PDA

View Full Version : Tolerance in America



Dreadful Scathe
13th-October-2005, 01:27 PM
Perhaps "Taliban" is a bit harsh... but the views of some prominent U.S. people make interesting reading.

See here (http://www.reandev.com/taliban/)

Comments ?

David Bailey
13th-October-2005, 02:36 PM
Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research):
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
- see, there's another convert to FSM-ism, it's the wave of the future I tell you.

But to quote Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals."

To which I can only reply: FREE PORN? Fantastic, where's that again then? :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
13th-October-2005, 02:39 PM
Joseph Scheidler (Pro-Life Action League):
"I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting – people using each other for pleasure."


"Using each other for pleasure"? Better not let him find out about Ceroc then....

MartinHarper
13th-October-2005, 04:04 PM
Perhaps "Taliban" is a bit harsh...

Yep. I don't see anyone coming out against kite-flying, for example.

Tessalicious
13th-October-2005, 04:18 PM
'You do not have the right to be wrong...'Well in that case, the boys on this forum are in so much trouble :rolleyes:

Obviously the girls are always right, even when we don't agree :innocent:

Icey
13th-October-2005, 04:21 PM
Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition)

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

Maybe this one really belongs on the marriage thread?

David Bailey
13th-October-2005, 04:35 PM
"...the husband is the head of the wife..."
Who's the arms of the wife then? :confused:

Stuart
13th-October-2005, 04:55 PM
George W Bush "God told me to strike at al Qaida..."

There is a school of thought which says that because of Bush's dyslexia, it was actually his dog which told him to strike al Qaida etc!

ChrisA
13th-October-2005, 07:30 PM
http://www.wimp.com/invading

under par
13th-October-2005, 08:42 PM
http://www.wimp.com/invading


Scarey scarey scarey.....great scam though.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dreadful Scathe
14th-October-2005, 02:54 PM
:rofl: What wonderful simple minded people ;) I thought the 2 girls were especially funny when asked who they should invade next - 'Iran.' 'Because I think there is a revolution going on now' ...uh-huh and if there was it would likely be good for the west as Iran is moderate for an islamic state with modern thinking people - a very high percentage of the people are under 30. Invading them is likely to turn them against the west and create more fundamentalism. Not surprisingly :) I think America should invade Australia, they al clearly want to :)

stewart38
14th-October-2005, 03:59 PM
All i got from the site was

--------------------------------------------------
Access to the following URL is restricted as per the *** "Internet Security and Usage for End Users" Policy
Updates to the policy can be requested using the form/procedure from the OCIO website.

For further assistance, please contact your local IT Helpdesk.

Reason:
The Websense category "Racism and Hate" is filtered.
-----------------------------------------------------

Ill have a word with IT :mad:

LMC
14th-October-2005, 04:14 PM
Scary.

I wonder if any of them have actually read the Constitution that most Americans hold so dear. I can't find God mentioned anywhere in there...

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

David Bailey
14th-October-2005, 04:16 PM
Reason:
The Websense category "Racism and Hate" is filtered.
-----------------------------------------------------

Ill have a word with IT :mad:

Actually, it sounds like your internet junk-filtering system is working extremely well, :worthy: to your IT guys :)

Tessalicious
14th-October-2005, 04:36 PM
All i got from the site was

--------------------------------------------------
Access to the following URL is restricted as per the *** "Internet Security and Usage for End Users" Policy
Updates to the policy can be requested using the form/procedure from the OCIO website.

For further assistance, please contact your local IT Helpdesk.

Reason:
The Websense category "Racism and Hate" is filtered.
-----------------------------------------------------

Ill have a word with IT :mad:You'd better hope that's not a closely monitored filter, or you'll have IT picking up on it, reporting to your boss and watching your internet use for the next month - which means of course they'll spot how much time you spend on some Ceroc forum rather than working...

stewart38
14th-October-2005, 04:43 PM
You'd better hope that's not a closely monitored filter, or you'll have IT picking up on it, reporting to your boss and watching your internet use for the next month - which means of course they'll spot how much time you spend on some Ceroc forum rather than working...

At my last job I got told of for excessive use of internet for non work use

:sad: bye every one :tears:

Stuart
14th-October-2005, 04:57 PM
Partly related to this thread, there was some advertising brochure fore More4 which fell out of the paper last weekend. That contained a couple of good quotes from the West Wing:

1) President Bartlet (to a Christian Fundamentalist): "Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Since you take the Bible literally, perhaps you can help: I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?".

2) Bartlet: "I was watching a television programme before, with a kind of moderator who spoke to a seated panel of young women who were having some sort of problem with their boyfriends - apparently, because the boyfriends had all slept with the girlfriends' mothers. And then they brought the boyfriends out, and they fought right there on television. Toby (One of his staff for those who have never watched The West Wing), tell me: these people don't vote, do they?"

Barry Shnikov
6th-January-2006, 12:19 PM
1) President Bartlet (to a Christian Fundamentalist): "Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Since you take the Bible literally, perhaps you can help: I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery

Actually, as I understand it, fundamentalists have serious problems pointing out where in the Bible it does actually say homosexuality is wrong.

Does anyone know the reference?

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 12:20 PM
Actually, as I understand it, fundamentalists have serious problems pointing out where in the Bible it does actually say homosexuality is wrong.

Does anyone know the reference?Leviticus 18:21-22
Leviticus 20:13

You're digging up a lot of old threads, Bazza! Bored?

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 02:01 PM
Hey, it's Friday lunchtime, what else is there to do?

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 02:03 PM
Leviticus 18:21-22
Leviticus 20:13
Apparently, all this "thou shall not lie with another man" stuff is part of the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which was written as a manual for Israel's priests, and which also prohibits:

Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle
Tattoos
Wearing certain types of jewelry
Eating certain kinds of meat
Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)
Cross-breeding livestock
Sowing a field with mixed seed
Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood
Men cutting their hair or shaving their beards


Next time you meet a fundamendalist Christian foaming away, if they're a cleanshaven man with a haircut, just point to them and shout "unclean!", that should work... :innocent:

But on the plus side, The Holiness Code also endorses polygamy ( :clap: ).

Oh, and the Bible also calls for the death penalty for:
- gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36),
- improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32)
- ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10).

So if you're a gay man gathering firewood on Sundays before going to a C of E service, then scoffing a wafer at that service, you may be in trouble.

Surprisingly, the Bible says nothing about female homosexuality, but that minor detail doesn't inconvenience the average right-wing fundie Christian.

David Franklin
6th-January-2006, 03:30 PM
Surprised no-one else has yet quoted the following satire (allegedly in respose to a talk radio pundit):

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 03:55 PM
Apparently, all this "thou shall not lie with another man" stuff is part of the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which was written as a manual for Israel's priests, and which also prohibits:
Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle
Tattoos
Wearing certain types of jewelry
Eating certain kinds of meat
Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)
Cross-breeding livestock
Sowing a field with mixed seed
Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood
Men cutting their hair or shaving their beardsObservant Jews still adhere quite rigidly to all these rules in some form or other. (Not sure about the livestock or the mixed seed ones but certainly the others)

By the way, I think it's cotton/wool - I don't think there was much polyester fabric around at the time.

