Religion:The stupidest thing invented by mankind?

[bbson john]

Did I have already qouted some reliable professors' work?
And medicide is illegal in Hong Kong.

I am still convinced...

Great, you are convinced. My work is done.

I'm still waiting for other examples of religion's practical use aside from "Terminal patients feel warm and fuzzy".

Keep waiting.





I am a bit tired.

 

[Tr0n]

LOL.. no. Why would you even say something as stupid as that?

Tell me what's exactly "stupid with that" so you can prove to me that you're not a noob.

Untill then, the point still stands. If there was no fire, humanity wouldn't be what it is today or possibly would've died out. Anyone else disagree with that, other then ericms the dumbass noob?

 

[victor]

Fire isn't an invention, it's a natural phenomenon. Rubbing sticks could have been though.

 

[Raziaar]

Tell me what's exactly "stupid with that" so you can prove to me that you're not a noob.

Untill then, the point still stands. If there was no fire, humanity wouldn't be what it is today or possibly would've died out. Anyone else disagree with that, other then ericms the dumbass noob?

We'd probably be as successful as any other species that made it that far along, such as gorillas and other humanoids. It's not like we were a race that was inadequate at surviving, or else we'd of been extinct a long, long time ago. We had a place in the ecosystem, as predator and prey.

 

[MjM]

Religion gives solace to questions we cant find answers, plus i figure it was a regulatory mechanism before we had governments and formal legal systems.

 

[bbson john]

Did I hear a word about how good atheism is? No? No.

 

[Tr0n]

We'd probably be as successful as any other species that made it that far along, such as gorillas and other humanoids. It's not like we were a race that was inadequate at surviving, or else we'd of been extinct a long, long time ago. We had a place in the ecosystem, as predator and prey.

Tell me what's exactly "stupid with that" so you can prove to me that you're not a noob.

Untill then, the point still stands. If there was no fire, humanity wouldn't be what it is today or possibly would've died out. Anyone else disagree with that, other then ericms the dumbass noob?

I already know that fire was not an invention, but the controlling of it was.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml

The controlling of fire was the key to the start of civilizations throughout the world. We probally would've evolved differenly also if we didn't learn to control it. Without fire many of our ancestors would've died out during the ice ages.

There is many situations that could play out if we never learned to control/tame fire, but most of them lead up to these two situations:

1. Ancestors die out.
2. Evolved diffrently, maybe not even reach Homo Erectus.

Of course I can't tell the future or tell you what would've happened if something changed.

 

[Rupertvdb]

How is this point meaningless?
There are approximately 2 billion christians on Earth.
Many million of them think the bible is 100% literal with no contradictions.
If those people kill me, there is no aspect of their faith that says they are wrong in doing so.

This isn't about you. I honestly don't care about what you believe; what you believe does not supercede what the bible says.

By your defiition most Christians are apparently fire-breathing fundamentalists. You've gone off topic getting so focused on Christianity, the discussion is after all about religion in general being a bad invention; but anyway, your paranoia about being killed by Christians is really starting to jar. It's a ridiculous assertion. "Oh here we go, the Bible instructs that we should all be killing on mass the non believers, sharpen your knives."

What kind of person makes the generalisation you just did. It sounds as ignorant as when people used the Black Panthers as a reason for criticising the civil rights movement. "Oh that violent minority that many others from within the movement as a whole disagree with is clearly the bar against we shall judge all their kind"

You have to make an argument as to why religion is not a positive thing, not repeat over and over about people wanting to kill you.

"There are no surviving copies of the original Bible even if such a thing were to exist. [...] we are forced to be interprative so that we can get some sense from the damn thing."

That's, frankly, absurd. You can interpret any thing in any way. If you are assuming in advance that jesus is peaceful because that's how we imagine him, then you can ignore and interpret and re-interpret with impunity.
Maybe walking on water was a metaphor for bridging the gaps and uniting nations?
Maybe the whip of cords is a metaphor for reaching out to those you love?
Maybe drinking his blood is a metaphor for Kool-Aid?

