Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

Human life to me and many others has value because it's finite

This still doesn't work against the argument for murder. Just because something is scarce doesn't mean it's wrong to take it for your own use.

No, they matter to YOU not me

You're the one who claimed, "Christians should love their neighbor", which is the second commandment.

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.

You are claiming, "Christians ought to believe as you do." and "Christians ought to love their neighbor". If this is merely your personal opinion, neither of these two claims stand. If these are commandments, then yes, Christians ought to follow them, as well as the first commandment to Love God.

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.

Why is quality of life important?

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?

The it stands to reason that it's hardly unfair that some are not as exposed to it.

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.

You've rejected the most important thing in the entire New Testament. "Love the Lord your God". First commandment.

[Ben Kenobi]

as i said before, whether you agree or not it's perfectly possible to view god as man, and man as god.

How? If you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to argue that man is 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.

Again, it's a category mistake.

nonsense. in many countries around the world it is now possible for two people of the 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).

This is begging the question. You're arguing, "society has changed now, ergo, what is true before is no longer true" When this is precisely the question at hand.

So if a random 1st century person were to walk into a random marriage today, you are arguing that they wouldn't understand it? I don't see it.

Fiddle with the knobs all you like, this is true just as now as it was yesterday. You aren't going to change something that society has ran on for millennium just because you feverishly wish it were not true.

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.

The point is that this is something he would recognize, ergo his opinion on it would have merit. Checkmate.

Your argument isn't that Christianity has nothing to offer today's society, your argument is that Christian teachings are incorrect and therefore should be discarded because you consider them to be wrong.

You also seem to believe that homosexuality did not exist in 1st century Greece. Are you really this dense?

[Sava]

How? If you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to argue that man is God.

All discussions involving "God" or "gods" or other mythical creatures don't make sense, by default.

[Ben Kenobi]

All discussions involving "God" or "gods" or other mythical creatures don't make sense, by default.

Thank you. This is why arguing that 'man can become God' is 100 percent irrational for an atheist.

[Sava]

(Arguing "there is a god" is equally as irrational)

[kentonio]

This still doesn't work against the argument for murder. Just because something is scarce doesn't mean it's wrong to take it for your own use.

If you don't understand why taking something of immense value away from another person purely for your own benefit is morally wrong, then you need psychological help.

You're the one who claimed, "Christians should love their neighbor", which is the second commandment.

You are claiming, "Christians ought to believe as you do." and "Christians ought to love their neighbor". If this is merely your personal opinion, neither of these two claims stand. If these are commandments, then yes, Christians ought to follow them, as well as the first commandment to Love God.

If you're a Christian then of course you should. Otherwise you're just being a hypocrite. That doesn't make them all true or necessary.

Why is quality of life important?

Because you only get one life, and if you waste it dreaming about some heavenly reward after death then you've just wasted the only thing of true value you'll ever had. That's pretty sad.

Then it stands to reason that it's hardly unfair that some are not as exposed to it.

No it doesn't. How is it fair to expect someone who is totally isolated from your belief system (and sometimes raised being taught it's all lies) to have as much chance of adopting it as someone in a Christian family? It's nonsensical.

You've rejected the most important thing in the entire New Testament. "Love the Lord your God". First commandment.

I reject the entire thing, because it's largely nonsensical. That doesn't stop me thinking it's more morally palatable than the vile blood soaked old testament. ****, even you'd be stoned to death if you were ever judged by that nasty book of fearmongering.

[kentonio]

Thank you. This is why arguing that 'man can become God' is 100 percent irrational for an atheist.

[C0ckney]

How? If you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to argue that man is God.

why not? it's a philosophical position that has been advanced by various thinkers. thinkers who reject god, but see the idea of god as an important one, and one that should be taken seriously, even if not a true one, .

This is begging the question. You're arguing, "society has changed now, ergo, what is true before is no longer true" When this is precisely the question at hand.

So if a random 1st century person were to walk into a random marriage today, you are arguing that they wouldn't understand it? I don't see it.

Fiddle with the knobs all you like, this is true just as now as it was yesterday. You aren't going to change something that society has ran on for millennium just because you feverishly wish it were not true.

this makes very little sense. you said that marriage hasn't changed. it clearly has, and i've provided gay marriage as an example of change. when i say marriage (i limit myself here to the western context), i mean a state sanctioned contract between two people to live together and share their lives and possessions in some way, and that confers certain rights and responsibilities to the parties. what do you mean by it?

i also don't think you understand what begging the question means.

The point is that this is something he would recognize, ergo his opinion on it would have merit. Checkmate.

this is pathetic even by your low standards.

Your argument isn't that Christianity has nothing to offer today's society, your argument is that Christian teachings are incorrect and therefore should be discarded because you consider them to be wrong.

my argument is contained in post 70. if you have not understood it, then reread it. if you still don't understand, then ask.

[rah]

I think if we took someone from the way past that they would not recognize marriage as it is today.

Not arranged. Inter-racial marriages. Marriages with no intent of children. Quickie divorces.

[C0ckney]

indeed, the ceremonies, expectations, motivations etc. would be very different. and crucially, they have changed and varied through time, according to the particular economic, social and cultural circumstances in a particular place and historical period.

[Sava]

I think if we took someone from the way past that they would not recognize marriage as it is today.

Not arranged. Inter-racial marriages. Marriages with no intent of children. Quickie divorces.

But... TEH GAYS!

Their agenda is rewriting the definition of marriage!!!!

[rah]

No Dowries. Rich marrying poor people. No King bedding the bride. Prenups.

Yep, just like the old days.

[Sava]

also... divorce...

but to be fair to the psychos, they are against that too

[Ben Kenobi]

I think if we took someone from the way past that they would not recognize marriage as it is today.

Not arranged.

Even the Emperor managed to marry a courtesan.

Inter-racial marriages.

See Alexander the Great.

Marriages with no intent of children.

Uh, do you have any familiarity with the late-Roman era?

Quickie divorces.

Mhmmm, again, Ancient Rome had all of these things.

No Dowries. Rich marrying poor people. No King bedding the bride. Prenups.

Again, ancient Rome had all of these things.

[Ben Kenobi]

indeed, the ceremonies, expectations, motivations etc. would be very different. and crucially, they have changed and varied through time, according to the particular economic, social and cultural circumstances in a particular place and historical period.

I walk into a marriage ceremony, they are really not all that different from each other. Husband makes a profession to the wife, and the wife agrees with the husband.

Do you know anything about Roman-era marriage? Yes, there are some differences, but all the important concepts of matrimony are all there.