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 04:26 PM
Observant Jews still adhere quite rigidly to all these rules in some form or other. (Not sure about the livestock or the mixed seed ones but certainly the others)
Yes, the list did look quite familiar... But the main point is, only a complete nutter would pick just one rule and make a big deal out of that, whereas there are loads of others in that list.


By the way, I think it's cotton/wool - I don't think there was much polyester fabric around at the time.
You clearly haven't heard of the recently-established School of Ancient Polyester Studies in the LSE (they'll study anything there).

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 04:28 PM
Surprised no-one else has yet quoted the following satire (allegedly in respose to a talk radio pundit):
That reads almost exactly like that scene in the West Wing - Here's the quote (http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25admonitions.html)...

Apparently, Aaron Sorkin (West Wing creator) lifted the material directly from the anonymous author of the open letter.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 04:51 PM
Yes, the list did look quite familiar... But the main point is, only a complete nutter would pick just one rule and make a big deal out of that, whereas there are loads of others in that list.


You clearly haven't heard of the recently-established School of Ancient Polyester Studies in the LSE (they'll study anything there).I thought a precept of Christianity was that the coming of the (supposed) Messiah in the shape of Jesus had changed all the rules? Not even the most observant and devout churchgoers abstain from pork, for instance - outlawed in the Old Testament. What does the New Testament, and other, "modern" Christian scripture say about homosexuality?

clevedonboy
6th-January-2006, 05:03 PM
I thought a precept of Christianity was that the coming of the (supposed) Messiah in the shape of Jesus had changed all the rules? Not even the most observant and devout churchgoers abstain from pork, for instance - outlawed in the Old Testament. What does the New Testament, and other, "modern" Christian scripture say about homosexuality?
Matthew Ch22 says it all for me

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 05:03 PM
I thought a precept of Christianity was that the coming of the (supposed) Messiah in the shape of Jesus had changed all the rules? Not even the most observant and devout churchgoers abstain from pork, for instance - outlawed in the Old Testament. What does the New Testament, and other, "modern" Christian scripture say about homosexuality?
You're not going to confuse me with your nasty logic and rationality, I know all about you Evil Liberal Donkeys and your Evil Ways. I know what's right, and that's that.

There's a great quote about this in my current fave book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316729531/qid%3D1136563306/026-3225380-4383657) - I can't do it justice, but it says something like "Jesus was probably planning his Big Gay Bashing Speech the day after Easter, but we'll never know..."

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 06:06 PM
Matthew Ch22 says it all for me

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.Not that I'm a great scholar of biblical Hebrew, but the line about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a translation of Leviticus 19:18, which in (transliterated) Hebrew reads "V'ahavtah l'reyahkhah kamokhah".

And speaking some Hebrew, that translates just as easily as "You shall love your neighbour WHO is like you." In fact it makes more sense in its original context: "You will not avenge or bear grudge against the children of your people but will love (those of your) neighbours who are like you."

Rather the opposite of the meaning it's usually attributed.

Dreadful Scathe
6th-January-2006, 06:19 PM
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That sounds like some sort of mutual masturbation pact and Im really not sure I know my neighbour that well.




*Wearing certain types of jewelry
*Eating certain kinds of meat
*Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)
*Cross-breeding livestock
*Sowing a field with mixed seed
*Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood
*Men cutting their hair or shaving their beards


Im sure they were good rules at the time but are we sure that GM crops, genetic engineering, modern textiles, bling and barbers are all evil?

hmm probably :)

clevedonboy
6th-January-2006, 06:22 PM
Not that I'm a great scholar of biblical Hebrew, but the line about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a translation of Leviticus 19:18, which in (transliterated) Hebrew reads "V'ahavtah l'reyahkhah kamokhah".

And speaking some Hebrew, that translates just as easily as "You shall love your neighbour WHO is like you." In fact it makes more sense in its original context: "You will not avenge or bear grudge against the children of your people but will love (those of your) neighbours who are like you."

Rather the opposite of the meaning it's usually attributed.

You have me there. All these years I've been thinking we were supposed to love everybody and ourselves 'cos that's what a loving god would want and all the while I should have just been loving white middle class southerners.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 06:39 PM
You have me there. All these years I've been thinking we were supposed to love everybody and ourselves 'cos that's what a loving god would want and all the while I should have just been loving white middle class southerners.Go spread the word - but remember - you heard it here first.

You have to admit though, that for an Old Testament full of stonings, wars, conquest, slavery, animal sacrifice, and other such manly pursuits - for Levititicus to suddenly make a really really pussy declaration that every-one (even the Amalekites, the Hittites, the worshipers of Molech and other undesirables that the Lord sees fit smite hither-and-thither) is to be your best friend no questions asked - is a bit, um suspicious, no?

clevedonboy
6th-January-2006, 07:08 PM
But (and I've no intention of getting into a debate on this) the New Testament has a different slant on things - Christ being the Messiah for Jews and Gentiles and all that.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 07:11 PM
But (and I've no intention of getting into a debate on this) the New Testament has a different slant on things - Christ being the Messiah for Jews and Gentiles and all that.Guess that lets Christianity off the hook then. (But have you read the original Greek, by any chance? You never know what that might say until you look.)

David Bailey
6th-January-2006, 08:02 PM
I shall manfully ignore the scholarly debate about linguistics, because it's, well, scholarly.

But here's the quote from The Good Book I alluded to above:

For other through, the Bible is just one big old book about hating queers; they're constantly finding startling new chapters like when Jesus, after healing the sick and helping the poor, draws together his disciples and tells them how God's vision embraces everyone - prostitutes, paupers, lepers, even tree-climbing tax inspectors... "On hearing this, his disciples pauseth for a moment and said unto him 'What about the gays, Lord?" Jesus flincheth and spat 'Oh no, not the gays, I don't like them' he ranteth. 'I don't like their white vests or their love of gaudy music. And I have it on the highest authority of a man down the tavern that there's a gay Mafia running the Roman empire. A man with another man? No way. Now, about these lepers...'"
Buy the book, it's great.

Barry Shnikov
6th-January-2006, 08:48 PM
Leviticus 18:21-22
Leviticus 20:13

You're digging up a lot of old threads, Bazza! Bored?

Hmm. Barry Shnikov - 278 posts, member since October 2003.

El celery grunge - 2604 posts :really: member since January 2005:eek: and producing biblical references from out of thin air...

I rest my case.

Thanks for the references. Seems fairly clear then: homosexuality is forbidden. At least, it is if you lie down.

Barry Shnikov
6th-January-2006, 08:52 PM
Matthew Ch22 says it all for me

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Sadly, most fundamentalist Christians behave as though they'd really rather that Jesus hadn't come along and queered their pitch (:whistle:) by preaching all this love thy neighbour and ****.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-January-2006, 08:52 PM
Hmm. Barry Shnikov - 278 posts, member since October 2003.

El celery grunge - 2604 posts :really: member since January 2005:eek: and producing biblical references from out of thin air...Look, don't you quote statistics at me. *I'm* not the one doing the Scarlet Pimpernell act for the last six months.

Internet just reached Southampton, has it?

Barry Shnikov
6th-January-2006, 08:53 PM
Look, don't you quote statistics at me. *I'm* not the one doing the Scarlet Pimpernell act for the last six months.

Internet just reached Southampton, has it?

I believe the internet has been here for some time.

It's just the arrival of modern jive that we are awaiting...