The bible is a law book.
People forget that it is a book of laws.
How many metaphors are there in our current legal documents?
How many exist in any other legal document you have ever heard of?
Can I interpret today's manslaughter laws as a metaphor for industrialization?

It seems as if you are now taking the Bible as truth to be the given premise of what we are talking about. I don't agree with your views in the slightest but that's ok, we can still talk. The reason I say that you can only ever get an interpretation is that you are probably reading a derivative of the King James 1611. I myself have that copy but doing English Literature I have seen maybe eight different versions take on various passages and I can tell you that you would not recognise the late middle/ early modern english translations of the Latin Bibles as being even vaguely close to the same thing. Why are you so sure that the Bible you are quoting from is the true intended word of God. You think he spoke through the disciples in English? Honestly? That's part of the reason why talking about the fundamentalist tradition as a serious movement is not possible. These people are taking the wrds of an editor as the words of God. All that is left to modern Christians is interprative faith. That's part of the reason the Pope has such authority. There is a head of faith who can direct the faith despite it's long established departure from its original founders control.

Maybe drinking his blood is a metaphor for Kool-Aid but, depending on your particular brand it can either mean the miracle of transubstantiation occurs, or you are to perform a religious ritual which is pure gesture.
Where you got your Bible is a law-book from I don't know. Maybe your thinking of the third section of the Jewish Torah. Who knows. It's a nonsense whatever you say. I'd also like to see the Bible used in a court of law - "The snake did it, with the apple, in the garden, at the beginning of time!"

People of the year 30AD would have no qualms about reading the bible as a literal document.
They had no reason to interpret, and every reason not to.
Remember, if you break the laws, god will rape your wife and give you cancer.

That's where your so wrong it makes me laugh, it was not even a complete document in the year 30AD the fourth gospel wasn't even written yet. When exactly do you think the Bible came together and was agreed on? The language of the Bible appears to be a highly ornate style, the kind which educated individuals would have written in is full of metaphor, analogy and allegory. Just because you can't handle high literature doesn't mean the rest of us have to dwell in your intellectual fog. If I can't convince you that you are wrong here then there is no point going on. You made a mistake, it's OK, but understand where you ****ed up.

If they thought Jesus was the son of god, that false prophecy is a capital crime, and that adulterers should be stoned to death, what do you honestly think the chances were that they would read "Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed." as a metaphor for something positive?

I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here, it's just a very long weird sentence.

Two christian men ran up to him and asked for his blessing to stone a girl to death.
Wouldn't that be troubling to Jesus, if his own followers were following the old testament and killing people against his will?
Wouldn't he say "no, never ever kill people" instead of "do not judge until you are worthy."
Why would the men think Jesus would want an execution in the first place?

Do you think this could be one of those bits i mentioned where Jesus is shown superceding the OT mindset. It's an allegory. Why does this appear in just one gospel and not in each one in the exact same way?

I'm skiping a bit to avoid repeating arguments.

"I agree with those that believe that only a personal relationship with God is possible and that the Bible is a source of inspiration for that relationship."
[...]
I believe that religions should preach love and co-operation"

See, that's the trouble: your ideal religion and christianity the real religion are mutually incompatible.

Only according to you.

What you are using there is secular logic with the word "god" stapled onto it (and thus nullifying the point of logic).

Damnit Jim, he's using the wrong type of logic on us!

It's the same thing all forms of christianity are doing today.
How many of them are exterminating nonbelievers?
-None.
How many are "interpreting"?
-All of them.

Interesting thing you should mention that. How the hell is this anything but shooting your own argument in the foot?

The christianity that jesus intended is dead, but the ghost is still flying around telling people to keep condoms out of Africa and that cures for disease aren't worth the life of an amoeba.

Now the Catholics are attacked. Sweet work refusing to make definitions between the different creeds, they could have really used your vision in Northern Ireland. Or better yet in Iraw at the moment. "Hey you idiots quit civil warring, you're all Muslims, you all think the same thing anyway, ha ha ha"

What you are describing to me is the assumption that well over 50% of the bible is worthless, and the rest is only maybe worthless.
What is there to believe then?
Where did the idea of this god come from then?
The entire bible fails as a recording of jesus, apparently, yet people still worship jesus - because the bible says so!

