| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 08:55:16 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do find much the same about Hitler's theocratic mission and that espoused by RonB. |
Whereas I think his opinion borders on hyperboly, and threatens to invoke Godwin's law, and is even historically inaccurate, I think he is playing fairly and makes it known that RonB's world view is at its root repugnant, in his opinion. And in that sense, there's no need to cry foul and threaten to "report" his posts. |
Hey, I thought Godwin's Law had to do with the first person to bring up Hitler in a thread. :D
I was just trying to correct the statement that Hitler was a secular humanist. I don't care what his personal adherence to scripture was. What I am trying to get across is that he used Biblical piety to promote his agenda.
An agenda that felt fine about slaughtering an untold number of innocents by unprovoked invasion, yet self-righteously invoked Christian tenets when denying others basic human rights.
As if he alone had the handle on morality. ;(
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:28:14 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Hey, I thought Godwin's Law had to do with the first person to bring up Hitler in a thread. :D |
Whoops, I thought that was you. :) Sorry.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:02:58 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
RonB
Here are some quotes from you, taken from a single thread here in the Rant forum. I believe that they speak for themselves. |
1) Please edit your post to more clearly delineate who is being quoted at which point - the missing tags make it appear that I said all of it - which I did not.
2) Once correctly tagged, you are correct, my quotes do speak for themselves, and nowhere in them do I imply that it is impossible to be moral if one is not religious. If I did, then while you are editing your post to clarify who is being quoted please highlight the pertinent portions that imply that it is impossible to be moral if one is not religious.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:07:37 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Here, RonB states his world view:
Originally posted by RonB:
It is not I who determined that these activities were sins. It was God who made that determination. For me, it is not a matter of "religion". Rather it is a matter of fact. |
Here, gingerbaker formulates an opinion:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do find much the same about Hitler's theocratic mission and that espoused by RonB. |
Whereas I think his opinion borders on hyperboly, and threatens to invoke Godwin's law, and is even historically inaccurate, I think he is playing fairly and makes it known that RonB's world view is at its root repugnant, in his opinion. And in that sense, there's no need to cry foul and threaten to "report" his posts. |
On the contrary. Gingerbaker lists a number of Hitler's quotations and states that I share "many" of those views. I do not. The majority of those views are repugnant to me. If stated in a newspaper, such a statement would be considered libel unless he had proof that I shared those views. If Gingerbaker had merely stated that he found my world view repugnant, it would be opinion only, but to state that I share "many" of the views of Hitler that he lists is libelous ( unless he can prove it ).
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 22:08:08. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:11:51 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps you could explain just what equal rights under the law right-wing Christians using Christian dogma are trying to deny a group of citizens? |
Filing joint income taxes, inheritance, adoption, and medical visitation/decision-making come to mind. |
And the scientific data to support that charge is...? ( e.g. was there a survey taken in which people were classified as right-wing Christians or otherwise, and what their stand was on those issues? ) |
Perhaps I should yield to the king of bait-and-switch debating.
Call them by whatever label you like, but those who propose to discriminate against fully equal rights under the law for homosexuals as a rule cite "Christian" doctrine as the basis for that position, and I consider anyone who wants to discriminate on the basis of who someone is, or actions which do not impact on the freedoms of others, to be "right-wing."
I doubt anyone answering a survey would self-identify as a "right-wing Christian" so of course there's no "scientific" basis for that claim.
But please cite a survey where those who support denying homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples use other rationale than Christian doctrine to support their position. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:28:28 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I do find much the same about Hitler's theocratic mission and that espoused by RonB. |
Whereas I think his opinion borders on hyperboly, and threatens to invoke Godwin's law, and is even historically inaccurate, I think he is playing fairly and makes it known that RonB's world view is at its root repugnant, in his opinion. And in that sense, there's no need to cry foul and threaten to "report" his posts. |
Hey, I thought Godwin's Law had to do with the first person to bring up Hitler in a thread. :D |
No, Louis is quite correct. Godwin's Law states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".
The first posting was not a "comparison" to Nazis or Hitler. Yours was the first post to make such a comparison. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:45:14 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by RonB:
On the contrary. Gingerbaker lists a number of Hitler's quotations and states that I share "many" of those views. |
He doesn't say that. He says he finds much the same in the two views, which, without putting too fine a point on it, isn't entirely the same. Certainly not enough to start talking about libel. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:19:51 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps you could explain just what equal rights under the law right-wing Christians using Christian dogma are trying to deny a group of citizens? |
Filing joint income taxes, inheritance, adoption, and medical visitation/decision-making come to mind. |
And the scientific data to support that charge is...? ( e.g. was there a survey taken in which people were classified as right-wing Christians or otherwise, and what their stand was on those issues? ) |
Perhaps I should yield to the king of bait-and-switch debating.