Barry Shnikov
6th-January-2006, 08:55 PM
(and I've no intention of getting into a debate on this)

Yaaah!

buk buk buk buGAAARK buk buk

Dreadful Scathe
6th-January-2006, 11:36 PM
Christ being the Messiah for Jews and Gentiles and all that.

"OH NO HE ISNT" said the pantomine Jew from the back.

ducasi
6th-January-2006, 11:40 PM
Not that I'm a great scholar of biblical Hebrew, but the line about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a translation of Leviticus 19:18, which in (transliterated) Hebrew reads "V'ahavtah l'reyahkhah kamokhah".

And speaking some Hebrew, that translates just as easily as "You shall love your neighbour WHO is like you." In fact it makes more sense in its original context: "You will not avenge or bear grudge against the children of your people but will love (those of your) neighbours who are like you."

Rather the opposite of the meaning it's usually attributed. That to me says that you should love your neighbour, as they are just like you. Which is exactly the meaning usually attributed to it.

Plus, it's a sentiment that's older than the time of Christ, so why would he change it to put a racist overtone into it?

Dreadful Scathe
7th-January-2006, 01:10 AM
That to me says that you should love your neighbour, as they are just like you. Which is exactly the meaning usually attributed to it.

Plus, it's a sentiment that's older than the time of Christ, so why would he change it to put a racist overtone into it?
wouldnt want the bible to be racist or anti-gay or anti-women or anti-non-christian would we ? :)

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 01:30 AM
wouldnt want the bible to be racist or anti-gay or anti-women or anti-non-christian would we ? :)
Can you show me anywhere in the teachings of Jesus where he is racist, anti-gay, or anti-non-christian...

Dreadful Scathe
7th-January-2006, 03:31 AM
Can you show me anywhere in the teachings of Jesus where he is racist, anti-gay, or anti-non-christian...

john 3:3 says that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again - apparantly. Seems a bit biased against non-Christians and thats just one example.

However, you can take other meanings from that, and the point is - many do. Many who call themselves Christians take the meaning of bible verses to mean what they want it to mean. There is no doubt that many fundamentalist Christians are all of the things I mentioned and they always seem able to point toward scripture that supports their bigotry. Just as other Christians manage to not be bigoted and find the bible supports that too. Its people that are the problem, not religion, or the bible, or what Jesus is quoted as saying. :)

El Salsero Gringo
7th-January-2006, 11:00 AM
That to me says that you should love your neighbour, as they are just like you. Which is exactly the meaning usually attributed to it.You're still (potentially) mistranslating it. Because the word "who" in English is ambiguous. But the course of human history, religion and war is founded on such ambiguities.


Plus, it's a sentiment that's older than the time of Christ, so why would he change it to put a racist overtone into it?Actually, I'm not commenting on who changed what. I know nuffink about Christ, nor about what the original Greek text says, nor about how that's been translated into English - so I couldn't comment.

There was another (mis)translation, I think, in what clevedonboy posted: the line about "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart..." - the original Hebrew (Deuteronomy 6:5) uses a word that's usually translated as "might" - "all your heart, all your soul, and all your might." When it comes via the Greek, it's changed from "might" to "mind".

I tell you, wars have been fought and men have died over less.

(EDIT: By the way, Ducasi, when I said "it makes more sense in it's original context", I was referring to the context in Leviticus, not to anything attributed to JC.)

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 12:16 PM
john 3:3 says that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again - apparantly. Seems a bit biased against non-Christians and thats just one example. Well that's like the pool club down the road saying you're not getting in unless you're a member. (Oh, but here's how to join...)

That's hardly anti-non-pool-club-members, is it?

But your general point that people will find things to support their own particular brand of bigotry in the bible is, unfortunately, true.

At least though with the teachings of Christ, you're going to much closer to the source of Christianity, and to knowing what it is that makes a true Christian. The rest of the bible is pretty much just what other people have decided is "the will of God" in their particular circumstances, and so (in my mind) is easier to discount.

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 12:26 PM
(EDIT: By the way, Ducasi, when I said "it makes more sense in it's original context", I was referring to the context in Leviticus, not to anything attributed to JC.) Yep, I missed this before I posted, but decided that my post stood well enough on its own without a correction.

But let's look at this point...

Actually, I'm not commenting on who changed what. I know nuffink about Christ, nor about what the original Greek text says, nor about how that's been translated into English - so I couldn't comment. Even if in Leviticus they meant it in the limited way you imply, it's possible that Jesus was using that original message, but putting a different slant on it to become more general – however that subtlety has been lost in the translations.

But, like you, I have no idea what the original Greek text says, so it's all just conjecture at this point.

I tell you, wars have been fought and men have died over less. It's truly is a tragedy that when Christ brought a message of peace to the world, evil men have twisted it to bring misery to millions.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-January-2006, 02:55 PM
Well that's like the pool club down the road saying you're not getting in unless you're a member. (Oh, but here's how to join...)

That's hardly anti-non-pool-club-members, is it?

Forcing the non-pool club members to spend eternity locked in the sauna would seem to be a cruel and unusual punishment though :)

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 03:16 PM
Forcing the non-pool club members to spend eternity locked in the sauna would seem to be a cruel and unusual punishment though :)
The non-members don't believe in the sauna though, so it should hardly worry them. :)

And I don't think you'll find much talk of <s>the sauna</s> hell from Jesus anyway.

Barry Shnikov
7th-January-2006, 06:29 PM
Yep, I missed this before I posted, but decided that my post stood well enough on its own without a correction.

But let's look at this point...
Even if in Leviticus they meant it in the limited way you imply, it's possible that Jesus was using that original message, but putting a different slant on it to become more general – however that subtlety has been lost in the translations.

But, like you, I have no idea what the original Greek text says, so it's all just conjecture at this point.
It's truly is a tragedy that when Christ brought a message of peace to the world, evil men have twisted it to bring misery to millions.

I get the feeling you are a believer, ducasi.

If that is wrong, then you are doing an excellent impression of the verbal and logical gymnastics displayed by Christians when forced to deal with the general silliness of their faith. Considering that the things that Jesus is alleged to have said were first written down by various persons more than 100 years after he died, any attempt whatsoever to fathom exactly what he meant must be doomed to failure.

In the end, each of the faithful believes because he or she wants to believe, and from that starting point, they can pick and choose exactly which elements they want to believe with equal rationality.

Woolworth's religion - pick'n'mix

El Salsero Gringo
7th-January-2006, 06:51 PM
I get the feeling you are a believer, ducasi.

{snip}

Woolworth's religion - pick'n'mixCome on Barry, it's really not polite to poke at the faithful. If it was, I'd be forced to point out that if JC's message is one of peace then he's done an exceptionally **** poor job of getting it through to people over the centuries.

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 07:13 PM
I get the feeling you are a believer, ducasi. And you'd be wrong, but what does it matter?

If that is wrong, then you are doing an excellent impression of the verbal and logical gymnastics displayed by Christians when forced to deal with the general silliness of their faith. Thank you, I like to think of myself as flexible.

While you may find their faith silly, I'd suggest that the philosophy expressed by Jesus ain't such a bad one...

