies lately?

"WE'RE GOING BROKE! QUICK - GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE RICH."
or perhaps the foreign policies:

"LET'S SHOW THESE PEOPLE WILL LOVE THEM AND BOMB THE SNOT OUT TO THEM."
And who leads these charges?

The most illogical of all, our elected officials. Forget not that in order to be elected to office in the US you must be a believer in some sort of God, or downplay your rational methodology of falsification. I never said the majority of people were logical, if anything, I imply the opposite.

Jul 13, 2010
who's to say what's truly possible?
WE are. The species.
Well, we've often been wrong...
For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?
If consciousness is not just the grand illusion I think it is, then we'll find out. No need to jump to the wrong conclusions now, is there? Of course not.
According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real.

We admit we don't know, then set about finding out. That's how it's done.
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?

Jul 13, 2010
I never said the majority of people were logical, if anything, I imply the opposite.
And how!

I'm convinced that most people are nuts some of the time, and some people are nuts most of the time, but when enough people are nuts at the same time, they screw everything up!

That's it. I'm getting aboad my spaceship now, and leaving this dirtball ...forever! :P

Jul 14, 2010
According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real.
Rene Descartes was a drunken fart I drink therefor I am. - Monty Python
And that is just as likely to be true. For the drinkers anyway

Ethelred

Jul 14, 2010
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that any "being" we've described either in conversation or in the written word does not exist due to the content of the story.

Jul 14, 2010
But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that any "being" we've described either in conversation or in the written word does not exist due to the content of the story.

Yeah? How so?

Jul 15, 2010
Descartes like most state-sponsored philos was a propagandist, charged with spreading the official state weltanschaaung. Philos research with words- as if that ever could work.
So you're saying he was wrong? You think, therefore you're not?

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?
Well, you know, we looked for god, because we want to live forever too ya know? And we looked for him in the first place we're told to look, the bible. But all we found there were mistakes, bad editing, political silliness.

So we had to conclude that if god existed he had to be a malevolent liar because he couldn't even write a competent book. Luckily he's also an impotent god because the only ones who kill heretics like us are indignant self-righteous godders.
Which part(s) did you read?

Jul 15, 2010
At any rate we can pretty much discount god and move on to learning about things which can really have an impact in our lives and our futures.
As you've attested, the mere belief in God has a significant impact on our lives and futures. Wouldn't it therefore be wise to learn about it?

Unfortunately, control freaks who want to be the know-it-alls in front of their congregations, but who aren't capable enough to assume positions where they can actually LEARN about what actually is or CONTRIBUTE to finding out, don't want to surrender the god myth and further, will oppose anything which threatens to discount it, and them.

They love watching people jump through hoops when they tell them they have the secret to eternal youth.
Sadly, you're not wrong here.

Jul 15, 2010
As you've attested, the mere belief in God has a significant impact on our lives and futures
Impact yes good impact, well sometimes. Twenty-five percent of Americans are out of touch with reality to the extent that they will deny that the Bible has contradictions. Fifty percent deny evolution and most of those actually believe in the Flood Story. There was no such flood in the world we live in. That is quite a disconnect from reality and I can't see why anyone rational would think that is a good thing.
Wouldn't it therefore be wise to learn about it?
Learned enough to know that the Bible was written by men with no special knowledge of reality. No more wise than many other religious writers and often showing a tendency to accept psychotic behavior if someone claimed that Jehovah said it was OK to murder people.

Faith had its chance. I think it is just plain wrong to go on faith in denial of reality.

Ethelred

Jul 15, 2010
You need not be religious to notice an astonishing multitude of deluge myths
"I am astonished to see that gambling is happening here".

I astonished that you are astonished. EVERY culture has had major floods. So every culture will have a myth. Not counting the ones that borrowed the Jewish myth after hearing about it. One of the TWO Greek flood myths is clearly newer and clearly based on the Bible.

myths either have (different) real backgrounds or even one common background far back in the past.


