| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2005 06:40:35 PM · #101 |
]Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Using this defintition of immoral it is society that decides if something is immoral - not God - unless society has agreed to accept God's ruling. Since the law of the land should not be dependent on religious laws then such issues as homosexuality and pre-marital sex cannot be deemed immoral in the true sense of the word. |
So society dictates. But what happens when society is split fairly evenly down the middle as we are today? 50% must dictate to the other 50%.
The issue at hand is that the pendulum is in the middle so both side are trying to push it. When it was far swung one way it was not pushed much because homosexuals couldn't leverage it 2 centuries ago. Now, in another 100 yrs religious people will likely be in the place of homosexuals. Operating in secret. Under much criticism and restriction whether by law or simple societal pressure. The pendulum is now swinging the other way.
|
Where do you get your statistics from that society is split 50/50 on the issues being discussed?
May i point out that homosexuality was not considered unusual 2 centuries ago - in most civilised worlds it was accepted as part of sexual activity for some. It certainly was not considered immoral (using immoral in its true sense).
If society as a whole was to take on board all the beliefs of religions, life would be impossible. Society can only function by accepting that some people will have beliefs that they will live by and that society will tolerate their right to do so. However, it is wrong if those beliefs are then imposed on society as a whole by the way of national laws, they impinge on human rights.
I may or may not believe in abortion or premartital sex but unless society as whole has deemed them immoral then I have no right to enforce the rest of society to stop aborting babies or sleeping with a partner (of opposite or same sex).
There are certain social decisions that society has deemed wrong and the great majority of society accept these are bad eg murder, theft, rape, and so on. These are immoral.
Having sex with a partner without being married is not considered to be wrong by the majority of adults today and therefore is not immoral.
Too tired to continue tonight... I'll see how this is greeted and add more tomorrow if the debate is still active!
P
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 06:43:26 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote=louddog]My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards. [quote]
So if I drove to your house with a shotgun and ended your life...did you not expect me to live by your standards? Is what I did "okay" or is it morally wrong? Am I expected to live by the moral standard not to commit murder? |
If you want to be low life pond scum that thinks murder is okay, that is your right (sadly for you there are laws against commiting murder though). Thankfully, be aware that I have the right to be armed and ready for you when you arrive.
But don't you think murder is a little more harsh of a moral issue then praying or homosexuality? I don't think anyone is arguing the morality of murder so there really is no point in bringing it up here.
Also, if you read on before you post you would see that I later stated that I follow the do on to others rule. Since I would never consider murdering someone, I kind of expect that logical people would not murder me.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 06:51:58 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First, to repeat, for the umpteenth time, it is not MY moral system. I did not invent it. I do not claim it as my own. It is a moral system that is thousands of years old, but hasn't changed since the author set it in stone. :-) |
I assume you are saying that this moral system that is not yours is actually the bible. Well, the bible is not THE moral system. It is not law. It is not the right way. It is A way, it is an option. Thus, you chose to use the bible as your moral standards and thus it is your moral standards.
Just because it is in a book and it's really old and a lot of people followed it for a long time does not make it right. Just because you chose to think it should be the way, does not make it the way.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 06:55:53 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
On the topic of religion in schools... |
What I find ironic is the total objection to religion in schools, while blatantly condoning Christmas celebrations. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 07:24:22 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Where do you get your statistics from that society is split 50/50 on the issues being discussed? |
Umm...gee...U.S. voting record.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
May i point out that homosexuality was not considered unusual 2 centuries ago - in most civilised worlds it was accepted as part of sexual activity for some. |
Well, gee, by golly what a humdinger....and guess what...it pretty much is in our society as well.
However, although you can point out numerous societies that had homosexual behavior (it's been around for millenia - obviously - and in some cultures in acceptable form, Greek, etc.) But would you mind pointing out the numerous cultures throughout the centuries that instituted gay marriage? And then demanded all citizens accept said institution against their will?