Considering that the things that Jesus is alleged to have said were first written down by various persons more than 100 years after he died, any attempt whatsoever to fathom exactly what he meant must be doomed to failure. Any attempt to date the gospels are also doomed to failure, as after his death there were a number of written and oral histories of Jesus floating around. The gospels we read today are a re-telling of stories recorded much sooner after his death. And there are older non-canonical gospels which can be used to get nearer to the historical truth of a great man. (Any man who can inspire the creation of a religion after his death must be something pretty special.)

In the end, each of the faithful believes because he or she wants to believe, and from that starting point, they can pick and choose exactly which elements they want to believe with equal rationality. That's true about any belief system, be it religious or not.

Woolworth's religion - pick'n'mix Well it works for them...

clevedonboy
7th-January-2006, 07:30 PM
I've just added someone to my ignore list - 1st for me (not DS, ESG, Ducasi)

without his comments thread makes more sense

Barry Shnikov
7th-January-2006, 09:36 PM
While you may find their faith silly, I'd suggest that the philosophy expressed by Jesus ain't such a bad one...


Well, we don't know exactly what was expressed by Jesus, but taking his words as recorded in the Gospels, I would probably agree.

It's just that Christianity is not limited to those principles. It demands, for example, that you believe in the Trinity and transubstantiation and miracles and the Assumption of Mary and the intercession of saints...well, I won't go on.

And if that's me who clevedonboy has added to his ignore list - I'm sorry to cause offence but someone has to do it...:devil:

The only belief system that isn't religious,as far as I can tell, would be humanism. My criticism of religions cannot be extended to humanism, for the simple reason that you are not asked to believe in anything counter-intuitive. Come to think of it, you aren't asked to believe in anything. It's the default state of the human mind.

ducasi
7th-January-2006, 09:49 PM
Only got time for a quick reply...

Your summary of Christian beliefs don't cover every version of it.

Some people would call such things as capitalism or communism a belief system...

Dreadful Scathe
8th-January-2006, 02:11 AM
so true, some people are even daft enough to label Atheism a belief system :)

Barry Shnikov
8th-January-2006, 12:09 PM
Your summary of Christian beliefs don't cover every version of it.

Quite. A summary of all Christian beliefs would take volumes, probably. What with Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Church of Christ Scientist, Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's think - what could we conclude from such a humungous plethora of different 'versions of the truth'...?:confused:

Gadget
8th-January-2006, 05:54 PM
It's just that Christianity is not limited to those principles. It demands, for example,~
"demand" is a bit strong.

Let's think - what could we conclude from such a humungous plethora of different 'versions of the truthPerhaps that there is a humungous plethora of individual minds and philosophies? Perhaps that everyone is free to make their own descision as to what to follow? Perhaps that people learn from the past, learn from mistakes and are constantly revising their outlook on the world?

As a basis for a social society to start from, you could do worse than the bible - don't kill and don't steal. The only down side is that it also promotes the "trust only those who are in my gang" philosophy. :(

David Bailey
8th-January-2006, 06:52 PM
Perhaps that there is a humungous plethora of individual minds and philosophies? Perhaps that everyone is free to make their own descision as to what to follow? Perhaps that people learn from the past, learn from mistakes and are constantly revising their outlook on the world?(
I agree - to me, the fact that any human belief-based organisation has different factions says much more about humanity than it does about the core values of the religion.

You could make that schism argument about political parties, for example - but that doesn't mean that the core party beliefs and values are pointless.

Barry Shnikov
8th-January-2006, 07:41 PM
"demand" is a bit strong.
Perhaps that there is a humungous plethora of individual minds and philosophies? Perhaps that everyone is free to make their own descision as to what to follow? Perhaps that people learn from the past, learn from mistakes and are constantly revising their outlook on the world?

Sounds very warm and fuzzy, Gaj, but first, a plethora of philosophies doesn't help. If each individual goes to the Philosophy Shop and is simply told: "Here, we have a wide selection of philosophies, they are all equally valid, take your pick" then each of the philosophies becomes utterly valueless as the customer will have to examine the universe from first principles and either make up his own philosophy, or take the one which most closely reflects his conclusions. He might as well not bother going in the Shop at all.

Second, in my experience such as it is, most people do not 'constantly revise their outlook' on the world but tend to grip more tightly to their selected philosophy the more it is threatened and the more bewildered they feel.

Unsurprising, really; the human brain is constantly looking for shortcuts. A philosophy is a bit like a look-up table: 'what is the correct response to the current situation? O, I know, I have to turn the other cheek.' It's easier than having to examine each situation and work out all the possible ramifications before moving on.

That being the case, the accuracy of the look-up table is quite important, IMHO. If it has big gaps, we're going to have to go back to first principles again, goshdarnit, which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place.

Barry Shnikov
8th-January-2006, 07:52 PM
I agree - to me, the fact that any human belief-based organisation has different factions says much more about humanity than it does about the core values of the religion.

You could make that schism argument about political parties, for example - but that doesn't mean that the core party beliefs and values are pointless.

I don't think the parallel between religions and political parties holds up. A political party is susceptible to demonstrations and proofs. 'We need to go to war' 'Explain why?' 'Because Saddam Hussein has a 15 minute first-strike capability in WMD.' 'He does? Can you show me evidence?' and so forth. Not infallible, but that's how it works.

Religion says: "Here are a set of preceptsl. You shall use those to govern your life and you will go to heaven when the Lord divideth the sheep from the goats." In the case of Christianity, that's the Old and New testament and the teachings of the Church fathers. 'You know, I cannot see that contraception is such a great sin. I mean, apart from anything else the concensus is that condoms will help to reduce the misery and degradation of AIDS. Can't we allow the faithful to use them?' 'ABSOLUTELY NOT! It's a terrible sin.' 'It is? How do we know that?' 'Um...one of the Popes told us.'

David Bailey
8th-January-2006, 08:04 PM
If each individual goes to the Philosophy Shop and is simply told: "Here, we have a wide selection of philosophies, they are all equally valid, take your pick" then each of the philosophies becomes utterly valueless as the customer will have to examine the universe from first principles and either make up his own philosophy, or take the one which most closely reflects his conclusions.
On the other hand, if you say "This is what you must believe - no more and no less. No deviation, no interpretation, no individualism." then you're at the other extreme; fanaticism or facism this way...

Every belief system has a set of core values, and a lot of stuff around the edges which are (arguably) optional. Of course, defining the dividing line between "core values" and "optional add-ons" is the tricky bit...


Second, in my experience such as it is, most people do not 'constantly revise their outlook' on the world but tend to grip more tightly to their selected philosophy the more it is threatened and the more bewildered they feel.
People don't like change, it's true. But clearly the minority of people who do revise their views, and who do create and shape new philosophies, have a significant effect on society.


I don't think the parallel between religions and political parties holds up.
Probably not - as you said, religions have the key non-proof-based differentiator of faith.

But my point was about religious organisations and political parties - i.e. any human grouping will have multitudes of different opinions and interpretations.


This is an interesting debate, but we've veered off-topic; maybe these posts should be moved to the Religious Beliefs (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3072) thread?

El Salsero Gringo
8th-January-2006, 11:35 PM
If each individual goes to the Philosophy Shop and is simply told: "Here, we have a wide selection of philosophies, they are all equally valid, take your pick" then each of the philosophies becomes utterly valueless as the customer will have to examine the universe from first principles and either make up his own philosophy, or take the one which most closely reflects his conclusions. He might as well not bother going in the Shop at all.Not really. Once goes into the philosophy shop to be "fitted" with a religion, according to ones outlook. Examine the customer's first principles, but all the rest of the hard work is already done. Try them on like coats, see which one fits best. Still no need to weave ones own cloth though.