So because Genesis isn't a literal story, then it serves no purpose in the Bible? It's not somehow descriptive of the trouble with human nature that can be read and appreciated by a thinking audience?

Without the bible, what would have put into people's heads the absurd notion of Jesus the deity in the first place?

Apparently the miracles that provokes the discples to become, well, the disciples. Apparently. According to the Bible. You do understand that the GOSPELS and not the BIBLE are about Jesus first off i'm sure. You must also realise that they weren't written actually as Jesus existed. There was a gap between him being considered the incarnation of the Lord in human flesh and people writing about it.

There is no "personal" route to the christian god, because all christianity is based to at least some degree on the text of the bible.

your opinion, not that of many others.

The bible is not, and was never intended to be a collection of inspirational quotes.
It's not Chicken Soup for the Soul.
It was written as a literal document and it was modified into a literal document.
the bible can be modified by prophets, but only so long as they never contradict the old testament.
So all this ballyhoo about "it's not the original so I can bastardize it as much as I want" is poppycock.

You sir, are an outrage, it'll be dukes at dawn if your balderdash continues. Nothing you said above is true.
There's more filler here...it wasn't very useful stuff.

It is like an idiocy buffet: you're presented with all the biggest superstitions of the 20AD and you pick and choose the ones that fit your pre-existing lifestyle.
-You won't sell your yacht or kill your wife, so you ignore the parts that say so.
-You hate homosexuals and muslims so you follow the parts that call them evil.
-But you don't want to go to jail, so you ignore the parts that say to exterminate them all.
-You can't understand the Big Bang so you believe in genesis.
-You understand medicine, so you aren't afraid that ejaculation will contaminate you with evil.
-etc.

Who the hell do you live with? In my neck of the woods we frown on that kind of talk.

Modern society has killed the bible, and what we have now is a pale ghost of an imitation.
If the entire bible is retarded, then why should we base our worldview off of the chopped-up parts of the bible, presented to us as retarded quotes?

Retarded is a little mean. Modern society hasn't killed the Bible, maybe your part of the world enjoys this illusion, not everywhere shares in it. I can't be bothered to explain everything, but know that I saw what you wrote here and it's not your best work.

Why is it that we can never have a non-christian president in the white house?

It's the skull and bones, man. Nothing to do with sharing values with a large majority of the population.

"Christians are supposed to massacre other religions in the exact way the old testament commands."
If the bible contradicts that statement in any way, then show me my error.

I'll be back for this statement's teeth.

 

[ericms]

It wouldn't be what is it today, true. That's not a good thing either.

Anyway, quoting wikipedia here since that's what all the cool kids do.

Regardless, it can at least be surmised that the controlled use of fire was atypical of Homo erectus.

So I think they probably stuck it out just fine

As for its affect on food.. I am a believer that we are meant for an entirely raw diet. Whether it's meat, poultry, fruit, vegetables, or nuts. You can argue that we aren't but then this would only turn into something that has been debated on enough times to render it pointless. I've heard nothing but positive things from people who have gone raw and most of them have no health problems and those that do have flawed genetics, which I believe stemed from bad diet anyways, that need reversing. Same thing happened to me so if you call bullshit then the best way is to try it I guess.

Also what's with calling me a dumbass noob there? You almost hurt my feelings man.. ALMOST LOL ****in scrub.

 

[Absinthe]

Did I hear a word about how good atheism is? No? No.

Atheism doesn't strive to be good, bad, or anything. Please don't be ****ing stupid and compare it to religion.

Oh, and congratulations, Rupert! You're not a Christian! Join the club.

 

[Sebastian]

Atheism doesn't strive to be good, bad, or anything.

Please don't be ****ing stupid and compare it to religion.

You're generalizing atheism and that is the stupid thing to do. Just because you don't strive to be good, bad, or anything doesn't mean that other athiests don't try to be good, bad or anything.

