Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Some hippies planted a bomb at an abortion clinic.

Yes, it's a well-known fact that the proponents of free love, sandals, world peace and mind-altering substances are also violently opposed to abortion.

You should know that you can't trust hippies.

For a detailed study on hippies I recommend ep 902 of South Park. Die Hippy, Die. ( a link can be provided )

This will advise you what to do if you suddenly find you have an infestation of hippies.

Just never let them have a music festival .......... You'll run the risk of getting a hippy event horizan.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I can't have kids.

My doctor says I need a boyfriend first.

you're doctor is completely off base. a boyfriend or husband is definitely not required for a woman to get pregnant. an f'-buddy will more than suffice

also, going back to the eye for an eye stuff in the bible. this code of law far pre-dates the bible. it was actually the code of hammurabi, who was a babylonian king around 1760BC. and it contained (amoung other things) a collection of specifically stated "mirror punishments"


and so on. but even then, it wasn't cut and dry eye for an eye. there were different levels of punishment based on the class of the attacker and the victim. if the attacker is of a higher class than the victim, then the attacker would most likely only pay a fine.

now, given that a good portion of "christian" countries don't have a class system, that essentially makes both parties of the same class, so the mirror punishment system would apply (under hammurabi's code).

even still, it wasn't a vigilante world. the punishments were carried out in the legal system. it wasn't the victim (or their family) that executed the punishment. so, knowing that, the people attacking the clinics/doctors/mothers would be found guilty and be put to death if they killed someone in their actions.

a lot of statements in the bible weren't explained out explicitly because the statements didn't need to be. the bible was written in a time and location where the audience would understand it with out having to have it spelled out for them because they lived in that world, under its laws, and with its beliefs.

the modern world is so far removed from the world the authors or the bible lived in that many of its "teachings" are no longer applicable and many others need to taken only after given it much critical thought.
for example, how should this be applied to the modern world?
Exodus 21:7

Quote :

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

Quote from wsinda :

Yes, it's a well-known fact that the proponents of free love, sandals, world peace and mind-altering substances are also violently opposed to abortion.

I just dub extreme religious types or any sort of protesters as hippies.

Quote :

you're doctor is completely off base. a boyfriend or husband is definitely not required for a woman to get pregnant. an f'-buddy will more than suffice

Pfff, I could replace you with a turkey baster.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Pfff, I could replace you with a turkey baster.

i wasn't suggesting me (happily married), rather any generic man that you wouldn't mind filling such a roll

wow...this thread is taking quite the detour

Quote from Hankstar :

Anyway, on to semantics. Terrorism is defined by the US State Department as: "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Yup, these are terrorists, no matter what some may believe about terrorism. By the way the word defines the usage of particular tactics or - as in the case of Al Qaeda, at least in the eyes of some analysts - strategies. Such tactics don't define the lawfulness (or unlawfulness) of the goal of those resorting to terrorism, but I'm no longer expecting some ignorant people to understand the peculiar qualities of this fundamental distinction. I just let them be the prey of the words of the people in power.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Pfff, I could replace you with a turkey baster.

When I hear that it always puts me off eating turkey. Ergh.

Quote from Hankstar :

Atheism, not being any kind of centralised, organised system of belief or behavioural control, offers, honestly, nothing except what you already have. It's the absence of faith and the presence of honest inquiry and open-mindedness.

While I agree with you on just about everything else, this part is actually un-true (in my mind). Atheism is not open-mindedness. Atheists believe there is no God. That is not open mindedness, that is close mindedness. Agnostics, on the other hand, may not necessarily believe in God, but accept its possibility.

Agnostics are open minded. They will have what they believe to be the truth, and that which they believe to be false, but ultimately confess they do not know for fact the origins of all things. That is open mindedness.

Now, I claim to be Agnostic, but at times I feel more like an Atheist. That is more because of a feeling of loathing to some religious people/sect who are so ignorant and caught up with their own agendas that they do not see the teachings as they should be seen. I do not hate religion, or religious people, just those who warp it to suit their needs and those who claim it but do not follow it ("Gangstas" come to mind :really. For some reason these people just really piss me off.