We can't exclude the possibility that either A or Not A is true or false or both either.
hypothesis is that of Ryan-Pitman
Don't know that one.
Another one - this is speculation only - could be the Toba eruption about 75000 years ago


No. Waayy too far back and not needed.

THIS ONE covers the Eastern Mediterranean.

Oh this is Ryan-Pitman:
http://en.wikiped...e_theory

Con

Jul 15, 2010
tinued

Why didn't you say the Black Sea? This is what I think of for that:
http://www.nation...sea.html

Ballard's work is what I read about a decade ago.

And not many Flood believing Christians think that was the one in the Bible. It was too long ago and not world wide. However it is real and likely the source of the Sumerian myth which is the source of the Biblical myth.

Emphasis on myth or in this case nearly lost legend. 2500 years before being recorded in cuneiform. Well the Persians still tell horror stories about Iskander.

Now for a REALLY BIG flood. But no one remembered this one. No humans around. Barely even any early apes.

http://en.wikiped...an_flood
http://news.bbc.c...4363.stm

None of this however is the Biblical flood, killing all but 8 humans and covering the highest mountain. That is what the Fundamentalists and many non-Fundamentalists believe. Which is a disconnect from reality.

Ethelred

Jul 15, 2010
Yeah? How so?

Go through any story of "God" and list each and every attribute granted, then ask yourself "how did someone determine this without direct revelation" then recognize that all direct revelation stories match up very closely to the madness found in each and every assylum in the country. Inconsistency and self contradiction further the thought that the codified gods don't exist.

Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

Jul 15, 2010
Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Jul 16, 2010
You're being very cryptic here uba but it seems like what you're saying is that 'it' won't work unless everybody believes the same things you do, right? If so then you're faith is consistant with other beliefs. They all need theirs to be the ONLY religion.
Well, if I claimed to understand Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and insisted it was about rogue robots taking over the world, would you agree I truly understood Hamlet? Why would you knock my personal interpretation?

Claiming you understand a literary work and truly getting it, are not the same thing.

In the case of the Bible, for instance, many religious leaders (whether intentional or not) teach hateful dogma that's simply contrary to the content and context of the Bible.

I'm not saying eveyone should believe exactly as I do (if they did, I'd know I was doinig it wrong), but rather the Bible (like any other literay work) conveys specific information that can generally be stipulated. One of which is to not be a hater.

Jul 16, 2010
You understand this is the main reason why religions are so foul? ALL hide behind the same general moral code, which they think is exclusively theirs. All will use this moral self-assurance to criticize, condemn, vilify and exclude; and NONE will yield because their very souls are at stake. There are no Good religions.
It seems you're quite happily criticizing, condemning, and vilifying. Why would you expect anyone else to be any different? (rhetorical)

Obviously, you expect religions to hold to a "higher" moral code than your own. Why is that?

Jul 16, 2010
One thing I've been thinking about recently, is the Fall from Grace and it's relationship to religionism. Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and suddenly realize they are naked, and are ashamed.

I always considered the 'good and evil' part as creative editing, like victorian fig leaves on Renaissance statues, but consider this: the snake tempts them to eat, and afterward they acquire morals.
My personal interpretation of this is it's simply a reference to human sentience. Sentience sets us apart from the natural world (i.e. Eden).
Who is the traditional Steward of social mores in society, but the church?
Perhaps traditionally, but not legally.
Satan gave the couple a sense of morals in defiance of gods will, and this is why they were banished. Is genesis warning that the false morality of organized religion is the gift of Satan?
Morality cannot be "false." It's subjective to individuals and societies.

Jul 16, 2010
So many things religions have done in the name of selective morality can be considered evil, and we can find the source of this in genesis. Our 'Fall from Grace' was away from 'god' and toward the corruption of religion. Yes indeed.
For decades, religion was outlawed and banished from much of the communist block. Did these countries suffer less corruption than others? Hardly.

Religions are often corrupted, but it's the corrupted people in them which makes them so. In other words, religion or not, people will be corrupt - and corrupted people are a corrupting influence.