 

[Cole]

of course there's free will

i decide to post in this thread based on my reactions to what i've read, but i might as well choose not to. i can choose to stay up or go to sleep. what my choice consists of depends on what my evaluation is, but that doesn't mean i don't have free will, it only means my choices are not completely irrelevant

I'm talking atomic reactions. There are no choices. You posted in this thread not because of a choice but because all the atomic reactions going on in your body and your enviroment caused you to.

 

[delusional]

if you dont like religion soviet russia would have been perfect for you

 

[Absinthe]

You're generalizing atheism and that is the stupid thing to do. Just because you don't strive to be good, bad, or anything doesn't mean that other athiests don't try to be good, bad or anything.

I'm not generalizing atheism. You are not understanding it. Atheism is not a worldview or anything approaching such. Atheism concerns itself with the existence of deities and its extent stops right there. It makes no claims on morality, purpose, or value. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Atheists can strive to be good, bad, or whatever the hell they want to be. But those things are and always will be independent of their atheism.

if you dont like religion soviet russia would have been perfect for you

Who else wants to make a stupid ****ing comment? Anybody? Hands up.

 

[Slacker]

if you dont like religion soviet russia would have been perfect for you

Yeah athiests, go back to Russia where you belong! God forbid you have your own views on religion!

 

[DeusExMachina]

It's not like America was founded by deists, agnostics, and unitarian universalists or anything. No, America is most certainly not for freethinkers.

 

[Tr0n]

Speak the truth brotha! CAN'T I GET A AMEN!?

 

[Absinthe]

BLACK JESUS APPROVES

 

[DeusExMachina]

That's another thing that doesn't make any sense to me. America should be the most heathen country on the planet with our origin and history. Yet, look at us now :|.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah athiests, go back to Russia where you belong! God forbid you have your own views on religion!

yes god forbid:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George H Bush

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"By your defiition most Christians are apparently fire-breathing fundamentalists."

Wrong.
No christian on Earth follows the fundamentals of the bible.
I've already said that repeatedly.

But there are enough who think they are fundamental that abortion clinics are constantly under threat of bombs, Fred Phelps has an actual following, Pat Robertson can claim that sinners "deserved" Hurricane Katrina and still lead the Christian Coalition. Creationism in America is very nearly considered equally valid as evolution.
I could go on for hours about the various crimes caused by people trying to be fundamentalist christians.

That the first sentence here misunderstands my key points belies to me that you didn't understand my post at all.

"You've gone off topic getting so focused on Christianity, the discussion is after all about religion in general being a bad invention."

One third of the world's population is christian. The majority of the remainder is either jewish or islamic.

All of them are based squarely on the old testament.

How much more on-topic do I need to be if I am striking 60% of the religious people in the world with one argument?

'but anyway, your paranoia about being killed by Christians is really starting to jar. It's a ridiculous assertion. "Oh here we go, the Bible instructs that we should all be killing on mass the non believers, sharpen your knives."'

Did I say I was afraid?
No.
Stop the straw men.

I said that a christian could stab me dead and still go to heaven, without breaking any of god's laws.
This is on a purely intellectual level.
There is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt not stab me", while there are several sections that ask you to.

As for mass stabbings, that is what the bible says to do (except they are asked mostly to lynch people or throw stones, not use knives).

You think that is "A ridiculous assertion"?

Tell that to a terrorist.
People call them "islamic extremists" nowadays.

The Qur'an says very clearly that an islamic person must kill nonbelievers, just as the bible does.
There is little or no difference to the bible, where these orders are concerned.
They subjugate women, they kill adulterers and etc.
These people are not "extremists". They are following their bible the way it is written, without deleting what they wish.
They are only "extreme" by secular standards.

We also used to call terrorists "irish christian extremists" not too long ago. You remember all that falderal in Ireland, I am sure. You reference it later in your post.
What was that situation, other than the old testament come to life?

"What kind of person makes the generalisation you just did. It sounds as ignorant as when people used the Black Panthers as a reason for criticising the civil rights movement."

That is a false analogy. The civil rights movement is not based on a single, definitive, genocidal text.

A proper analogy would be criticising a neo-nazi for following a watered-down interpretation of Mein Kampf.

"Why are you so sure that the Bible you are quoting from is the true intended word of God. You think he spoke through the disciples in English? Honestly?"