Call them by whatever label you like, but those who propose to discriminate against fully equal rights under the law for homosexuals as a rule cite "Christian" doctrine as the basis for that position, and I consider anyone who wants to discriminate on the basis of who someone is, or actions which do not impact on the freedoms of others, to be "right-wing."
I doubt anyone answering a survey would self-identify as a "right-wing Christian" so of course there's no "scientific" basis for that claim.
But please cite a survey where those who support denying homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples use other rationale than Christian doctrine to support their position. |
This Survey points out that only 18% of secularists oppose civil unions. One would have to asssume that, as secularists, it was for reasons other than Christian doctrine. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:29:16 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
On the contrary. Gingerbaker lists a number of Hitler's quotations and states that I share "many" of those views. |
He doesn't say that. He says he finds much the same in the two views, which, without putting too fine a point on it, isn't entirely the same. Certainly not enough to start talking about libel. |
I guess it comes down to how much "much" is. By my count, I share 2 out of the 7 views he listed. Does 2 out of 7 constitute "much"? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:32:44 AM · #560 |
Originally posted by RonB:
This Survey points out that only 18% of secularists oppose civil unions. One would have to asssume that, as secularists, it was for reasons other than Christian doctrine. |
Thanks. I note the phrase "... many of the same rights ..." in the summary. It is possible that some "secularists" oppose the given definition of civil unions because it fails to confer all af the rights afforded married couples.
Originally posted by Pew Research study:
The poll finds that 54% of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements giving them many of the same rights as married couples.
As with gay marriage, white evangelicals (66%), black Protestants (62%) and frequent church attenders (60%) stand out for their opposition to civil unions.
|
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 07:13:58 AM · #561 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why is it that a majority of those who deride Christians love to quote the Old Testament, but refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament supersedes it? |
Amen to that!
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:14:06 AM · #562 |
Being a non-believer in the non-specific deity type figure I thought the New Testament was like ACT II of the Bible - A continuation of the story(s) from the Old Testament rather than an amendment?
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 08:14:31.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 09:27:21 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why is it that a majority of those who deride Christians love to quote the Old Testament, but refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament supersedes it? |
Because Christians themselves use the Old Testament to ram their ideological agenda down the throats of the masses. You don't have to look too far to find an outraged purple-faced preacher waving it around in condemnation of something or other. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:05:22 AM · #564 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Being a non-believer in the non-specific deity type figure I thought the New Testament was like ACT II of the Bible - A continuation of the story(s) from the Old Testament rather than an amendment? |
Before Christ, God's covenant with mankind required that sin ( breaking God's laws as handed down through Moses ) be either punished or atoned for, depending on the sin ( e.g. adultery was punishable by death, but touching an unclean animal required only the sacrifice of a lamb as atonement ). When Christ was crucified, the laws of punishment and atonement were fulfilled completely. So, in Christ, God established a new covenant ( or Testament ) with mankind. ALL sins, ANY sins are now automatically atoned for because Christ accepted the punishment for, and made atonement for, all.
The "catch" is that you have to accept that Christ did that for you. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:09:00 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Being a non-believer in the non-specific deity type figure I thought the New Testament was like ACT II of the Bible - A continuation of the story(s) from the Old Testament rather than an amendment? |
Nope.
Should you be so inclined, you might choose to obtain a copy of a Red Letter edition Bible. Preferably one written in something other than the "King's" English. Perhaps a NIV (New International Version). Read the Red Letter sentences in the 4 Gospels and Acts. THEN, discern any other teaching and/or claim based on the application to the Red Letter sentences. By doing this, it should become clear who the charlatans are.
FWIW, the Red Letter sentences are those sentences in the New Testament that are directly attributed to Christ. In other words, direct quotes. Obviously, Christ spoke many more words than are directly quoted in the Gospels or Acts, however, the "flavor" of his message should be apparent by concentrating on those lines. This (to me) is the foundation that further understanding is based upon. Doing less, is doing a diservice to both the writings and your knowledge of them.
Most, however, won't make the effort - thus will not know. They will be at the mercy of those who "claim" to know. Those who have actually read and digested the material. Afterall, it is not only a religious text, it is history, philosophy, and literature as well.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 10:11:51.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:11:04 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Why is it that a majority of those who deride Christians love to quote the Old Testament, but refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament supersedes it? |
Because Christians themselves use the Old Testament to ram their ideological agenda down the throats of the masses. You don't have to look too far to find an outraged purple-faced preacher waving it around in condemnation of something or other. |
Louis, it is customary in these fora to not make broad-brush accusations against large groups of people. For example: instead of saying "Christians themselves use the Old Testament..." it would be more accurate to say "SOME Christians use the Old Testament..." That way, you don't falsely accuse those Christians who do NOT "use the Old Testament...". And there are many. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:27:33 AM · #567 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Being a non-believer in the non-specific deity type figure I thought the New Testament was like ACT II of the Bible - A continuation of the story(s) from the Old Testament rather than an amendment? |
Before Christ, God's covenant with mankind required that sin ( breaking God's laws as handed down through Moses ) be either punished or atoned for, depending on the sin ( e.g. adultery was punishable by death, but touching an unclean animal required only the sacrifice of a lamb as atonement ). When Christ was crucified, the laws of punishment and atonement were fulfilled completely. So, in Christ, God established a new covenant ( or Testament ) with mankind. ALL sins, ANY sins are now automatically atoned for because Christ accepted the punishment for, and made atonement for, all.
