Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't give a damn about your commandments

Oh, yes you do. You've condemned Christians for not living up to the second one.

Your god gives me no commands, either a principle is worth following on it's own merits or it is not.

If I said that I thought that murder was justified because of the principle of survival of the fittest would you conclude that was prima facie justification for the act?

There have been countless philosophers and theologians over the years who have had good ideas, that doesn't mean you can only adopt those ideas if you also choose to follow everything else they say.

What determines that an idea is 'good' or 'bad'? Are you saying that whatever is good for you must be good for everyone else?

What about the Muslims, and the Hindus and the pagans and the Buddhists?

They have their own faiths.

What about the athiests? Are they less worthy or less intelligent or less wise than the Christians?

I was one myself. The content of one's faith doesn't determine whether or not someone is 'intelligent'.

Does god love them less by setting in place conditions for their ancestors that then carry down through hundreds of generations?

God himself is adamant that faith is not inherited... Each individual has the choice to follow or reject him. Whether a individual chooses to accept him or reject him will determine whether or not they are saved. If in fact, we were condemned for the action of our forefathers than no one could be saved.

Or is it more likely that it doesn't actually make any sense.

Makes sense to me.

I.E. technical details of crap that wouldn't matter if you all just agreed on 'God is love' and threw all the other pointless **** away.

It matters quite a bit. We know a great deal about the universe because Einstein made testable predictions. Whether or not the prophecies in the Old Testament have been fulfilled by Christ is a grave matter.

Most painters care only about their creations, not that people love them personally.

I cannot see how one can love a painting without feeling a connection to the artist themselves. It is not the paint that causes us to love the painting, but the design - the soul of the artist. The same is true of man and God. We love the creation and the Creator.

More to the point though, if there truly is some creator whose power, mercy and love is without limits, why exactly would they need to tell you to love them?

If we could marry a robot who had a generated loop that said, "I love you", would that matter as much as having a real wife who said the same?

Surely such a being would command infinite love just through it's existence? Surely the whole 'You shall worship no gods other than me'/'love the lord thy god' stuff is the ultimate proof of deceit.

And the second part of the covenant, "you shall be my people, and I shall be your God". If he were not in fact God - why would he offer this covenant? It is an agreement. If you want God to be your God, you must accept him.

Those with real power don't need to go around telling everyone how powerful they are.

God's power is not predicated on acceptance of the Covenant. He made the offer to Abraham, Abraham was free to accept or reject the offer.

[Sava]

'Try not to be dicks to each other'?

Proper Christian churches focus on this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Christians are grafted into God's Israel, becoming part of God's chosen people.

I think its slightly more than that. A new covenant, not a grafting onto the old covenant (hence the lack of the need of snip-snip ).

[Ben Kenobi]

whether you agree or not, it is certainly possible to view god as man, and man as god.

Uh. No. I did not create myself. I was born (something I do not remember), and soon enough I will die. I have no control over that time, I cannot perceive my own future, and even my own past is somewhat lost.

he might be seen as the highest of man's ideals; or the various aspects of god (holiness, power, presence etc.) can be seen as projections of human self-consciousness.

If this were the case we ought to be able to create other people. We cannot.

my argument is that it doesn't matter what the bible says about them, and that using the bible as a guide to modern problems, except at the most abstract level, causes a lot of harm.

In what sense is marriage a 'modern construct'? It is not. The Bible is very clear that there is a transcendent model for marriage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Proper Christian churches focus on this.

I prefer the Bill & Ted version of it: "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES"

[Ben Kenobi]

Proper Christian churches focus on this.

Then why does Christ himself say that the first commandment is, "love the Lord your God". I guess even Christ himself went 'off message'.

[Sava]

Bill & Ted

I still really enjoy those movies.

[C0ckney]

Uh. No. I did not create myself. I was born (something I do not remember), and soon enough I will die. I have no control over that time, I cannot perceive my own future, and even my own past is somewhat lost.

If this were the case we ought to be able to create other people. We cannot.

this doesn't make sense. you appear to be making a number of assumptions, yet without making it clear what these are.

In what sense is marriage a 'modern construct'? It is not.

no one said it is. however, of course like every aspect of society it changes over time, depending on the particular historical period and context.

The Bible is very clear that there is a transcendent model for marriage.

no doubt, but the authors of the bible knew nothing of today's world (and indeed precious little of what came before, and an imperfect understanding on their own, outside a narrow regional context), or indeed of the historical processes which formed it. how could they. so we should consign their views about marriage, and all other aspects of social relations and norms, to mere points of historical interest.

[kentonio]

Oh, yes you do. You've condemned Christians for not living up to the second one.

If you're going to claim to be a member of a group that follow a strict set of rules, then it's not unreasonable to ask why you don't actually follow them. It also doesn't mean other people can't see the good in one part and redefine it outside the authoritarian structure.