"Hellfire, damnation, loads of incense and Jesus dying for man's sins, sir? Roman Catholicism, over there in the corner."

"Reincarnation, making up for sins in previous lives? Madam might want to try Buddism - over there, in the 'Asian and Oriental' section."

"Something ancient with a great sex-life? Try Judaism, sir - in the Middle-Eastern section. But I warn you the food's a bit restricted and that foreskin will have to go...."

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 01:23 AM
Not really. Once goes into the philosophy shop to be "fitted" with a religion, according to ones outlook. Examine the customer's first principles, but all the rest of the hard work is already done. Try them on like coats, see which one fits best. Still no need to weave ones own cloth though.


I like the parallel, and tres amusant; however, there's no downside to buying off-the-peg coats; there's a tremendous downside to not thinking for oneself.f

(And in hiding behind pleas for 'tolerance' when the unreasonableness of comfortable certainties are pointed out.

Why do people get so upset when their beliefs are challenged?

Gadget
9th-January-2006, 03:52 AM
Sounds very warm and fuzzy, Gaj, but first, a plethora of philosophies doesn't help. If each individual goes to the Philosophy Shop and is simply told: "Here, we have a wide selection of philosophies, they are all equally valid, take your pick" then each of the philosophies becomes utterly valueless as the customer will have to examine the universe from first principles and either make up his own philosophy, or take the one which most closely reflects his conclusions. He might as well not bother going in the Shop at all.? why?
I'm a warm & fuzzy sort of guy; I would rather go in, shop around and try a few 'off the peg' rather than be told "Nope: you must chose from ones on this shelf. And don't bother looking on the other shelves - your eyes will shrivel up and you will go blind."
Everyone does make up their own in so much as they apply their own stress/bias to the values that 'off the peg' philosophies hold.


I don't think the parallel between religions and political parties holds up. A political party is susceptible to demonstrations and proofs. 'We need to go to war' 'Explain why?' 'Because Saddam Hussein has a 15 minute first-strike capability in WMD.' 'He does? Can you show me evidence?' and so forth. Not infallible, but that's how it works.I think it holds up:
In political structure, you are placing your beleif in what a politician tells you is true. And in religion you are placing your beleif in what the preist/rabi/wize man tells you is true. Each offers you proofs, evedence. Not infallible, but that's how they work.

{Hmmm... who would you beleive: a politician or a preist? :wink:}

Why do people get so upset when their beliefs are challenged?Two seperate questions: why do people get upset? and why does this reaction occur when what they belive to be true is questiond?

People get upset for a number of reasons - Normally when their integrity is called into question. Or when something is not what they have been expecting. Both of these reasons stem from beleifs that we base our descisions on:
- I asked you to do it, you accepted and you didn't: my beleif was in you. my beleif was that if I asked and it was said that it would be done, then it would be. The underlying philosophy is that you would not tell a falsehood. Upset because this philosophy has been proven wrong.
- I promised someone something and it wsn't done: my beleif was in myself. I had thought that something could be done and have not managed to. The underlying philosophy is that I would not tell a falsehood. Upset because this philosophy has been proven wrong.

So why, when our underlying philosophy and beleifs are called into question do we get upset? because that's what all our descisions/actions have been made on in the past. By questioning the underlying reasoning behind these, you are calling into question everything I have done and said and everything I say and do.

If your view is that all christianity{*insert religion here} is bunk, then does that mean that all teachings of christianity are bunk? Yes? then that poses some aquward questions about your views on social structure & laws. No? then you cannot dismiss christianity as bunk.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:36 AM
? why?
I'm a warm & fuzzy sort of guy; I would rather go in, shop around and try a few 'off the peg' rather than be told "Nope: you must chose from ones on this shelf. And don't bother looking on the other shelves - your eyes will shrivel up and you will go blind."
Everyone does make up their own in so much as they apply their own stress/bias to the values that 'off the peg' philosophies hold.

No problem at all. Maybe the analogy needs extending. What you are looking for in the shop is the equivalent of extreme sports clothing, for an extended Antarctic expedition. There are hundreds of products in there, but the assistant tells you "All of them are equally useful, and we have no additional information to give you." Under the circumstances, you either pick and go - suggesting an insufficient care for your own hide - or you have to spend a lifetime trying them all on until you see what works.

[QUOTE=Gadget]I think it holds up:
In political structure, you are placing your beleif in what a politician tells you is true. And in religion you are placing your beleif in what the preist/rabi/wize man tells you is true. Each offers you proofs, evedence. Not infallible, but that's how they work.
{Hmmm... who would you beleive: a politician or a preist?}

Cough, splutter. You may place your belief in what politicians tell you - I suspect you would be one of only a few. That's the difference between religion and politics - billions of people place (more or less) unquestioning faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them.


So why, when our underlying philosophy and beleifs are called into question do we get upset? because that's what all our descisions/actions have been made on in the past. By questioning the underlying reasoning behind these, you are calling into question everything I have done and said and everything I say and do.

I'm not sure that in questioning someone's religious (or similar - i.e. would include Scientology though clearly not a religion) I'm questioning everything they do or say, but however.

Your answer suggests that people are rather sensitive about such beliefs. If you have a strong belief, you should be able to shrug off the arguments of doubters. I suppose I'm expressing a degree of surprise at how easily people are upset. A sort of righteous indignation is understandable - 'how dare you scoff at the teachings of a wonderful person such as Christ/Mohammed/Confucius/Ron Hubbard', but what you get instead is 'you are horrible for denying me my fireside comforts'.


If your view is that all christianity{*insert religion here} is bunk, then does that mean that all teachings of christianity are bunk? Yes? then that poses some aquward questions about your views on social structure & laws. No? then you cannot dismiss christianity as bunk.

Deep philosophy here, requires waders.

I have to say that the teachings of all religions are bunk; nevertheless the precepts of most religions will overlap, somewhat, with the principles according to which I believe life should be lived. The trouble is, each Christian has to apply their own personal judgment on which christian principles to adopt. Can he/she disregard the prohibition on eating shellfish? Can he/she disregard the prohibition on killing people? If 'yes' and 'no', then he/she is simply applying their own personal preference.

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 11:33 AM
Cough, splutter. You may place your belief in what politicians tell you - I suspect you would be one of only a few. That's the difference between religion and politics - billions of people place (more or less) unquestioning faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them.
As I said, I'd agree that the "faith" thing is a definite differentiator between, say, religion and politics (in fact, I'd say "faith" was a good way to define what's a religion and what isn't).

And my analogy was for organisations, not belief systems.

But even so, I think it's extreme to say that there is no "faith" in politics, and no questioning in religion. There are some similarities to my mind. Of course, my mind may be totally confused...


I have to say that the teachings of all religions are bunk; nevertheless the precepts of most religions will overlap, somewhat, with the principles according to which I believe life should be lived.
Why do you have to say they're all bunk? And is that the teachings, or the religions themselves - will better teachers help? :devil:


The trouble is, each Christian has to apply their own personal judgment on which christian principles to adopt. Can he/she disregard the prohibition on eating shellfish? Can he/she disregard the prohibition on killing people? If 'yes' and 'no', then he/she is simply applying their own personal preference.
Sorry Barry, but I think that's a bit of a facile argument - and I know about facile arguments :whistle:

I'm agnostic (I know, boring), but I'm fairly sure that most Christian teachings kind of emphasize the key points like not killing people, being nice to each other, that sort of thing.