The "catch" is that you have to accept that Christ did that for you. |
Well I don't believe in God or the divine origins of Christ - however I believe Christ existed as a 'man with good ideas', nothing more.
I also don't believe in Gods punishment of my Sins - only the punishment that Man hands down for socially and morally abhorred actions.
Christ did not die for ME. As far as I'm concerned he died for his beliefs. An admirable action by anyone's standards.
Sorry if this offends - I don't mean it to.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 10:28:02.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:35:53 AM · #568 |
The Torah had 613 commandments for Jews. Joseph Good
The Bibles New Testament has 2.
1. Put the Lord your God FIRST in everything you do
2. Love others as you love yourself
The above link to Joseph Good is to his ministries website. I am not proposing that Joseph Good is universally accepted as accurate in his teachings as there appears to be some criticism regarding his belief in a "Triune" God. However, his method of explaining the old testament's promise of the Messiah and his use of Jewish festivals rites, has shed much light regarding the original intent of Old Testament scripture and how they supported the arrival of "The Messiah - Christ".
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:01:05 AM · #569 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Being a non-believer in the non-specific deity type figure I thought the New Testament was like ACT II of the Bible - A continuation of the story(s) from the Old Testament rather than an amendment? |
Before Christ, God's covenant with mankind required that sin ( breaking God's laws as handed down through Moses ) be either punished or atoned for, depending on the sin ( e.g. adultery was punishable by death, but touching an unclean animal required only the sacrifice of a lamb as atonement ). When Christ was crucified, the laws of punishment and atonement were fulfilled completely. So, in Christ, God established a new covenant ( or Testament ) with mankind. ALL sins, ANY sins are now automatically atoned for because Christ accepted the punishment for, and made atonement for, all.
The "catch" is that you have to accept that Christ did that for you. |
Well I don't believe in God or the divine origins of Christ - however I believe Christ existed as a 'man with good ideas', nothing more.
I also don't believe in Gods punishment of my Sins - only the punishment that Man hands down for socially and morally abhorred actions.
Christ did not die for ME. As far as I'm concerned he died for his beliefs. An admirable action by anyone's standards.
Sorry if this offends - I don't mean it to. |
I view Christ's atonement as being like gravity. You can choose to not believe in it - but there may be consequences that are not readily apparent. As the man falling from the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building thought, as he passed the 5th floor on the way down, "So far, so good".
I, for one, am not offended by what you say. Many share your beliefs. Many do not. Time, and time alone, will bring each one to that point where they will either know for sure that they were right, know for sure that they were wrong, or not know anything at all. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:16:07 AM · #570 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I view Christ's atonement as being like gravity. You can choose to not believe in it - but there may be consequences that are not readily apparent. As the man falling from the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building thought, as he passed the 5th floor on the way down, "So far, so good".
I, for one, am not offended by what you say. Many share your beliefs. Many do not. Time, and time alone, will bring each one to that point where they will either know for sure that they were right, know for sure that they were wrong, or not know anything at all. |
But with Gravity there is tangible evidence for it's existence' - but believing in God requires - by definition - Faith.
If you have faith, there is no need for 'tangible evidence'. I myself choose to not make that leap of Faith, therefore as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof for God and Judgment day is on the person of Faith who chooses to ask me to believe.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:21:33 AM · #571 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Why is it that a majority of those who deride Christians love to quote the Old Testament, but refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament supersedes it? |
Because Christians themselves use the Old Testament to ram their ideological agenda down the throats of the masses. You don't have to look too far to find an outraged purple-faced preacher waving it around in condemnation of something or other. |
Louis, it is customary in these fora to not make broad-brush accusations against large groups of people. For example: instead of saying "Christians themselves use the Old Testament..." it would be more accurate to say "SOME Christians use the Old Testament..." That way, you don't falsely accuse those Christians who do NOT "use the Old Testament...". And there are many. |
Understood.