No, obviously I do not think that.
Please stop assuming that I am stupid.
I am an atheist, not a christian.
I do not believe in god, and I do not believe he wrote the bible.

But this is not about what I believe.
This is about fact, and the fact is that the bible, however modified it might be, is still internally consistent enough to be used in the way it was intended: as a law book.

If you can find any version of the bible that omits the old testament and the entirety of matthew, then you have every right to complain that I am reading the wrong bible.

Otherwise, this is a red herring of an argument.

"That's part of the reason why talking about the fundamentalist tradition as a serious movement is not possible."

Tell that to the millions (billions?) of religious "extremists" around the world.

Again: your selective interpretation of the bible is a corrupted version of secular logic, not a true following of the bible or of secular logic.
It is wrong in both ways simultaneously.

"All that is left to modern Christians is interprative faith. That's part of the reason the Pope has such authority."

The Pope is only recognized by catholics.
The pope also calls for an end to contraception, and declares homosexuality is sinful.

Everyone else is following, as verbatim as their secular lifestyle allows, a bible which you state is obsolete.

"Where you got your Bible is a law-book from I don't know. I'd also like to see the Bible used in a court of law!"

No you wouldn't.
That's what killed jesus, and probably billions of other people.
You are laughing it off, but what do you think they did before secular law came along?

See, you are again applying modern secular ideals onto a harsh, dystopian law book from the distant past.

The bible was written as a book of laws for people to follow.
It says "these are the laws of god" and it lists them in extensive detail.

Laws in North America still exist that are based entirely on biblical scripture.
"Sodomy" was illegal in the United States up until 2003.

"That's where your so wrong it makes me laugh, it was not even a complete document in the year 30AD the fourth gospel wasn't even written yet. When exactly do you think the Bible came together and was agreed on? The language of the Bible appears to be a highly ornate style, the kind which educated individuals would have written in is full of metaphor, analogy and allegory. Just because you can't handle high literature doesn't mean the rest of us have to dwell in your intellectual fog. If I can't convince you that you are wrong here then there is no point going on. You made a mistake, it's OK, but understand where you ****ed up."

Drop the attitude, please.

The above paragraph above can be condensed down to the following points:

1) The bible is written by unknown people, therefore it is impossible for anyone to believe in it.
2) The bible contains metaphors, therefore it is impossible for it to have been used as a law book.

1 is, of course, incorrect.
Millions of people think the bible is the true, literal and direct word of god.
Just because you took a religious studies course in high school does not mean the rest of the world is equally as enlightened as you are.

You are assuming in advance that all christians are logical about their faith, and then ignoring the reality of what the bible says ***EVEN IF IT WAS MODIFIED*** and what christians do in the name of the bible ***EVEN IF IT WAS MODIFIED***.

Remember: these are the same people who say the world is 6000 years old, evolution doesn't happen, and that America was founded as a christian nation.

If they won't listen to scientists and historians, what makes you think they will listen to your religious studies teacher instead of their pastor?

2 is also incorrect.
The bible out and says, repeatedly: "this is a law book", "these are laws", "you will be judged unless you follow these laws", etc.

The laws of the bible are based on mythology, but they are still laws.
You very much underestimate the ability of the human mind to believe in things that have never existed.
There is a story in the bible about a talking donkey.
There are actually people - lots of people - who think that this myth, and all the others are a literal fact.

Once again, this isn't about what you believe. This is about what real christians in the real world believe.

"I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here, it's just a very long weird sentence."

I will break it down into easier parts for you:

-People in the year 20AD actually thought Jesus was the son of god.
-People in the year 20AD actually thought that false prophecy was a capital crime.
-People in the year 20AD actually thought that adulterers should be stoned to death.

Now, based on those facts, why do you assume they would think the bible was "interpretable" and "not literal".

Why do you assume that the people of 20AD acted like secular religious studies students?

"Do you think this could be one of those bits i mentioned where Jesus is shown superceding the OT mindset."

No, because you still haven't shown me jesus superceding the old testament in any way, shape or form.

"Damnit Jim, he's using the wrong type of logic on us!"