Now, there is a question I would like to propose. Why do we need religion? All other animals on the planet seem to get along fine without it. They all have codes of behaviour of which ever member of the pack/murder/herd/pride/[other grouping of wild animals] must follow as per their role, but nothing apparently is based on religious intervention; it is all set in place for the good of the herd. Why are we, as humans, any different? We are animals. We are mammals. We have our societies with rules and so forth, why must we have an all-mighty deity to tell us what to do?

:iagree:

Quote from MAGGOT :

Now, I claim to be Agnostic, but at times I feel more like an Atheist. That is more because of a feeling of loathing to some religious people/sect who are so ignorant and caught up with their own agendas that they do not see the teachings as they should be seen.

That doesn't make you an atheist, you just show a tendency towards anticlericalism, which is a completely different thing since it's not related to transcendency, but to ideas against some or all aspects of organised religions.
For the rest, you're right about agnosticism, at least from my point of view.
As attributed to Socrates:
One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.

I know it doesn't make me an atheist, but sometimes I feel like on simply out of spite (and sometimes in conversations/arguments with such people, I find myself defending an atheist's perspective rather than my own...)

Great quote from Socrates. That's a gooder

That sentence is interesting from many points of view: it's an exceptionally witty paradox which is perfect for an agnostic (literally: a person without knowledge)
Socrates knew better

Quote from Hankstar :

I discovered I didn't actually need ancient scripture in order to know right from wrong, and didn't need permission from any heavenly entity to do exactly what I felt like.

You've just defined a fundamental problem with that logic in that very statement: moral subjectivity. You've clearly stated that you can decide right from wrong, but the problem is that (and I say this respectfully), you're not the centre of existance (apart from your own heehee :razz. By that logic, anyone decides for themself what's right and wrong and the ideas intrinsically cease to exist because they are not objective. The ideas of right and wrong become moot because they are not based on anything but our own flawed ideas. (... don't even try to tell me our collective thinking / ideas are not flawed when half of this planet cannot eat food every day). To a psychopathic mass murderer, murder is not
wrong - so why do we look down upon this seemingly innocent fellow? He's just following his heart and that's all we can do right? What about the fact that some people murder, knowing full well it's "wrong". (yet it cannot be if there is no objective power/truth that makes it "wrong"). There we have the case of willfully doing wrong - yet it's "doing exactly what I feel like". Moral relativism is the real cause of the problem, NOT the solution.

Quote :

Anyway, autobiography aside, it seems you're taking personally what I meant generally...you only need to look at the protestant-Catholic and Sunni-Shiite schisms to realise how destructive a
disagreement on theological detail can be.

The sense of humour comment I took personal! The effects of those disagreements should tell you something though. Ford / Chevy guys don't (generally) start literal wars about their different beliefs, but "religious" beliefs are quite obviously a lot more powerful for some reason. There is no rational argument for that phenomenon (you've already agreed to that), and yet it's reality cannot be denied. I contend (and I'm not say that you have to, rather
explaining myself and my ramblings) that it's only due to the spiritual realities depicted in Bible. You're also as hard pressed to prove me wrong as I am to prove myself right

Quote :

(the core of which seems to mirror practically every other mainstream religion and isn't all that
unique)

That completely wrong, 100%.
I guess I'll explain why after this:

Quote :

If it (or any holy book) was definitive and totally black & white about what it requires from its adherents (as you may expect if it were the words of a supreme being), the fact is that there wouldn't have been, and wouldn't be, any religious wars, disagreements or inquisitions between religions or their factions. There wouldn't be any half-hearts, moderates, strict observers and fundamentalist murderers because everyone would have the same playbook and the same rules and everyone would worship in the same way. The fact that there are so many different varieties of Muslim & Christian and Jew (to name only the big three) says to me that noone has the definitive version of the word of god, precisely because no such version exists. These scriptures and the religions they support are human inventions, designed by humans long ago for purposes that can't be fully understood.

Once again, you're back to the fallibility of mankind. If we were perfect as a being, this kind of thinking would hold some water. I don't think I have to explain that humans are flawed do I? I said I would explain the point above so I will do that first: You keep talking about the word religion, which is a word that I dislike tremendously. Every "religious system" in the world (save for one, Christianity) is based on requirements and laws and so forth. This means "do this, don't do that, and you are rewarded and/or punished based on your performance. It's all about YOU, trying to redeem yourself through your own actions" That is how every OTHER "religious system" is rooted. Christianity is based, instead, on a relationship with a living God who has offered to restore that broken relationship through his own sacrifice. There is no "repayment", "requirement", "performance" or any such human intervention required - simply to receive a relationship, not earn "something" (otherwise the sacrifice was pointless)... The fact that the problems you described here exist only serves to support biblical doctrine, not detract from it.