If I said that I thought that murder was justified because of the principle of survival of the fittest would you conclude that was prima facie justification for the act?

We're talking about a principle for living life by, not a punishment for a crime. The argument for murder being wrong almost makes itself, you're depriving another of their own right to live. If you really need someone to command you to be a decent person, then you really need to start looking at yourself in the mirror.

What determines that an idea is 'good' or 'bad'? Are you saying that whatever is good for you must be good for everyone else?

You mean do exactly what you do when you claim that the word of god is absolute?

God himself is adamant that faith is not inherited... Each individual has the choice to follow or reject him. Whether a individual chooses to accept him or reject him will determine whether or not they are saved. If in fact, we were condemned for the action of our forefathers than no one could be saved.

Ok, so a child born into a fundamentalist Christian household has just the same 'freedom' to be a Christian as a child born in Sudan to a fundamentalist Islamic family has to be a Christian? Ok, that seems fair and definitely not reliant on previous generations...

It matters quite a bit. We know a great deal about the universe because Einstein made testable predictions. Whether or not the prophecies in the Old Testament have been fulfilled by Christ is a grave matter.

Prophicies?! Sweet ****ing jesus..

I cannot see how one can love a painting without feeling a connection to the artist themselves. It is not the paint that causes us to love the painting, but the design - the soul of the artist. The same is true of man and God. We love the creation and the Creator.

So why would you possibly need god to insist that you have to love him? Shouldn't the creation be enough?

If we could marry a robot who had a generated loop that said, "I love you", would that matter as much as having a real wife who said the same?

How does that make any sense? Why are you trying to dodge the question?

And the second part of the covenant, "you shall be my people, and I shall be your God". If he were not in fact God - why would he offer this covenant? It is an agreement. If you want God to be your God, you must accept him.

How does that make any sense if there is only one god and he is the creator of everything? Why wouldn't you need a covenant? Does god suddenly stop being your god until you accept him as your master? Isn't that a bit childish?

God's power is not predicated on acceptance of the Covenant. He made the offer to Abraham, Abraham was free to accept or reject the offer.

Free to reject it and face the wrath of a jealous god who had no problem wiping out entire cities and towns who displeased him? Seriously, isn't it about time Christians grew up and put the Old Testament away? It's a horrible work of violence and twisted morals.

[C0ckney]

we should consign their views about marriage, and all other aspects of social relations and norms, to mere points of historical interest.

it is the failure to do this, on the part of many people, that causes harm in today's world that i talked about. for example, a lot of prejudice that homosexuals face is an artefact of christian morality and social teaching.

[Ben Kenobi]

this doesn't make sense. you appear to be making a number of assumptions, yet without making it clear what these are.

Indeed, I am. I don't really see how one can consider people to be God. It's a category mistake.

It is not. no one said it is. however, of course like every aspect of society it changes over time, depending on the particular historical period and context.

If I were to bring a person from the 1st century into the world of today, marriage is one of the few things they would understand.

but the authors of the bible knew nothing of today's world

And again, marriage has not changed.

(and indeed precious little of what came before, and an imperfect understanding on their own, outside a narrow regional context), or indeed of the historical processes which formed it. how could they. so we should consign their views about marriage, and all other aspects of social relations and norms, to mere points of historical interest.

Why? When marriage is something that they would recognize and understand just as well today as before. You say it has changed, - it's pretty clear to me that it has not.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're going to claim to be a member of a group that follow a strict set of rules, then it's not unreasonable to ask why you don't actually follow them. It also doesn't mean other people can't see the good in one part and redefine it outside the authoritarian structure.

If Commandments didn't matter, you wouldn't affirm the second one. They do matter you just don't like the first commandment, and don't understand how the second one flows from the first. Love God AND love your neighbor. All in the manual.

We're talking about a principle for living life by, not a punishment for a crime.

And? Your point? Survival of the fittest implies that there is nothing wrong with murder as that is the fittest surviving at the expense of the weak.

The argument for murder being wrong almost makes itself

How? What's wrong with murder if one believes in Survival of the Fittest?

, you're depriving another of their own right to live. If you really need someone to command you to be a decent person, then you really need to start looking at yourself in the mirror.

So how is this any different from abortion? Human life has value because it is in the Image of God.

You mean do exactly what you do when you claim that the word of god is absolute?

I already know I'm a moral absolutist. My question is, are you?

Ok, so a child born into a fundamentalist Christian household has just the same 'freedom' to be a Christian as a child born in Sudan to a fundamentalist Islamic family has to be a Christian? Ok, that seems fair and definitely not reliant on previous generations...

The better question is if Christianity is true, what's your excuse? You live in a Christian country. You're assuming this is unfair, because Christianity is true, and not every country is Christian. Yet, on the other hand, you're saying that you reject Christianity. If it's not true, then there's nothing unfair about it.

Prophicies?! Sweet ****ing jesus..