Religion is simply our way of trying to find a way back to God. Therefore religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.

Jul 16, 2010
In your opinion. You forgot to say 'in my opinion...' -see? This is how it starts.
Nope. This is about basic tenets. Saying otherwise would be like saying the U.S. Declaration of Independence states we should all worship King George. Obviously, it doesn't
oh Please

Maybe you're a hater too but you don't feel it because you're enshrouded in Jesus loving countenance? Your post about unbelievers indicates that there are those whom you wish would accept or... die? It can reach that point so easily, so quickly when eternal salvation (and starving children) are at stake.
Again, you obviously want everyone to accept your ideals. Why would you expect others to behave differently?

However, in truth, I would that everyone learned to believe in things that are truly inspiring and worth believing in. It doesn't even matter if they're true or not. What matters is it makes you feel better as a person, and sets a better example for a civil society.

Jul 16, 2010
'You shall have no other gods before me' is moral, and unequivocal, and false.
Not for that religion. It's simply a rule of the club (so to speak).
Up until very recently, and in much of the world now, religions are, which you know full well
Read my post about religions being the gift of 'satan' again. I really think I'm on to something here. There are natural, intrinsic morals which all normal, healthy individuals feel toward one another (in times where there's enough of everything for everybody) and there is church morality based on exclusion and rejection, which flows from the first and most important commandment. Which cause trouble?
To whom are you responding to here? What's the context?

Jul 16, 2010
Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).
Interesting qualifiers you add. What considerations do you have to take into account to see the NT as consistent?

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Well I'd like to say I already "get it", but I find it utterly disgusting to feed the inner ape of my mind and allow it to run screaming from each and every shadow it perceives. I see religion as an excuse to not be curious, to not achieve, and to not improve our lives. After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven.

Jul 16, 2010
Interesting qualifiers you add. What considerations do you have to take into account to see the NT as consistent?
It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.
Well I'd like to say I already "get it", but I find it utterly disgusting to feed the inner ape of my mind and allow it to run screaming from each and every shadow it perceives. I see religion as an excuse to not be curious, to not achieve, and to not improve our lives. After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven.
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.

Therefore (and obviously then), you don't get it.

Jul 16, 2010
No, religions are the problem because they exclusively promise salvation and eternal life from a god who DOESN'T EXIST. They use their books to describe him and the process for securing these gifts, but the books were obviously written by LIARS and so their god they describe does not exist.
So? Why should that matter to you? Why do you feel a need to suppress other people in pursuit of their personal interests?
People are the problem because their reproductive rate inevitably causes collapse. We may be on the verge of conquering that inevitability. The evil of god worship is no longer needed to maintain order by setting people at each others throats in orderly ways.
That's simply naive.
is the context. Godders brought up what they think are their moral laws, and I'm addressing that.
The context still isn't clear. Perhaps you might post the whole text of the fragment to which you were responding, or provide a link?

Jul 16, 2010
Of course we won't be able to get there until all the people down here who would prevent it from happening are either CONVERTED or DEAD, as uba graciously points out. Onward Xian/Zion/islam soldiers marching [as] to war.
When did I ever "point out" anything like that?

It seems your morals are slipping here. Perhaps you need some reigious, moral guidance? :D

Jul 16, 2010
It's supposed to be perfect because it says so, and the majority of your people believe it is. But it's not, that's been proven
Perhaps it's perfect in ways you haven't considered.
At the expense of others. All religions promise exclusively to make believers better people- better than the heathen and the blasphemer.
Which is different from your suppression of the religious how, exactly?

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches us to love everyone, even our enemies.
With the flock, to the flock.
Nope. For ourselves and to everyone.
Waaaa! You ARE naive. More creative interpretation of the Word of God. You WILL burn sir.

Although, they will challenge the status quo when the status quo is perceived to be godless or sufficiently deficient in divine guidance- which they are always eager to provide and insist upon. Because it's only right
Now you're just being spiteful.