Quote :

unfortunately, so is the "no condoms" doctrine ...

Catholisim is not Christianity (uh oh), at all - that that type of "doctrine" is not rooted in biblical scripture.

Quote from Hankstar :

what I do care about is that religion has an influence on peoples' lives (and on some governments) that
sometimes overrides rational thinking and morality, which can be dangerous.

Danger exists with non-religious governments / ideaologies as well. Not everyone is what they profess to be anyway, obviously.

Quote :

btw Racer, that clinic sounds like a horror show

No kidding. But; it's not really killing because some people say it's not, right? Interestingly it's the same people who simply cannot
live with the consequences of their actions, or handle any form of responsibility that choose those practices. (Yes I know there are the very rare, rare circumstances where that is not true - ie rapists
etc, but that's NOT the norm by any means).

Quote :

I love the expression religious extremists as they are generally the least religious people you
can meet.

Absolutely.

Quote :

a lot of statements in the bible weren't explained out explicitly because the statements didn't need to be. the bible was written in a time and location where the audience would understand it with out having to have it spelled out for them because they lived in that world, under its laws, and with its beliefs.
...
the modern world is so far removed from the world the authors or the bible lived in that many of its "teachings" are no longer applicable and many others need to taken only after given it much critical thought.
for example, how should this be applied to the modern world?
Exodus 21:7

The answer to your question is kind of in what you already said.
The application of portions of scripture like you mentioned to modern life is all about the principles being taught, just like the rest of scripture. For that, you cannot take peices and chunks like that and say "what does this mean" without studying the whole book, and the context of the statement - this will tell you WHY it was said, and will give you the principle that applies to life as a human indefinitely. For example, Jesus said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out". Whilst I've read of morons doing that (), his POINT was that we should deal with immoral (can I use the word sinful?) patterns in our life as severely as necessary / possible in order to avoid them. Not to literally take your eye out, as should be obvious - and yet somehow people mess that up.

You cannot expect to take a piece from an assembled puzzle, (sorry Sam ) and understand the whole picture based on the that piece. You need to see (at the least), the pieces around it and - preferrably - the entire puzzle as a whole to understand the position which that piece holds in the big (literal and figuritive) picture. I see it as really unfair when people take one line from the Bible and throw it out saying 'HA! What about this?". It really is not that easy, and it's exactly how cults, extremists etc are birthed. The fact that our culture is different does complicate things only in the fact that you have to actually do some research if you want better understanding. (Not that the "books of the law" aren't boring :razz In short, again, it's the principles taught - and those principles are not generally extracted through random out of context quotes.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

I just dub extreme religious types or any sort of protesters as hippies.

Good thing I removed my other avatar :hide:

Whilst I am a Bible beleiving Christian, please don't mistake me for an extremist or an internet bible thumping presumtous preacher of maniacal sorts. I think I've been active here long enough that you will know that hopefully.

Quote from MAGGOT :

Why are we, as humans, any different? We are animals. We are mammals. We have our societies with rules and so forth, why must we have an all-mighty deity to tell us what to do?

Because we are moral beings, animals are not.

Quote from MAGGOT :

Now, there is a question I would like to propose. Why do we need religion? All other animals on the planet seem to get along fine without it. They all have codes of behaviour of which ever member of the pack/murder/herd/pride/[other grouping of wild animals] must follow as per their role, but nothing apparently is based on religious intervention; it is all set in place for the good of the herd. Why are we, as humans, any different? We are animals. We are mammals. We have our societies with rules and so forth, why must we have an all-mighty deity to tell us what to do?

one thing that i've noticed when i've mentioned that people are animals to any random person, is they get greatly offended at that notion (which amuses me to no end), and retort with "i'm not an animal, i'm a person". i uses to try and enlighten them, but gave up on it because they wouldn't accept what i was telling them, and just amused me even more.

anyways, that's beside the point. why do we (humans) need religion? its basically just another tool that we invented to help explain/comfort us in daily life. some people need that tool, and other don't. and no amount of arguing on either side is going to convince someone to change their mindset.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Because we are moral beings, animals are not.

so you are saying that it is impossible to be moral without religion? i personally don't view animals as being immoral.

also, what is moral under one religion might not be moral under another.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Because we are moral beings, animals are not.