Yes, sir. If someone makes a prediction and that prediction comes true, what then?

So why would you possibly need god to insist that you have to love him? Shouldn't the creation be enough?

I'm actually arguing that loving God helps us love his creation, including other people like yourself.

How does that make any sense? Why are you trying to dodge the question?

We have Free will, granted to us by God. God could force us to be automatons, but has chosen not to.

How does that make any sense if there is only one god and he is the creator of everything? Why wouldn't you need a covenant? Does god suddenly stop being your god until you accept him as your master? Isn't that a bit childish?

Yes, God stops being my God if I stop believing in him. That doesn't mean he stops being God. He just isn't MY God anymore.

And why did God sign a covenant with Israel? That's a very good question.

"For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him."

So, IOW, Abraham already believed before God signed the covenant with him.

Free to reject it and face the wrath of a jealous god who had no problem wiping out entire cities and towns who displeased him?

Please point out where God threatens Abraham when he offers him the covenant.

Seriously, isn't it about time Christians grew up and put the Old Testament away? It's a horrible work of violence and twisted morals.

Why? It's true. You don't like the New Testament any more than the Old.

[kentonio]

If Commandments didn't matter, you wouldn't affirm the second one. They do matter you just don't like the first commandment, and don't understand how the second one flows from the first. Love God AND love your neighbor. All in the manual.

No, they matter to YOU not me. If you ignore any of them you're a hypocrite, if I decide a couple have value if taken outside the overall structure, then that has no wider meaning because I'm not claiming to be an adherent to the faith.

And? Your point? Survival of the fittest implies that there is nothing wrong with murder as that is the fittest surviving at the expense of the weak.

What does survival of the fittest have to do with anything at all?

So how is this any different from abortion? Human life has value because it is in the Image of God.

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist bringing up abortion for the thousandth thread in a row. Please try and be less boring.

Human life to me and many others has value because it's finite and the only chance we'll have to appreciate the wonders of the world. I don't need a god to value life.

I already know I'm a moral absolutist. My question is, are you?

Obviously not. Is it ok to murder? Is it ok to murder if that murder saves the lives of a million people? There are basically no moral absolutes, and the sign of a mature civilization is developing ways to accept that and still try and provide the highest possible levels of quality of life and human rights to it's citizens.

The better question is if Christianity is true, what's your excuse? You live in a Christian country. You're assuming this is unfair, because Christianity is true, and not every country is Christian. Yet, on the other hand, you're saying that you reject Christianity. If it's not true, then there's nothing unfair about it.

I was born in a Christian country, went to sunday school as a kid, read the bible, and I think the whole thing is nonsense. Why do I need an excuse for why your disjointed and contradictory religion isn't convincing?

Why? It's true. You don't like the New Testament any more than the Old.

Of course it's not true, don't be silly. I actually like the NT a hell of a lot more than the OT as a moral guide. One of the chief problems with the NT is that in order to not simply be killed by the Jews as a heretic, Jesus had to invent his religion in such a way as to fit around the existing beliefs of the time. He couldn't just say 'That old book is seriously ****ed up, ignore it and follow this one', he had to pretend Christianity was a progression of the old way. The problem there is that it isn't a continuation of the previous belief system, it's utterly different which is why half of the ridiculous contradictions come out.

Please explain for instance why the bible gives not one but two genealogies showing Jesus descendent from David when a) the lists are different and b) Jesus was supposedly a virgin birth and therefore had no biological relation to his father anyway.

[kentonio]

Yes, sir. If someone makes a prediction and that prediction comes true, what then?

This is just stupid. Prophetic interpretation is about as accurate as those hucksters who scam money by claiming they can talk to the dead. It's just cold calling spread out over centuries or millenium.

"Is there a John in the room?"

Do you even realize how many times those prophesies have been believed to be true so far? You don't think Adolf Hitler was thought by millions of people to have been the bloody anti-christ for instance?

[C0ckney]

Indeed, I am. I don't really see how one can consider people to be God. It's a category mistake.

as i said before, whether you agree or not it's perfectly possible to view god as man, and man as god. of course a christian, or follower of another abrahamic religion won't agree that god is man and man is god, but should at least recognise the possibility of viewing the matter this way.

And again, marriage has not changed.

Why? When marriage is something that they would recognize and understand just as well today as before. You say it has changed, - it's pretty clear to me that it has not.

nonsense. in many countries around the world it is now possible for two people of the same sex to marry. this is a recent development and was not the case before. ergo it has changed (there have been many other changes at other times, but let's be honest this is the issue you want to talk about).

If I were to bring a person from the 1st century into the world of today, marriage is one of the few things they would understand.

that's not really true, but rather than get into a fruitless debate about it, i will simply note that you accept that our person from biblical times would recognise very little about today's world and therefore, by implication, accept his opinions on social and political questions would be of next to no value.