Originally posted by "riponlady":
If society as a whole was to take on board all the beliefs of religions, life would be impossible. |
Never asked for that. And I will respond. If society simply forsook every belief because it was in a religion, life would be impossible.
But I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking historical context over thousands of years. And now, because some want to see it changed they call those who oppose "extremists". My point is to show the centrality of said religious groups as opposed to the "extremist" (drastic change) over millenia.
Now, that does not mean change may not be for the better. I believe the abolishment of slavery throughout much of the world was for the better.
But, please, stop labelling as "extremists" those who have millenia of historical example throughout thousands of varying cultures.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Society can only function by accepting that some people will have beliefs that they will live by and that society will tolerate their right to do so. However, it is wrong if those beliefs are then imposed on society as a whole by the way of national laws, they impinge on human rights. |
Which is why I have repeatedly, near a half-dozen times, stated that the government should have nothing to do with "marriage". Marriage should merely be an institution of whatever religion you believe in.
- Marriage is not required for two people to love each other.
- Marriage is not required for two people to have sex.
- Marriage is not required for two people to co-habit.
So what is the issue? Is it the government/social benefits of taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.
If so, let's seperate the two. And marriage will simply be recognized within what every faith group by those of like faith. No issue of people forcing their beliefs on others what-so-ever. And if you're a homosexual you can get married in an Episcopal denomination that supports and accepts homosexual marriage. But don't expect a Roman Catholic to recognize said marriage. Don't use the government to force them to recognize it.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
I may or may not believe in abortion or premartital sex but unless society as whole has deemed them immoral then I have no right to enforce the rest of society to stop aborting babies or sleeping with a partner (of opposite or same sex). |
Yes, but the issue right now is society "deeming" and we do so via our votes. And so, if votes were passed to "ban" frivolous abortions (ones not due to the physical health of the mother, or from a case of rape, incest, etc). Then society would have deemed it. And therefore have right to enforce it upon the rest of society.
Which is exactly what the pro-life movement is endeavoring to do. Particularly, in the case of partial-birth abortion. Of which not a single physical medical health reason exists for said procedure.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
There are certain social decisions that society has deemed wrong and the great majority of society accept these are bad eg murder, theft, rape, and so on. These are immoral. Having sex with a partner without being married is not considered to be wrong by the majority of adults today and therefore is not immoral. |
By the status quo of our society, yes it is not deemed immoral. But I do not see the vast majority of the religious people trying to prevent sex outside of marriage. They may disagree with it and deem it immoral. But I do hope you don't think that their mere "thinking" it's wrong is unacceptable and that they should be forced to think akin to you or others and accept nothing else?
Originally posted by "louddog":
If you want to be low life pond scum that thinks murder is okay, that is your right (sadly for you there are laws against commiting murder though). Thankfully, be aware that I have the right to be armed and ready for you when you arrive. |
Not only to I believe you have the right to be ready. But if I were to come with the intent to cause you or your family harm I believe you have the right to blow my brains out.
However, if I brought a nice six-pack of beer I hope you'd be willing to share a nice mug of beer instead of bloodshed. ;)
My point though, and as you stated above, is that we have laws against committing murder. And much of the debate we are having is regarding laws. And what is or should be a law. Particularly, in cases where society is strongly divided (as opposed to murder in which a vast over-whelming majority feel similarly).
I as well, so no fear. And the law would not be all I fear as I imagine I'd have quite some explaining to do when I stood before God. Which is an even stronger motivation not to murder for me. In that I have 2 reason not just one. I have many more. I do not want my future wife to marry a murderer. Nor, do I want to have the gruesome nightmares of such. Nor, would I want you to have to remember blowing my brains out. No good man enjoys such even if done justly and out of necessity.