AFAIK, and unlike the Koran, the Bible isn't (except for nutty fundamendalists) an exact guide telling you everything you need to do in perfect detail to live your life. It's a collection of stories, parables and accounts, which aim to guide people. And as such, requires interpretation and re-interpretation on a continuing basis.

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 12:28 PM
I'm agnostic (I know, boring)

Agnostic what? Agnostic theist or atheist? And why is this boring ? :)

El Salsero Gringo
9th-January-2006, 01:04 PM
I'm agnostic (I know, boring), but I'm fairly sure that most Christian teachings kind of emphasize the key points like not killing people, being nice to each other, that sort of thing.Then why do you think it's turned out to be almost exactly the opposite in practise?


AFAIK, and unlike the Koran, the Bible isn't (except for nutty fundamendalists) an exact guide telling you everything you need to do in perfect detail to live your life. It's a collection of stories, parables and accounts, which aim to guide people. And as such, requires interpretation and re-interpretation on a continuing basis.No that's wrong. The Old Testament (still part of what most people call the bible, last time I looked) is *exactly* a guide telling you how to live your life - what you may eat, what thread to make your clothes from, who you can and can't have sex with, what food is permitted and what forbidden - etc. It's only custom which in many religions ignores the sections found to be 'inconvenient'. You just choose to lump those who *haven't* made that choice as "nutty fundamentalists" as if their choices can somehow be discounted because they don't make sense in your mind.

It's you that thinks the bible needs re-interpretation. It's not inherent in the bible itself.

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 01:47 PM
Then why do you think it's turned out to be almost exactly the opposite in practise?
The downsides of almost all religions (OK, maybe not Buddism) are that they provide an intitutionalised excuse to group people into Us and Them, and to hate people who aren't Us.

Bit like Monday Jango sessions, really :whistle: :devil:


{ stuff about the bible }
Errr, dunno... I haven't touched one in years, I'll probably burst into flames if I do.

You're probably right - FWIW I was pick-and-mixing from the the New Testament rather than the old when talking about this Christianity thing. Hey, everyone else does it...

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 03:21 PM
the Bible isn't ... an exact guide telling you everything you need to do in perfect detail to live your life [...but...] requires interpretation and re-interpretation on a continuing basis.

But that is my point. Who does the re-interpreting? How can one know that the re-interpreter has got it right? Is he/she blessed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? How do you know he/she is right about what God thinks is important and what he does not?

And, importantly, if you fundamentally disagree with the Bible while 're-interpreting' it ("Knowing what we now know about homosexuals and homosexuality, it cannot be right that God wants them put to death") then the whole authoritiveness (phew) of the Bible collapses in shambles. Why would God's attitude to homosexuals have changed in 3,000 years out billennia?

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 04:32 PM
But that is my point. Who does the re-interpreting? How can one know that the re-interpreter has got it right?
Me. Because I say so. :innocent:


Is he/she blessed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? How do you know he/she is right about what God thinks is important and what he does not?
Seriously, I suspect that's where the "faith" thing comes in, although I appreciate that's an easy cop-out. I'm probably not best placed to argue for Christianity, it's not something I believe in, so it's not something I can argue well.


And, importantly, if you fundamentally disagree with the Bible while 're-interpreting' it ("Knowing what we now know about homosexuals and homosexuality, it cannot be right that God wants them put to death") then the whole authoritiveness (phew) of the Bible collapses in shambles. Why would God's attitude to homosexuals have changed in 3,000 years out billennia?
Whoa, we're not getting back on-track here are we? Spooky :what:

I'm not completely convinced that the Bible does say "put them to death" in the first place - that Leviticus thing is definitely suspect IMO, given the context. But yes, some parts of the Bible are clearly dumb in the context of 21st-century living. And yes, life requires re-interpretation on a continuous basis.

Catholics use Papal decrees as their guide - personally, I use Dilbert and Terry Pratchett, it works for me.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 05:11 PM
personally, I use Dilbert and Terry Pratchett, it works for me.

Well, Dilbert's alright, I suppose, but what if you don't work in a cubicle office?

By the way, have you heard what 'prairie dogging' is?

El Salsero Gringo
9th-January-2006, 05:55 PM
But that is my point. Who does the re-interpreting? How can one know that the re-interpreter has got it right? Is he/she blessed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? How do you know he/she is right about what God thinks is important and what he does not?Well, for instance, many religions have a "wise council" or a Pope-figure. One of the doctrines of Catholicism is that the Pope is always right. (You trust the House of Lords to interpret the law of the land, correct?)

Or, if you think the authorities of whatever religion you follow have got it wrong, then you're free to start your own.

Stuart M
9th-January-2006, 06:06 PM
Cough, splutter. You may place your belief in what politicians tell you - I suspect you would be one of only a few. That's the difference between religion and politics - billions of people place (more or less) unquestioning faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them.

Actually, dragging this thread back to its title, one of the major problems with US politics is precisely this - alarming numbers of people, particularly in mid-Western states, do place unquestioning faith in what their political leaders tell them.

The USA is of course not unique in this: however, the blurring of lines between politics and religion, enshrined in its most horrifying form in people like Pat Robertson, does magnify the issue.

thewacko
10th-January-2006, 10:34 PM
TOLERENCE

AMERICA

:eek:

In the same 3 word sentance :eek:

Lets Face it the Americans are the only Country in the world that thinks that the sun shines from so deep up their own ars*s!!!!!!!!!!!
:yeah:

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 12:36 AM
(You trust the House of Lords to interpret the law of the land, correct?)

GASP!!! CRINGE!!!

The Law Lords don't interpret the law!! They commune with the essence of common law and equity and, having spent long hours in deep contemplation, sally forth into the senior chamber and announce what the law has always been! (Except that that wasn't always realised, sometimes not even by past gatherings of the Law Lords...

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 12:40 AM
Actually, dragging this thread back to its title, one of the major problems with US politics is precisely this - alarming numbers of people, particularly in mid-Western states, do place unquestioning faith in what their political leaders tell them.

The USA is of course not unique in this: however, the blurring of lines between politics and religion, enshrined in its most horrifying form in people like Pat Robertson, does magnify the issue.

And, of course, in what their religious leaders tell them, (even if they are later discovered unclothed in the company of prostitutes).

AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT BELIEFS PER SE CANNOT BE SACROSANCT.

The only way to disrupt the self-satisfied comfort blanket such people have woven around themselves is to challenge it. I for one think that the unquestioning attitudes a (seeming) majority of Americans have has been one of the most dangerous things in the world over the last 50 years. Take Henry Kissinger or Oliver North as examples of what it can produce when taken to extremes.

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 12:43 AM
Well, for instance, many religions have a "wise council" or a Pope-figure. One of the doctrines of Catholicism is that the Pope is always right.

I know; you have to stand back and admire the elegance of it, don't you?

"How do you know?"

"The Pope said so."

"Oo-oo-oo! The Pope said so."

"Yeah. And he's infallible, so he must be right."