Animals don't kill other animals of the same species for no reason, or even other animals. They don't make weapons to kill millions of other animals. We are far from moral.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

You've just defined a fundamental problem with that logic in that very statement: moral subjectivity. You've clearly stated that you can decide right from wrong, but the problem is that (and I say this respectfully), you're not the centre of existance (apart from your own heehee :razz. By that logic, anyone decides for themself what's right and wrong and the ideas intrinsically cease to exist because they are not objective. The ideas of right and wrong become moot because they are not based on anything but our own flawed ideas.

Here I see some concept that was debated in the 19th century, and that is: does the law come from above (as French spiritualist philosophers such as De Maistre believed) or from below?
In the first case, if you believe law descends from above, you're a spiritualist. If it comes from below - a social contract between men - you're a contractualist.
In the eyes of contractualists there's nothing wrong in moral subjectivity. Contracts vary, and so does law (luckily).
By the way, it would be fairly easy to reduce all spiritualists to contractualists: if you take a look at the history of religions you'll see that every occidental religion has interpreted differently the sacred books accordingly to the beliefs of the time and to the achievements of scientific progress. For instance Martin Luther wouldn't have started his reform if he agreed to the interpretation of the Catholic Church... So, if all goes down to human interpretation, can we still say that the law descends from above? Until I listen directly to the voice of God telling me I'm wrong, I'll remain a contractualist. So far, it hasn't happened. But then again, you may believe God doesn't care about me (or anyone else) knowing for sure, or simply that he's a non-intervenionist... So I guess we'll all have to wait. Unluckily we won't be able to tell, in either case.

Quote from glyphon :

anyways, that's beside the point. why do we (humans) need religion? its basically just another tool that we invented to help explain/comfort us in daily life.

Why would anyone long for something unseen and unsubstantiated?

Seems unfitting and illogical to make up fairtales to "comfort" us. Why would we need comfort anyway? We are highly evolved! In fact, we are so evolved that we blow each other up and don't share our food. OH WAIT, those are moral dilemmas aren't they? Woops.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Because we are moral beings, animals are not.

I disagree that we are all de facto moral beings: the problem with morality is that it declares as normal that which is actually normative. That is to say, the real world sometimes sucks big time, and morality attempts to spread a big blanket over this fact.

Hence the moralist tends to find himself saying "you shouldn't be doing that" an awful lot....

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Animals don't kill other animals of the same species for no reason, or even other animals. They don't make weapons to kill millions of other animals. We are far from moral.

Then how do you know it's wrong? I didn't say we practiced morality, and I rather meant to say we have moral awareness. If humans weren't morally affected / influenced from some outside source, then why do we do what we do; being to highly "evolved" above (other?) animals?

Quote from glyphon :

so you are saying that it is impossible to be moral without religion? i personally don't view animals as being immoral.

also, what is moral under one religion might not be moral under another.

Animals would be classified as amoral, ie., lacking moral awareness.

See my novel above, first paragraph for the answer to your other questions. (not being snide, just running out of time )

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Seems unfitting and illogical to make up fairtales to "comfort" us. Why would we need comfort anyway? We are highly evolved!

Not so much. Religion has always been - historically - a great escape and a great resource for those who had no explanations for some phenomenons. Look at Zoroastrism: explain the unexplainable, organise society, give hope. It was all there, and in my opinion it's still here. Now I'll stop posting, I need some time to worship the Sun

Quote from nihil :

I disagree that we are all de facto moral beings: the problem with morality is that it declares as normal that which is actually normative. That is to say, the real world sometimes sucks big time, and morality attempts to spread a big blanket over this fact.

Hence the moralist tends to find himself saying "you shouldn't be doing that" an awful lot....

I think I may need you to clarify this, I don't think I fully understand what you mean (sorry, tired today )

I think we can all agree that going out into the street killing the first guy you see is "wrong". However, without some universal decree / truth / natural law etc to substantiate this, it's conjecture and therefore debatable.