There only is one 'type' of logic.
Please take this seriously or stop wasting my time with jokes instead of facts.
I don't mind levity, but you haven't presented a single valid counter-argument amid the insults.

"Interesting thing you should mention that. How the hell is this anything but shooting your own argument in the foot?"

It doesn't.

You have misunderstood my argument from square one.

I am not complaining that christians are scary and violent as their islamic counterparts.

I am saying that they fail at being violent, and since the bible demands that they be violent, they are following an illegitimate religion that is still hurting our society.

Do you understand now?


"Sweet work refusing to make definitions between the different creeds"

Show me a version of christianity that isn't based on the old testament. Then you can complain.

Or better yet in Iraw at the moment. "Hey you idiots quit civil warring, you're all Muslims, you all think the same thing anyway, ha ha ha"

The differences in Iraw are only superficial.
Do you know where all this violence is coming from, when people don't agree on scripture?

The violence comes when everyone starts treating a law book as something to interpret instead of something to follow.

Right there, you have shown how your "personal path to god" is killing millions of people. The paths cross and people start dying.

Right there, you have shown that the illegitimate "interpretation" of the bible, mixed with the absolutist law of the bible, is the source of violence and death.

Right there, you have proven the validity of my stance against all religion.

Because as long as it says "kill the nonbelievers", people will.

"So because Genesis isn't a literal story, then it serves no purpose in the Bible? It's not somehow descriptive of the trouble with human nature that can be read and appreciated by a thinking audience?"

You are assuming that genesis is being read by a rational thinking audience and not a faithful audience.

Please stop assuming so much, and just deal with what I have actually said.

"Apparently the miracles that provokes the discples to become, well, the disciples. Apparently. According to the Bible. You do understand that the GOSPELS and not the BIBLE are about Jesus first off i'm sure. You must also realise that they weren't written actually as Jesus existed. There was a gap between him being considered the incarnation of the Lord in human flesh and people writing about it."

Yes, the bible is not a legitimate document. I agree.

Continuing onwards:

"your opinion, not that of many others."
What? How???

How can you be a christian without any knowledge of the bible or any derivative of the bible?

How can you be a christian if you have never heard of jesus of Jehovah or any of that stuff?

This isn't an opinion. This is a fact.

It's like saying you don't need to have senses to read and understand Shakespeare.

"Who the hell do you live with? In my neck of the woods we frown on that kind of talk."

Are you trying to tell me that, in this world, there are no rich, married people who dislike gays and enjoy sex?

You are obviously dismissing my arguments before you've even read them.

"I can't be bothered to explain everything, but know that I saw what you wrote here and it's not your best work."

Thanks for the enlightening response.

You still haven't presented a single point that contradicts anything I've said.

"(the election has) nothing to do with sharing values with a large majority of the population."

"Values" like banning same sex-marriage and putting intelligent design in schools!
Values that are inherently harmful to everyone!

It's like I'm talking in circles here.

"I'll be back for this statement's teeth."

What does that even mean???

 

[Sebastian]

There are three commandments in the bibles that no christian should deviate from:
1. Love your enemy
2. love the Lord, your God
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
I don't mean to sound self righteous, but these commandments have helped me: be patient with others, not judge people of different beliefs, and be a pretty peaceful guy in general.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Why are you following only (part of) two commandments out of the ten commandments?

Since when can we deviate from any of them?

Without those commandments, would you be impatient, judgemental and violent?

 

[Sebastian]

Why are you following only (part of) two commandments out of the ten commandments?

Since when can we deviate from any of them?

Without those commandments, would you be impatient, judgemental and violent?

No, I don't think I would be impatient, judgemental and violent if I didn't follow these commandments, but that's because I'm a product of my environment. Also I'm a christian, and I was taught that "love the lord your God and your neighbor as yourself" is the basic meaning of the ten commandments. And I don't follow the Old testament, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament laws. He created a better law system that wasn't as strict as the ten commandments.

 

[Slacker]

yes god forbid:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George H Bush

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Yeah, but dude, it's GEORGE BUSH

 

[Mechagodzilla]

'I was taught that "love the lord your God and your neighbor as yourself" is the basic meaning of the ten commandments.'