Jul 16, 2010
I think I am just as on-topic as you,
Actually, it appears you're having trouble with continuity.
even more so, because Otto never adds anti-god into a thread until a religionist mentions god.
?
And as far as 'why do I care', I just like to know the real reasons why things happen.
So antagonizing the religious accomplishes this how, exactly?
There are Very Good Reasons why all the state-sponsored religions offer the same things but can be used to polarize people so easily
To what "state sponsored religions" do you refer?

Jul 16, 2010
It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.
Ok, but that means that it is not consistent. The text is self contradictory in multiple places and typically one must utilize some sort of contorted logic to assume self-consistency.
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.
Disagreed. The text uses large amounts of parable and demands acceptance of metaphysical divinity of a mortal man. It is not a purely philosophical text when it hands down unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality and immorality.

Therefore (and obviously then), you don't get it.
And I could say the same of you.

Jul 16, 2010
Don't matter. It says things happened when they obviously did not. If these are parables it does acknowledge them as such, even when Jesus said people with hard hearts need parables. Therefore the whole schlemiel is bogus.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy.
HERE is where uba proclaims he is holier than thou.

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches to love everyone, even our enemies.
How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.
Nah, it teaches you to FEEL this if you choose to be martyrs or to slaughter your enemies with holy impunity, or anything in between. It enables you to ACT despite the reservations you would normally have without it.
That's ridiculous. Show, in context, where it says this in the New Testament.

Jul 16, 2010
@SE:
Ok, but that means that it is not consistent. The text is self contradictory in multiple places and typically one must utilize some sort of contorted logic to assume self-consistency.
Nah. Everyone paraphrases events in their own way. Minor variations therefore aren't inconsistencies. They're just the personal interpretations of the writers.

Think about having a class write an essay on one scene in a movie. Do you think each student is going to turn in the exact same essay, verbatim? Of course not. Are they therefore contradictory? They might be. Are they therfore inaccurate or false? Not necessarily.

continued...


Jul 16, 2010
@SE (2 of 2)
Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.
Disagreed.
Okay then. Where does it teach the contradiction?
The text uses large amounts of parable and demands acceptance of metaphysical divinity of a mortal man. It is not a purely philosophical text when it hands down unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality and immorality.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
And I could say the same of you.
You could, but could you back it up with references?

Jul 16, 2010
I like your introductory analogy to an essay with multiple readers, however, do you not see the difference? When someone, or in this case, something declares authority, and encourages the adherance to that authority while remaining non-distinct and nebulous the only potential use is eventual ethical evil.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
Well go ahead and list the necessary social attributes one must have to be considered saved or Christian as lain out through the different versions of the Bible. When one pushes codified morality and backs it up with eternal punishment from a loving god, that smacks of not only contradiction but utter lunacy as well.
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
So are you now stating that you believe it literally as well? As for references, where are yours?

Jul 16, 2010
@SE:
I like your introductory analogy to an essay with multiple readers, however, do you not see the difference? When someone, or in this case, something declares authority, and encourages the adherance to that authority while remaining non-distinct and nebulous the only potential use is eventual ethical evil.
It's not non-distinct or nebulous.

However (and even The Bible says this will happen) evil minds do use it for evil purposes. But then evil minds will use anything to their evil purposes, won't they?

Good minds, likewise, will embrace the good in it and use it for ethical good. This is obvious from the works of many Christian or faith-based individuals and organizations. In fact, I'd be willing to wager there are many more faith-based charities, doing good work, than there are agnostic or atheist charities doing similar work.

continued...

Jul 16, 2010
Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?
Well go ahead and list the necessary social attributes one must have to be considered saved or Christian as lain out through the different versions of the Bible.
Apples and oranges. Being saved has litle to do with Biblical declarations of morality. It's simply a matter of faith.
When one pushes codified morality and backs it up with eternal punishment from a loving god, that smacks of not only contradiction but utter lunacy as well.
What Bible are you reading? There's no "codified morality backed up with eternal punishment from a loving god" in Christianity. That's the whole point. We're forgiven.
So are you now stating that you believe it literally as well?
That's a loaded question. Be more specific.
As for references, where are yours?
I asked for yours first.