El Salsero Gringo
11th-January-2006, 01:19 AM
And, of course, in what their religious leaders tell them, (even if they are later discovered unclothed in the company of prostitutes).If a High Court Judge were found unclothed in the company of prostitutes, would that make the law an ass?

:D

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 01:22 AM
If a High Court Judge were found unclothed in the company of prostitutes, would that make the law an ass?

No, just careless...

David Bailey
11th-January-2006, 09:59 AM
I know; you have to stand back and admire the elegance of it, don't you?

"How do you know?"

"The Pope said so."

"Oo-oo-oo! The Pope said so."

"Yeah. And he's infallible, so he must be right."
Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Papal infallability is defined as follows:

when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So it's limited to ex cathedra type of announcements, rather than, for example, comments on the likelihood of rain tomorrow.

I agree it's still a highly dubious statement - the most obvious objection being that this pronouncement itself was made my Vatican 1, and so who's to say that it's correct in the first place? And what if a pope issues a proclamation that goes against a previous proclamation, who's right?

Stuart M
11th-January-2006, 10:16 AM
I agree it's still a highly dubious statement - the most obvious objection being that this pronouncement itself was made my Vatican 1, and so who's to say that it's correct in the first place? And what if a pope issues a proclamation that goes against a previous proclamation, who's right?
I'm reminded at this moment of the words of Cleese, the Stoning, chapter 2, Scene 3:

"No-one throws anything until I blow this whistle even if - and I want to make this perfectly clear - even if they do say Jehovah" :rolleyes:

David Bailey
11th-January-2006, 12:09 PM
Sorry, in all the excitement I missed this:


Agnostic what? Agnostic theist or atheist? And why is this boring ? :)
Can't I just be agnostic? I didn't know I had to qualify it, in fact I thought that was kind of the point of being agnostic, it's sitting on the fence. Which is why it's boring.

Ooh, wikipedia's given me a menu of variations to choose from:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It might also imply the belief that there is something resembling god (or gods,) but a doubt of their exact nature or validity of claim.
Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods,) while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any doctrine.
Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.


Decisions, decisions... OK, today I'll plump for agnostic spiritualism. Although both apathetic agnosticism ('coz it's funny) and ignosticism ('coz no-one knows what it means) were both strong contenders.

Dreadful Scathe
11th-January-2006, 01:07 PM
Can't I just be agnostic? I didn't know I had to qualify it, in fact I thought that was kind of the point of being agnostic, it's sitting on the fence. Which is why it's boring.


A common mistake. You should have read the POLL on Religion :)

Agnosticism is not sitting on the fence, its about knowledge i.e. Do you claim to know there are Gods or not.

So you can be -

agnostic atheist - who claims not to believe or know there is a god (you)
gnostic atheist - who claims not to believe and to deny existence of gods
gnostic theist - who claims to believe and know there are god(s)
agnostic theist - who claims to believe but not know for sure

Its interesting to note that a Christian only believes in one more God than an atheist. Everyone is an atheist to some degree, unless they believe in every God which is unlikely. The term itself has been around long enough for Christians and Pagans at the time of the Roman empire to use it as a term for each other, because if you dont believe in the 'correct' God(s) then you are an atheist.

Most arguments about the terms agnostic and atheist, if you ever read up on this hot topic, come from idiots who think that arguing over the labelling is the most important thing - its not, "thats not what that means" does not accomplish anything useful in any discourse ;) Anyone want to explain what "God" means ? :)

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 02:43 PM
Its interesting to note that a Christian only believes in one more God than an atheist.

In the words of the immortal Neil from the Young Ones: Oh wow man!....heavy...

under par
11th-January-2006, 03:58 PM
Anyone want to explain what "God" means ? :)


the four legged hair thing the dyslexic feeds Chum to!

Dreadful Scathe
15th-August-2006, 01:52 PM
Interesting statistics

# 81% of U.S. teenagers think that God controlled or influenced the origin of humans. (Gallup)
# 65% of Americans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. (CBS)
# 55% believe that “God created humans in present form.” (CBS)
# 45% believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Gallup)
# 37% think that we should teach just creationism in schools, including 60% of evangelical Christians. (CBS)
# 36% believe in telepathy.
# 35% say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
# 35% say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
# 25% believe in astrology.
# 25% think the sun goes around the Earth.
# 13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
# Only 13% of Americans accept the standard scientific account of evolution, without a god’s involvement. (CBS)

Lou
15th-August-2006, 02:42 PM
# 13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.

Excellent! :clap:

And Caesar was the salad dressing dude, and Napoleon the short dead dude.... :rolleyes:

bigdjiver
15th-August-2006, 03:09 PM
I can understand how some people can believe in God, but why they prefer to believe what man has written onto parchment above what God has written into the rocks is beyond me.

Dreadful Scathe
15th-August-2006, 03:32 PM
I can understand how some people can believe in God, but why they prefer to believe what man has written onto parchment above what God has written into the rocks is beyond me.
Ive heard it said that the holy spirit was in the people who transcribed the parts of the bible - so there were no mistakes and it is truly the word of God :)

I also had a Classics teacher at school who clearly believed in the Greek Gods - who am I to judge :)

Barry Shnikov
16th-August-2006, 03:31 PM
I can understand how some people can believe in God, but why they prefer to believe what man has written onto parchment above what God has written into the rocks is beyond me.


[Long think...]

Oh, OK. I get that now.

bigdjiver
16th-August-2006, 07:48 PM
Ive heard it said that the holy spirit was in the people who transcribed the parts of the bible - so there were no mistakes and it is truly the word of God :) ...So, it's Just like the Koran then?
Oddly enough the rocks tell the same story no matter where they come from.

Gus
16th-August-2006, 10:01 PM
So, it's Just like the Koran then?
Oddly enough the rocks tell the same story no matter where they come from.Urrrrr ... I belive there is some fairly significant evidence that Jesus Christ did exist. Whether you attest the stories in the New Testatment to the same person is another matter (though many theologians have 'proven' this fact). I'm not aware of the Islamic, Hindu or similar faiths being able to point to similar evidence ... though that does not of course deny them as legitimate faiths.

El Salsero Gringo
16th-August-2006, 10:49 PM
Urrrrr ... I belive there is some fairly significant evidence that Jesus Christ did exist. Whether you attest the stories in the New Testatment to the same person is another matter (though many theologians have 'proven' this fact). I'm not aware of the Islamic, Hindu or similar faiths being able to point to similar evidence ... though that does not of course deny them as legitimate faiths.Are you saying that there is significant evidence that Jesus Christ existed as the son of God?

bigdjiver
16th-August-2006, 11:00 PM
Urrrrr ... I belive there is some fairly significant evidence that Jesus Christ did exist. Whether you attest the stories in the New Testatment to the same person is another matter (though many theologians have 'proven' this fact). I'm not aware of the Islamic, Hindu or similar faiths being able to point to similar evidence ... though that does not of course deny them as legitimate faiths.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf

frodo
16th-August-2006, 11:28 PM
I can understand how some people can believe in God, but why they prefer to believe what man has written onto parchment above what God has written into the rocks is beyond me.

As most people aren't fluent in rock, there is translation in both cases. It might have some to do with how much you trust the translator.

bigdjiver
16th-August-2006, 11:50 PM
As most people aren't fluent in rock, there is translation in both cases. It might have some to do with how much you trust the translator.ah, the messenger syndrome. "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance."