So if you're down, and I'm ever near by... BEER? (and if you do not oblige to alcohol... Thai Ice Tea?) |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 07:52:24 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
First, to repeat, for the umpteenth time, it is not MY moral system. I did not invent it. I do not claim it as my own. It is a moral system that is thousands of years old, but hasn't changed since the author set it in stone. :-) |
I assume you are saying that this moral system that is not yours is actually the bible. Well, the bible is not THE moral system. It is not law. It is not the right way. It is A way, it is an option. Thus, you chose to use the bible as your moral standards and thus it is your moral standards.
Just because it is in a book and it's really old and a lot of people followed it for a long time does not make it right. Just because you chose to think it should be the way, does not make it the way. |
No, the moral system that is not mine is NOT the bible. The moral system is God's. True, much of God's moral system is known because it was recorded in the bible, but the bible is not THE moral authority. As brother Bear_music pointed out earlier, you can't legislate morality, ergo the law cannot enforce morality, it can only hope to articulate what degree of immorality is to be prosecuted. And it is, unfortunately, subject to change.
However, to say that the moral code recorded in the bible is not "the right way" is presumptive. God's moral code, as recorded in the bible, hasn't changed in thousands of years. But if you maintain that God's moral code is not "the right way", then you are left in a quandry - because obviously, the current societal view of what is moral or immoral cannot be considered "the right way", either. If it were, then why is it different than it was 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Did the meaning of "right" change over time? Did the meaning of "wrong"? If so, then how can one fairly judge anothers actions, ANY actions, as "wrong" at any point in time? Wouldn't one have to hold off judgement until one could be certain that a "wrong" action at one time would not become a "right" action at some time in the future? It's interesting that it is only secular society that creates that dilemma. God's people do not face such a dilemma, because God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" ( morally speaking ).
You say "Just because it is in a book and it's really old and a lot of people followed it for a long time does not make it right.".
I say, "Just because the legislature codifies what is legal or illegal, and a lot of people agree those laws, does not make the permitted activities right". And I have more proof of that than you do - because if the law DID make it "right" then the law wouldn't have to change over time. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 07:56:08 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
So if you're down, and I'm ever near by... BEER? (and if you do not oblige to alcohol... Thai Ice Tea?) |
I'd have a beer with you any day (just leave the shotgun at home). But beware, if we judge morality the same way Mormons (and I'm sure a lot of other people) do we will be partaking in an immoral act :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:10:58 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No, the moral system that is not mine is NOT the bible. The moral system is God's. |
If you refuse to even consider that there is a possibility that God does not exist, there is no point arguing with you. In your world God's way is the only way and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:20:31 PM · #109 |
This is a photography web site. Anybody taken any photos lately?
I hate to see such polarization occuring in this community.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:22:16 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
No, the moral system that is not mine is NOT the bible. The moral system is God's. |
If you refuse to even consider that there is a possibility that God does not exist, there is no point arguing with you. In your world God's way is the only way and everyone else is wrong. |
Likewise, if you refuse to consider that there IS a God, that HE decided long ago what is morally righteous and morally unrighteous, and that those determinations NEVER change, then you have absolutely NO basis for determining what is right or wrong except for what society says, AT THE TIME. And that's going to make it hard for you to rail against them when they vote contrary to your sense of morality.
NAMBLA loves it when people deny God's moral authority. They COUNT on having a society that has no firm foundation. They WILL prevail - it's just a matter of time. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:34:30 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by RonB:
True, much of God's moral system is known because it was recorded in the bible
|
As someone studying epistemology as part of a philosophy masters degree, your use of the word "known" really made me chuckle here :)
Originally posted by RonB:
Did the meaning of "right" change over time? Did the meaning of "wrong"? If so, then how can one fairly judge anothers actions, ANY actions, as "wrong" at any point in time? Wouldn't one have to hold off judgement until one could be certain that a "wrong" action at one time would not become a "right" action at some time in the future? It's interesting that it is only secular society that creates that dilemma. God's people do not face such a dilemma, because God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" ( morally speaking ).
|
And here i was thinking jesus said NOT to judge others... or do you only take your morality (ahem, i mean THE ABSOLUTE morality, sure) from the old testament?