Jul 16, 2010
It's not non-distinct or nebulous.
Then there would be no room for interpretation by definition.
That's the whole point. We're forgiven.
So then I should be able to perform any act I wish within this existence, and as long as I say "I'm sorry God" and mean it with the fervor of total belief I'm cleared for eternity? Then why have a hell?

That's a loaded question. Be more specific.

Let me rephrase. Where you state that it isn't purely a philosophical work, that implies that you take parts of the Bible as literal truth, is this accurate? If so, which parts and how do you delineate the philosophy from the historical record?
I asked for yours first.

And you made the first assertion without reference. Where our subject matter is the subjective interpretation of a written work we're speaking more on matters of opinion than scholarship. If you feel otherwise I'd like you to pre-reciprocate and substantiate your assertion of "I [SH] don't get it."

Jul 16, 2010
You have to look at history to see what the great religions have enabled their adherents to do in gods name, rather than what their holy books say they do. This enabling process is the most significant result of religionism. Religions promise to save souls but they NEVER have to PROVE that they can or do.

I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, but only in scope. Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty. For example, the morals and ethics of the military as instilled in Timothy McVeigh led him to seek retribution against the government for what he saw as an unjust interference into the lives of people such as the Branch Davidians. The military training he had recieved instilled the ethic of "killing for justice" and under such circumstances, he performed admirably.

All codified morality can be twisted if the mind receiving it is able to envision doing so. This is the basis for mob mentality, and bigotry on the whole.

Jul 17, 2010
Then there would be no room for interpretation by definition.
That's not true. Modern laws, for instance, are written as concisely as modern legislators can right them, are tested and interpreted through time by society and the judiciary, and yet re-examinations of long used laws turn up new interpretations.
So then I should be able to perform any act I wish within this existence, and as long as I say "I'm sorry God" and mean it with the fervor of total belief I'm cleared for eternity? Then why have a hell?
Is Hell a place? Is it a metaphor? Is it a permanent separation from God? Who knows?

continued...

Jul 17, 2010
Let me rephrase. Where you state that it isn't purely a philosophical work, that implies that you take parts of the Bible as literal truth, is this accurate? If so, which parts and how do you delineate the philosophy from the historical record?
It's not as simple as that. Sure, some parts are true in the sense that they're backed up by the archaeological record, but the truth I would speak of is a very personal and emotional truth.

See: http://fictionand...l-truth/

And you made the first assertion without reference. Where our subject matter is the subjective interpretation of a written work we're speaking more on matters of opinion than scholarship. If you feel otherwise I'd like you to pre-reciprocate and substantiate your assertion of "I [SH] don't get it."
Now you're asking me to preach. Is that really what you want?

Here's a relevant reference: http://gospelway....self.php

Jul 17, 2010
How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.

My comment was to your statement quoted above it, wherein you proclaimed that the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post.
When did I say that? It's certainly not in the text to which you refer. I was only explaining to you that your problem with "religionists" is misdirected to the religion, rather than to the responsible parties, themselves.
Why are you misreading my posts unless its to avoid admitting youre wrongness?
Maybe it's that your assertion was so disconnected from my context that I had a hard time associating it with my text?

Jul 17, 2010
but the truth I would speak of is a very personal and emotional truth.
Very William Lane Craig-ish of you. Not that I'm drawing a parallel between your statements and his, jsut the style in this phrase. Personal and emotional truths are philosophy, not subjective truth, so again you're sidestepping.
Is Hell a place? Is it a metaphor? Is it a permanent separation from God? Who knows?
Religion holds rather flatly that it is a place, akin to heaven. The attributes of one must be generally similar to the other.
Modern laws, for instance, are written as concisely as modern legislators can right them,
Are you insisting that modern laws are never nebulous or non-distinct? Many are intentionally written to be non-distinct. This isn't a strong point in your favor in this discussion.