No it isn't.
The commandments don't say anything about love.
Also, those are just modifications of Commandment 1 and Commandment 10.
You skipped right over the middle eight.

"I don't follow the Old testament, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament laws. He created a better law system that wasn't as strict as the ten commandments."

No he didn't.

Where does it say that he was replacing the Laws of Moses?

 

[DeusExMachina]

The Ten Commandments weren't even strict

 

[Sebastian]

'I was taught that "love the lord your God and your neighbor as yourself" is the basic meaning of the ten commandments.'

No it isn't.
The commandments don't say anything about love.
Also, those are just modifications of Commandment 1 and Commandment 10.
You skipped right over the middle eight.

"I don't follow the Old testament, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament laws. He created a better law system that wasn't as strict as the ten commandments."

No he didn't.

Where does it say that he was replacing the Laws of Moses?

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. 18 I 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. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Huh, I guess Jesus might have told us to follow old testament laws after all. But I'm not gonna go sacrifice a goat to atone for my sins.

 

[Tr0n]

So some of you know...

"It's thou shall not murder", not kill. The jews felt it was necessary to kill at times, like during war and so on.

 

[Absinthe]

Indeed. Murder is, by definition, killing deemed to be unlawful.

Killing is A-OK so long as it takes place within God's laws.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then what is the point?

If you don't sacrifice the goat, jesus'll be pretty pissed off.

You do indeed need to follow god's laws to kill.
You are actually punished with hell if you don't kill.

...unless you sacrifice a goat, of course.

 

[Cole]

But I'm not gonna go sacrifice a goat to atone for my sins.

But wont you go to hell?

 

[Tr0n]

Indeed. Murder is, by definition, killing deemed to be unlawful.

Killing is A-OK so long as it takes place within God's laws.

Talk to moses about that, not me.

 

[MjM]

Beliefs not based on logic cannot be swayed by logic.

 

[Tr0n]

Turkey is worse then us. Interesting....

 

[Kangy]

Note that the bar chart comes with no information on sources or detail on how, where or when the study was made.

 

[The Reclaimer]

first off people dont quote movies spoofing off religion namely Dogma. I take extreme offense at this thread. I am entitled to my beliefs and you are entitled to yours. Im already being opressed by the ACLU and i dont need a couple of geeks calling me an idiot and persecuting me because of my religion. you wouldnt make fun of a race would you? then why would you make fun of something that people believe in?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Note that the bar chart comes with no information on sources or detail on how, where or when the study was made.

Actually, it does provide the source: Jon D Miller, from MSU.

The URL also shows that the graph was reproduced in the New York Times.

A quick google search turns up his methodology and also contact info:

http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2827/content.htm

 

[Ennui]

because they're jackasses

black people don't try to turn you into a black person
white people don't try to turn you into a white person
but most christians believe it's their mission to convert you

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"First off people dont quote movies spoofing off religion namely Dogma."

Kevin Smith is christian and Dogma is ultimately a pro-christian film.

"I take extreme offense at this thread."

Sweet!

"I am entitled to my beliefs and you are entitled to yours."

Who gives a shit about your beliefs?

What people care about is the outcomes caused by your beliefs.
For example: this gloomy-gus post of yours.
Also: genocide.

"Im already being opressed by the ACLU"

How so?
The ACLU takes on christian cases too, you know.
They only oppose things that violate civil liberties (hence the name).

"persecuting me because of my religion."

Yeah, next thing you know, you'll be crucified and wearing a crown of thorns.
Give me a break.

"you wouldnt make fun of a race would you?"

White people are stupid and dumb.

"then why would you make fun of something that people believe in?"

Because it is quantifiably stupid.
It's not "just an opinion".
There is a difference between "we are being mean for no reason" and "holy shit did that guy just ban science?"



So climb down off the cross and drop the persecution complex.

We are having a rational discussion.
Believe what you want, but be rational when you post about it.

Making irrational points to rational people is like being white: you get no respect, and you deserve none.

It's not like your soul is at stake, after all!!




(I'm white BTW. )