Originally posted by RonB:
And I have more proof of that than you do - because if the law DID make it "right" then the law wouldn't have to change over time. |
Nice, so you can prove whether someone else's idea of something corresponds to the absolute universal "right", now? You should considered putting some of this down in stone...
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:42:18 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
No, the moral system that is not mine is NOT the bible. The moral system is God's. |
If you refuse to even consider that there is a possibility that God does not exist, there is no point arguing with you. In your world God's way is the only way and everyone else is wrong. |
Likewise, if you refuse to consider that there IS a God, that HE decided long ago what is morally righteous and morally unrighteous, and that those determinations NEVER change, then you have absolutely NO basis for determining what is right or wrong except for what society says, AT THE TIME. And that's going to make it hard for you to rail against them when they vote contrary to your sense of morality.
NAMBLA loves it when people deny God's moral authority. They COUNT on having a society that has no firm foundation. They WILL prevail - it's just a matter of time. |
Now why would you feel the need to bring up NAMBLA?? Who ever said screwing young boys was okay? I thought Saj was off base saying he was going to kill me :) For being morally correct you guys sure bring up some twisted crap???
I do consider the potential that God exists, but without any proof I also consider the alternative.
But, you are right. God's way is the only way. I'll have my slaves kill my first born to make God happy since I'm sure I pissed him off.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:48:40 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by RonB:
God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" |
Hmm, when did the Vatican say slavery was wrong?
Can we all agree that PI actualy equals 3.14 and not just 3?
Is it okay to murder non believers?
How about human and animal sacrafice?
Has right and wrong ever changed?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 08:49:56 PM · #114 |
*nevermind
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 20:51:25. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:01:18 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Can we all agree that PI actualy equals 3.14 and not just 3?
|
It's actually neither. PI has an infinite number of decimal places.
Cheers!;o)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:09:38 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by RonB:
True, much of God's moral system is known because it was recorded in the bible
|
As someone studying epistemology as part of a philosophy masters degree, your use of the word "known" really made me chuckle here :) |
Glad I could brighten your day. My use of the word, however, is in the same vein as "a man is known by the company he keeps". That is why I use the qualifier "much". Namely, God's moral system cannot be fully "known" any more than He, Himself, can be fully known - at least until we meet Him face to face. At that time, declares scripture, we shall KNOW, even as we are fully known. That should excite you.
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by RonB:
Did the meaning of "right" change over time? Did the meaning of "wrong"? If so, then how can one fairly judge anothers actions, ANY actions, as "wrong" at any point in time? Wouldn't one have to hold off judgement until one could be certain that a "wrong" action at one time would not become a "right" action at some time in the future? It's interesting that it is only secular society that creates that dilemma. God's people do not face such a dilemma, because God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" ( morally speaking ).
|
And here i was thinking jesus said NOT to judge others... or do you only take your morality (ahem, i mean THE ABSOLUTE morality, sure) from the old testament? |
You do not know me. I do not judge others. As a sinner myself, I have no right to judge them. But I am under no prohibition from calling that sin which is sin. And no, I do not take my morality only from the old testament.
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by RonB:
And I have more proof of that than you do - because if the law DID make it "right" then the law wouldn't have to change over time. |
Nice, so you can prove whether someone else's idea of something corresponds to the absolute universal "right", now? You should considered putting some of this down in stone... |
Wrong again. I cannot prove whether someone else's idea of something corresponds to the absolute universal "right". I do not know the complete absolute universal "right". But I do know some of it, and can judge that portion accordingly. Part of what I know is this:
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." ( Galatians 6:7-8 )
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 21:12:19. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:21:03 PM · #117 |
| i think the REAL problem with "religion" is the believers, and not religion itself. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:26:46 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" |
Hmm, when did the Vatican say slavery was wrong? |
I don't know if they did or didn't, let alone when. Why do you ask? Is it important?