Edit to add: ...on the other hand, is it completely wrong to assume that all Christians include the Old Testament as part of their religious text? No. (Former Christian speaking here.) And are there parts of the OT that all Christians use to describe their faith? Yes, for example, the notion that the 10 commandments fundamentally codify "God's law". The only conclusion then is that some, if not most, Christians pick and choose those parts of the OT that best suit any given need.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 11:26:22. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:27:31 AM · #572 |
It's worth noting that the use of the terms "believe" and "belief", in the context of a discussion like this, is tricky. Strictly speaking, "belief" and "faith" go hand in hand; if a thing is provable, it's not a belief. If a thing is provable, "faith" does not enter the equation. You don't "believe in" gravity, you "accept it as fact", and this is not the same thing.
To a large extent, requiring of the religious (of whatever stripe) that they "prove" the existence of their God to you before you accept Him is a pointless exercise, because religion is about faith, not proof. If we could ever "prove" the existence of God and His power over human affairs, we would be reducing religion to a bureaucratic exercise, akin to, say, an enlisted man recognizing and accepting the authority of his officers over him.
For whatever that's worth, which probably isn't much :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:28:53 AM · #573 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Originally posted by RonB:
I view Christ's atonement as being like gravity. You can choose to not believe in it - but there may be consequences that are not readily apparent. As the man falling from the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building thought, as he passed the 5th floor on the way down, "So far, so good".
I, for one, am not offended by what you say. Many share your beliefs. Many do not. Time, and time alone, will bring each one to that point where they will either know for sure that they were right, know for sure that they were wrong, or not know anything at all. |
But with Gravity there is tangible evidence for it's existence' - but believing in God requires - by definition - Faith.
If you have faith, there is no need for 'tangible evidence'. I myself choose to not make that leap of Faith, therefore as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof for God and Judgment day is on the person of Faith who chooses to ask me to believe. |
When astronauts are in the International Space Station, there is no "tangible evidence" that gravity exists in their current situation. Thus, they can choose to ignore it - but only for a time. Eventually, however, unless something is done to prevent it, gravity dictates that the ISS will fall to earth.
So, if you are immortal, you can choose to believe whatever you want without having to consider the consequences. But if you are not immortal, something must be done - IF Christ's claims were true. If they were NOT true, then don't worry about it. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:34:34 AM · #574 |
I just have to add my $1 in on this one.
For me, I don't see what the big deal is with letting anyone marry! If some guy can mary his horse, why can't 2 women or 2 men who actually love eachother get married?!? So, they don't follow what the Christians believe.... not many people do anymore! If you haven't noticed, most people in todays world don't follow any of the "gospel". People killing people, people committing adultrey, people stealing, etc etc. So, I ask again, what the hell is so wrong with 2 humans that are in love getting married!?? To me, it's predjudice.... nothing but!
Back in the day, we sold black people for slaves.... they were viewed as a minority.... Now, they have equal rights. We tend to give those who are different a hard time. Let's make the "so and so's" life absolute hell! Maybe they will go away!?! Maybe we will win and get our way!?! So, now because the gay folks are coming out and being known.... they aren't afraid to hide anymore. Well... now we have to give them hell and make it hard for them... maybe they will go away!
Well... here's a news flash! They won't!
I believe in a God - of some sort. I believe that he made everything and everyone for a reason! I believe that everything was created this way, and it wasn't some act of the Devil! Maybe it was his way of teaching everyone that we are all humans. We all have the same blood, we all have feelings and all love.
And I don't care if I get hammered for this, but as a bisexual woman.... I think it's rather crappy that people have to slam on people for their sexual preferences. Do gay people look at you heteros and bitch about you? No! They worry about the issues that they have to face. Does the fact that I like both sexes make me any less of a human? Does it make who I am totally different? Does it take away from the person I am, the love that I have? NO! I am still the same person I have always been!
It angers me that people can say, "Gays don't deserve rights!" They sure as hell do! They are American Citizens, they pay taxes, they vote, they have EVERY single right the heteros have!
I think people need to stop looking at others for the faults that they have and start looking deep into themselves. People need to stop being so damn judgemental and start living! C'mon... judging people only makes you look like an ass!
In the end... you are the one that has to live with yourself. You are the one who has to go to bed every night with the shame and guilt you live with. Maybe if you try being nicer and stop trying to cram your beliefs down everyone elses throats... you can get on that path to righting your wrongs!
*this was not directed to anyone in general.... *
I just wanted to add that I am friends with a lot of homesexual folks, and they are some of the smartest and well rounded people I know. Most of the lesbians I know have Phd's, doctorates, and much more. Most of them are in their early 20's and already are doctors, sports therapists, coaches, lawyers... etc. They own their homes, and are doing well for themselves. Some of them even attend church on a regular basis. How are they so bad?
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 11:42:18.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 11:47:08 AM · #575 |
| Well,that was an interesting post. Humans and horses? Now that's just wrong. Gay marrage?.....that's queer. |
|