I don't see the concept of God as evil. I see a codified god that is shared and has personal interaction as greatly evil.

Jul 17, 2010
gaydom?

Wass Iss?

Why the Kingdom of Gay LaFleur of course!

Jul 17, 2010
@SE:
Very William Lane Craig-ish of you. Not that I'm drawing a parallel between your statements and his, jsut the style in this phrase. Personal and emotional truths are philosophy, not subjective truth, so again you're sidestepping.
To the individual, they're solid truths. As the Bible aims to save individuals, this is quite fitting.
Religion holds rather flatly that it is a place, akin to heaven. The attributes of one must be generally similar to the other.
I guess that would depend on your religion. In mine, I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me. Objectively speaking, the Bible speaks of both a Hell and a Hades. (the former being eternal, the latter not).
Are you insisting that modern laws are never nebulous or non-distinct? Many are intentionally written to be non-distinct. This isn't a strong point in your favor in this discussion.
Obviously, I wasn't referring to intentionally non-distinct laws.

continued...

Jul 17, 2010
@SE (2 of 2):
I don't see the concept of God as evil. I see a codified god that is shared and has personal interaction as greatly evil.
Codified? Where do you live? Religion is decidedly not codified in my country. In fact we have people who dilligently and quite successfully work to eliminate even the appearance of codification.

Of course, this kind of secularism isn't universally true. Many countries don't have the freedom of (and from) religion as we have here.

See: http://en.wikiped...religion


Jul 17, 2010
@uba
-You made a statement which you havent owned up to and have yet to explain. You said:
One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
-To which I responded:

To which you replied:

-which does not address your original comment at all. Explain to me please how your original statement is not an expression of exclusivism, meaning to exclude all those whose beliefs which are different from yours?

And just who are the 'certain people' you wish to exclude, and from what?
I see no use of the word "exclude" (or any of its synonyms) in my text. You'll have to explain your interpretation.

Jul 17, 2010
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.
Maybe that's how it works in your religion, but not in mine.
And if you keep spouting heresy such as the following,
Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.
-as I've pointed out before, you WILL burn. And no. it doesnt take another starry-eyed god-lover who sees it, to make it true.
We've already been over this. The NT is quite clear. Have you forgotten already?
Anyway, answer my previous post addressed to you sir. Admit that religions are meant to divide and not consolidate, which you yourself hold to be true by your own pronouncement.
How so?

Jul 17, 2010
That was quick.
it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
That's for them to decide, for themselves.

Jul 17, 2010
Yes we have, and its clear you interpret to fit your own individual needs and not according to how it was written. Self-righteous heresy. Burn you will.
If you had an objection, why didn't you raise it then? Furthmore, for your argument to have any merit, you're going to need to provide references to counter mine.
Feigned misunderstanding is another form of lie. Typical from any religionist who thinks they are above discussing religion with unbelievers.
It's not my fault if you're not making sense.
You might enjoy playing pattycake here but you will never be honest in how you really feel or what you really think; because its not a sin to sin against the godless. Is it?
Maybe in your religion, but not mine.
You can see why its easy to conclude why one can never trust a religionist.
Maybe you're just expressing a lack of faith in yourself?

Jul 17, 2010
And in your passing mention you reveal another of the concepts derived from Greek Zeus worship. The time limited punishments of Hades, followed by isolation from the glory of the Mountain. Glory of the Mountain, yet another phrase used often.

It is rather interesting how you do not see the parallels to what you would surely describe as legend and myth.

Jul 18, 2010
Again you lie. Myself and SH both provided references such as the following:

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
We've already been over this. "Fulfill" means to finish, complete, to bring to an end.

See: http://www.thefre.../fulfill

and: http://churchtith...the-law/

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?
Here he's only saying the text will survive to the end.

As this Law pertains only to the Jews, it's also implied here that it will remain in effect, but only for the Jews.

See: Romans 11:25-11:32

Seriously. We've been over this. Do you have anything new to ad?