Originally posted by louddog:
Can we all agree that PI actualy equals 3.14 and not just 3? |
Of course. We could also agree that 2 + 2 = 5. But agreement doesn't make it so.
Originally posted by louddog:
Is it okay to murder non believers? |
No, never has been. It IS sometimes okay to KILL non believers ( or believers, for that matter ). Whether such killing violates the prohibition against murder is what determines whether its okay or not.
Originally posted by louddog:
How about human and animal sacrafice? |
If you mean, is it all right to sacrifice humans and/or animals as part of a religious ceremony or sacrament, the answere is NO, it is not. Human sacrifice was NEVER okay. And animal sacrifice was only a temporary means of atonement. It was made obsolete by Christ's death on the cross. Note: I'm only referring to animal sacrifices that were once a part of the Jewish religion ( precursor to Christianity ).
Originally posted by louddog:
Has right and wrong ever changed? |
Depends on whose definition you're using. To God, it hasn't. To Man, it has.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:16:07 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by RonB:
Pretty much true, that. But I'm confused. Did the taliban forbid TV in PUBLIC or in PRIVATE?
Do YOU think that it should be OK to show x-rated movies on all the screens of the TV's on display at Wal-Mart?
Should it be permissable for a couple to have sex on the sidewalk next to the elementary school, during recess?
Surely, even YOU would draw the line somewhere? But WHO do you rely on to determine where that line IS? Don't you think that YOU should have some input into that decision? Does legislation forbidding such public activities infringe unduly on your freedoms? If it does, then why aren't you campaigning against such barriers to your personal freedoms? Or is it just that SOME barriers are acceptable and others are not? And you just don't want the determination of where to place the barriers to be influenced by "religious nuts"? |
The greatest achievement of the Christian Right in the US over the past thirty years was their discovery that if one pulls the discussion to an extreme point, others tend to forget what it is that one is really talking about.
|
I agree.
The issues here are not whether x-rated movies should play in Walmart. Nor are they about a couple having sex in front of an elementary school. That stuff doesn’t happen now, and there is no push by anyone to make it happen. That is a NON issue brought into this issue as an extreme example and to pull at emotions.
It’s like this.
If my wife or GF wants an abortion it effects you none. But if you do not allow my wife or GF an abortion, you are controlling a major aspect of her personal life. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:21:34 PM · #120 |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:26:34 PM · #121 |
[quote]The greatest achievement of the Christian Right in the US over the past thirty years was their discovery that if one pulls the discussion to an extreme point, others tend to forget what it is that one is really talking about.[/quote]
That is not just a "Christian Right" "achievement." Methinks that is a standard debating tool amongst all groups. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 11:22:41 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by theSaj:
So if you're down, and I'm ever near by... BEER? (and if you do not oblige to alcohol... Thai Ice Tea?) |
I'd have a beer with you any day (just leave the shotgun at home). But beware, if we judge morality the same way Mormons (and I'm sure a lot of other people) do we will be partaking in an immoral act :) |
Alas, if Jesus Christ's first miracle was indeed the turning of water into wine (and good wine to boot) than I think it highly unlikely that he'd take any offense to us having an ale. So long as we don't drink ourselves to the point of doing foolish things.
aye....note to all, having seen a man who's arm was scarred and at a slight loss of meat....leave shotguns at home when drinking beer. It's the right time never with a shotgun. ;)
Originally posted by louddog:
I thought Saj was off base saying he was going to kill me :) For being morally correct you guys sure bring up some twisted crap??? |
Note, (just to clarify) my intention was never a threat. I was pointing out that there are inherent morals for which most agree too. "Murder" being a most common example. And such, I was just trying to bring to the issue that sometimes it is good to force our morality on others.