It might also have something to do with how much you trust the creator of the original. Oddly shaped rocks? It's a bit like oddly shaped vegatables, ennit?

Once you accept that "you have got to have faith" they have got you. From then on nothing has to be subject to reasoned argument or logical proof.

Barry Shnikov
17th-August-2006, 10:04 AM
Urrrrr ... I belive there is some fairly significant evidence that Jesus Christ did exist.
That isn't important. What is important is whether the claims made for the man in the New Testament and in the writings of the church fathers are true. And for that you apply the following test: have I experienced anything remotely like people walking on water, people turning water into wine, people calming storms just by talking to them, and dead people coming back to life. If not, then you should certainly not accept English translations from Greek translations of Aramaic originals which themselves weren't written until at least 100 years after the person in question is said to have died.

{SNIP}I'm not aware of the Islamic, Hindu or similar faiths being able to point to similar evidence ... though that does not of course deny them as legitimate faiths.
Well, there's pretty solid evidence about the existence of Mohammed. Better than the evidence in respect of Jesus. Plus don't forget Islam accepts Jesus as a major prophet.
The Hindu faith is a different matter. Ganesh is a god who takes the form of an elephant, and Shiva has three pairs of arms. If there was evidence for that, we'd be living in a very different world!!

Dreadful Scathe
17th-August-2006, 12:49 PM
That isn't important. What is important is whether the claims made for the man in the New Testament and in the writings of the church fathers are true.

Which is a good point. "Jesus Christ" may then have been as common a name as John Smith, and no one can deny John Smith existed :) But was there a particular John Smith who will be written about centuries from now with miracles attributed to him, who knows.

bigdjiver
17th-August-2006, 01:09 PM
... And for that you apply the following test: have I experienced anything remotely like people walking on water, people turning water into wine, people calming storms just by talking to them, and dead people coming back to life...I have never seen anybody struck by lightning, win the lottery jackpot, a microbe, and atom ....
I have been in a Hovercraft, storms calm whilst people talk. Allegedly people have woken up in a mortuary, and others claim to have turned grapes into wine - those obviously could not happen because I have not witnessed them.
Some peoples mantra is "have faith", mine is more "have doubt".
I doubt an all powerful God that would need to lie to us and fill the rocks with stuff that looks like bones, that will only talk to selected few, and that needs minions to dispose of his "enemies".
One of my youthful heros was Millikan who allegedly (i did not see it) compared the ratio of the charge of an electron to its mass, which approximates to comparing nothing with nothing. Fashions in theories change, and a new theory arose that there should be things even smaller. The difficulty was that if such things existed Millikan should have detected them. Allegedly they went back to his notes, and he had crossed out those results that did not agree with his view, probably thinking they were errors.
It seems we cannot trust anybody, even ourselves, even though we/they have the best of intentions.

Dreadful Scathe
17th-August-2006, 01:11 PM
some silly stats (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618)

on the subject of who thinks jesus is the son of god, the silly stats above say 70% of americans do - yet only 54% deny reincarnation, something that is quite incompatible with modern Christian doctrine, although the idea has been flirted with in the past (http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html)

more silly stats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm)

I like silly stats. Apparantly 17% of Brtions opted for intelligent design as a the closest match to their view of the origin and development of life. That could be aliens, and doesnt necessarily mean religion. 22% said "creationism" which could cover any one of hundreds of religions that have a specific creation story.

Which just goes to show how useless general questions are in statistics :)

straycat
17th-August-2006, 03:55 PM
Ive heard it said that the holy spirit was in the people who transcribed the parts of the bible

I didn't even know they had decent single malts back then!!!

Barry Shnikov
18th-August-2006, 08:26 AM
Aha. Somebody fell into the trap (well, a bit).

I have been in a Hovercraft, storms calm whilst people talk. Allegedly people have woken up in a mortuary, and others claim to have turned grapes into wine - those obviously could not happen because I have not witnessed them.

It's no good if Jesus managed these things by tricks, or if ordinary things in the course of events were wrongly perceived by people as miracles.
I remember being told 'Even if Jesus didn't actually feed 5,000 people with 2 loaves and 5 fishes, wasn't it a miracle that everyone was prepared to share what little food they had with everybody else".
Um, no. That's just nice, and you can see something like it at any pop festival.
Unless they were real miracles, then the New Testament is just serving up fibs and then we are all asked to accept the whole thing as gospel. (Arf - see what I did there?)
What is weird is why 5,000 people, at least 1800 years before anyone invented burger vans, followed Jesus out into the middle of the countryside without making sure they had a snack.

Barry Shnikov
18th-August-2006, 08:27 AM
I didn't even know they had decent single malts back then!!!
They did, but only in Ireland, 'cos the Scots hadn't copied them yet...

El Salsero Gringo
18th-August-2006, 10:06 AM
... you should certainly not accept English translations from Greek translations of Aramaic originals which themselves weren't written until at least 100 years after the person in question is said to have died. ...and I suppose you've *never* asked anyone to show you last week's intermediate class, huh?
What is weird is why 5,000 people, at least 1800 years before anyone invented burger vans, followed Jesus out into the middle of the countryside without making sure they had a snack.See? All the evidence-based science in the world will never explain that! Proof of Intelligent Design, if ever I heard such a thing.

Barry Shnikov
18th-August-2006, 10:09 AM
...and I suppose you've *never* asked anyone to show you last week's intermediate class, huh?
Well, not since I moved to Southampton, anyway. The intermediate classes here are unbelievably tame. I am (reliably?) informed that this is because The Management believe that people will thereby feel an urge to fork out for the WEEKEND WORKSHOPS! where they will learn more challenging stuff...

El Salsero Gringo
18th-August-2006, 10:46 AM
Well, not since I moved to Southampton, anyway. The intermediate classes here are unbelievably tame. I am (reliably?) informed that this is because The Management believe that people will thereby feel an urge to fork out for the WEEKEND WORKSHOPS! where they will learn more challenging stuff...Oooohhhh... libel! slander!

Dreadful Scathe
18th-August-2006, 10:52 AM
Oooohhhh... libel! slander!
bring back the birch!! string 'im up I say.

Being forced to do nothing but beginners classes is too good for 'im I say!!

El Salsero Gringo
18th-August-2006, 11:21 AM
bring back the birch!! string 'im up I say.

Being forced to do nothing but beginners classes is too good for 'im I say!!The beginner's class is definitely too good for Barry!

Barry Shnikov
18th-August-2006, 01:22 PM
Oooohhhh... libel! slander!

Well...which?

Barry Shnikov
18th-August-2006, 01:23 PM
The beginner's class is definitely too good for Barry!

The beginner's class is too early for Barry...

DavidB
22nd-August-2006, 02:14 PM
How about this for a dismissal letter sent to a female Sunday School Teacher:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner."

http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=76479

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-August-2006, 02:33 PM
How about this for a dismissal letter sent to a female Sunday School Teacher:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner."

http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=76479
Wow, that was THIS month that happened. Theyre going to have a heart attack when Hilary Clinton becomes president :)

Barry Shnikov
22nd-August-2006, 07:01 PM
Wow, that was THIS month that happened. Theyre going to have a heart attack when Hilary Clinton becomes president :)

Another heart-warming demonstration of the loving approach to your fellow man that Jesus urged his devotees to adopt.