Jul 18, 2010
Satan hides behind your puppet god and enables you to sin, demands that you sin in order to serve him. It does not take an inquisition or a crusade to expose the evil that is your religion sir. It only takes the smallest truth in defiance of it, to prove what xians are.
So now you're saying you believe in Satan? Really?

Jul 18, 2010
And in your passing mention you reveal another of the concepts derived from Greek Zeus worship. The time limited punishments of Hades, followed by isolation from the glory of the Mountain. Glory of the Mountain, yet another phrase used often.

It is rather interesting how you do not see the parallels to what you would surely describe as legend and myth.
When did I ever deny any such parallels?

Jul 18, 2010
So, uba wants to rewrite the NT also? In response to my post:
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

-in which I was refering to the well-known passage in james2:

"17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Really? You're going to take you own posts out of context now? The proper context was:
I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me.
Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.
You were trying to condemn me, yourself, to hell. You don't have that authority.

As for faith in works, it's not for me to judge my works. Christians are expected to have good works to show for themselves, as being a Christian brings with it a desire to do the right thing. If this desire isn't apparent, the implication is you didn't get what being a Christian truly means.

Jul 18, 2010
Your liberties in blasphemy WILL condemn you, even if your lies to heathens do not.
So now you're saying you believe in eternal condemnation too? And here I thought you were claiming to be an atheist! Please, make up you mind.

Jul 18, 2010
Ubas response to my comment:
These people- what about them? Convert or what??
-in which I was referring to his original dismissal of:
certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem
-uba responds:
That's for them to decide, for themselves.
No it obviously is not.
It most certainly is.
Uba deems anyone whose beliefs differ from his a 'problem' just because they might threaten to 'lead others away'.
That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.
And here we have an essential evil of religion, from the mouth of a believer nonetheless. He may tolerate heathens, but they will always be the enemy; and as their numbers grow, so does his ire. When they prosper, his jealous god will demand action.
Not.
For although retribution is the lords, he is powerless to exact it and can only avenge through adherents.
So now you're saying you believe in God now?

Jul 18, 2010
Enjoy church tomorrow uba; your god will be staring you right_in_the_face.
I don't need church for that. He's always with me.

Anyway, as it seems apparent that you're developing a faith of your own, perhaps you might consider attending a church?

Jul 18, 2010
When did I ever deny any such parallels?
So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division?

Jul 18, 2010
That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.
uba lies yet again. Your response was to comments by SH on other belief systems, which you thought were consistant with yours.
So now you would take the context even farther out of place? Now, all of a sudden it's not about OUR conversation, but mine and SH's?
What's important is your condemnation of others who would lead people away from YOUR particular faith.
Not that it matters to OUR conversation, my comment was to the broader points of SH's arguments. My specific response to the SH comment you refer to, was directly above mine (that you're referencing). To whit:
(uba): I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).
Seriously, it seems you're having problems with continuity. Why is that? You wouldn't be trying to manipulate the conversation, now would you?

Jul 18, 2010
And when I use your terms like Satan and god, it's only to show the contradictions which you express in your own belief system
So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?

Are your morals slipping here, or what?
which you have obviously custom-tailored for yourself. Ubas god does exactly what uba tells him to, leaving uba free to do what he feels is appropriate.
So now you're saying I wrote the Bible? Really? Just how old do you think I am!

Jul 18, 2010
Faith involves surrendering your will to a higher power, not the other way around.
Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.
But you seem to be content that your works are sufficient to get you saved. Your judgment or gods? Is there a difference?
It's a matter of faith.
Ever see the movie 'the Ruling Class'?
No.
Peter otooles character says he realized he was god when, one day he was praying and he realized he was talking to himself. Uba makes up his own faith with it's own selective rules and then declares himself saved. This is because uba doesn't want to do the work necessary to ascribe to a real belief system. Sloth- a sin. Vanity- a sin. Better expunge those too.
Again, you insist that I wrote the Bible? (incredulity)

Look pal ...I might be old, but I'm not THAT old.