I think, in general, that forcing the morality that "murder is wrong" on those who are inclined to do so is a very good thing.
And I had no harsh feelings whatsoever....
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 23:25:56. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 11:30:21 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If my wife or GF wants an abortion it effects you none. But if you do not allow my wife or GF an abortion, you are controlling a major aspect of her personal life. |
If someone murders someone down the street...it may not affect me. But I'll be damned if I am going to sit by without comment and not state that such is a heinous deed and should be stopped.
When your wife/GF chooses to have an abortion she is not merely controlling a major aspect of that child's life but rather taking control in entirety. Far worse than impinging on someone who should have been responsible and simply making them bear the consequences of their actions rather than make an innoncent baby bear a foolish adult's foolish behaviors. Yeah...what side should I choose again if I want to be just and fair?
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 12:12:49 AM · #124 |
The Saj shows God does indeed know how to make Pi
(bottom section)
Owning slaves:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44-46%20;&version=47;
How to be a good slave:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2%20;&version=47;
[[[ Slavery was much different in the Hebrew system. They were often "debtors" and working off debts. Furthermore, they could only be held for 7 yrs. Nor was it ethnic with generation upon generation being born into slavery with no hope of freedom. ]]]
Kill people if they have gay sex:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20;&version=47;
[[[ Now, let's put some perspective on it. At the time there was no AZT, no antibiotics, etc. Homosexual sex and which was seldom "committal" during said time, is more prone to contagions being passed and increased the spread of disease. Putting to death such perpetrators essentially reduced the level of diseases within the society. Mind you, one was also supposed to avoid the harlot and priestess at the high place & temples (prostitutes). Nor to commit adultery. All of these things greatly reduced the spread of disease & illness. As did the prescribed dietary code.
Now this does not mean that the statutes were always obeyed. David in fact broke many. And the Scripture actually recorded the faults as well as the good of the men involved.
Another angle, that is much harder for a non-religious to comprehend, is that Israel had a purpose. To bear the Messiah in whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. And that the code for Israel's behavior is different than for all (the Levitical Law applies to the Israelites for the purpose of ensuring puriety and continuity of generations so that the provision of the Messiah will come forth.) Now this answer is a spiritual one so I doubt many non-religious will see any merrit in understanding this concept but I sought to provide it anyways.
]]]
Kill the priests daughter if she whores around:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2021:9%20;&version=47;
[[[ See above ]]]
I think you are suppose to kill me according to this one:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013:7-12%20;&version=47;
Kill your daughter because you won a battle:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011:29-40%20;&version=47;
[[[Please note, this is the tale of a fool and not of God. One is instructed NOT to make such vows. And had the man petitioned God he would have relented and accepted another substitute (as is in God's nature and as was done in the case of Isaac where God had already provisioned a substitute). But the man chose to do what he said. One could say he was true to his word and a fool at the same time. But God never required such of him.]]]
Kill people that work on Sunday:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2031:12-15%20;&version=47;
[[[First off it's Saturday, and frankly, I've known quite a few women who've nearly threatened to kill their work-a-holic husbands if they didn't stay home for the weekend. ]]]
Angry God:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=43&chapter=1&version=47
[[[What...do you never feel such? When you look at the wrongs and the abuses. The murders and genocides in Sudan, the Holocaust, Bosnia, the Jihads, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. You don't think there comes a point where God just wants to say "format e:arth /all"
]]]
Edit to add the one where the bible has PI wrong:
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%207:23%20;&version=47;
Really, looks to me that they got it right. However, they were merely rounding to the full digit. Nor does it say it was a perfectly round
3
Circ. = 30 cubits = approx. 540"
Width = 10 cubits = 180" (suggested 565.2)
Height = 5 cubits = 90"
Now, let's take the given circumference of 540" (using an 18" cubit). Now, let's divide the circumference by Pi to get the diameter:
540/3.14 = 171.97452229299363057324840764331 (of course they'd likely not go to quite so many decimal places)
Okay, so let's subtract our Pi driven diameter from the given one to find out how off the measurements are. The result: 8.02 inches.
So I am short by 8" which is less than 1/2 a cubit. Now, most of us have always been taught to round up if it's more than 1/2. (Although that's not always the case as we know that when the gas company charges you $2.781 cents you get stuck paying $2.79 pennies. *lol* )
So figuring that you're using cubits and were to round off to the nearest cubit (as I am not even sure if they had the "decimal" point / fraction concept yet so without it you'd always round toward a non-fractional digit.
So, the variance in "Pi" is clearly within the variance attributed to "rounding" error. I mean, really, have we ever got "Pi" right? Or have we merely gotten it right to certain "precision" based on how many decimal places we've calculated? So are aliens going to come in their UFO's and laugh at us because we got "Pi" wrong cause we've only calculated it to a few million decimal places. *lol*
The end result is that louddog just taught me something I did not know about Scripture. I did not know that the approx. formula for "Pi" could be derived from the Scripture. How fascinating.
Anyways, thanks...that was fun Louddog. And now, you can go and share with everyone how you thought the Bible got "Pi" wrong but in fact learned that it did not.
"Beer Time" and as I am just about to leave work to go home (yes at midnight) would have beat the next clock if not for this reply but I had so much fun replying.
:)
- The Saj
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 00:14:17.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 01:52:52 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If my wife or GF wants an abortion it effects you none. But if you do not allow my wife or GF an abortion, you are controlling a major aspect of her personal life. |
If someone murders someone down the street...it may not affect me. But I'll be damned if I am going to sit by without comment and not state that such is a heinous deed and should be stopped.
When your wife/GF chooses to have an abortion she is not merely controlling a major aspect of that child's life but rather taking control in entirety. Far worse than impinging on someone who should have been responsible and simply making them bear the consequences of their actions rather than make an innoncent baby bear a foolish adult's foolish behaviors. Yeah...what side should I choose again if I want to be just and fair? |
You lack compassion and butt your nose into where it does not belong. Someone who "should have been responsible"..."simply making them bear the consequences of their actions"...
You presume too much with the "responsible" comment. You show a desire to punish with the "consequences" comment. You masquerade under the guise of justice and fairness, but in reality your stance has more to do with pettiness and a foolishly obsessive desire to exert your will upon others.
It's none of your business whether or not a woman CHOOSES to carry through a pregnancy. It's her body. It's her right. You call it murder, but that's a hyperbole. You employ murder to exaggerate the outrage factor. The reality remains that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
You are short sighted. You judge others despite your lack of clear thinking about the future potential effects of your stance. You lack the compassion to place yourself in the shoes of the people whose lives you try to affect. You blindly forbid a choice that is potentially smart, such as in the case of a single potential mother who clearly recognizes she neither has the capacity nor desire to be a mother who decides to abort, for the sake of YOUR personal beliefs. And yet, when the invoices come around in the form of greater likelihood for social problems, among other things, you refuse to pay the bills and instead point your fingers yet again.
In the equations that go through the heads of potential mothers, you and society should be irrelevant. Equating potential mothers who contemplate abortions to murderers to be amounts to pure stupidity. Mind your own business.
The abortion issue, amongst many others, is a good case in point for the argument that religion may pose unhealthy and negative correlations for a society. Instead of basing their social perspectives on CURRENT issues within the societies that they live, too many blind believers of religions attempt to use potentially outdated and irrelevant doctrinal ideas to "govern" not only THEIR OWN lives, but also the lives of others. Such doctrinal perspectives were formulated long ago by men who sought to address the ills of THEIR long-ago societies. The refusal to incorporate today's societal ills, to seriously look at and address them with MODERN standards of compassion and LOGIC does pose problems for today's societies.
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 02:08:04.
|
|
