Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

It's self-contradictory. If one rejects God, then it makes no sense to argue that men are God. It makes sense to argue that there is no God, and that men have to govern themselves, but to argue that men can become God, is not compatible with any form of atheism.

you said that marriage hasn't changed. it clearly has, and i've provided gay marriage as an example of change.

Christ, someone from the 20s could figure out what a car is today because he's seen cars. Are you really arguing that someone who's seen and lived through marriages, many of them, wouldn't be able to recognize a marriage for what it is today?

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?

Matrimony, between husband and wife, again - walk into a random marriage - has it changed sufficiently? No. And that's my point. The same structures are still all there, notwithstanding the desire of some to argue that it's different. Sure, some folks, play at marriage, but it doesn't change the reality of what marriage actually is and that it's not changed.

Painting over the car and calling it something else isn't going to change the fact that it's still a car.

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

You're assuming what you are trying to prove.

this is pathetic even by your low standards.

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

Then you'll have to actually refute the argument that marriage in general has changed sufficiently to be unrecognizable to an outside observer from Roman times. Instead of bleating, "of course it's different". No, it's not. I can walk into a wedding of a different culture and figure out what's going on without someone telling me, even if I've never been in that culture before.

This is actually an argument from anthropology! You should be jumping all over this! I'm arguing there are basic features of marriage that transcend cultural differences.

So why are you getting smacked around?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Survival of the Fittest would argue that I have an obligation to make an attempt to do so if it's in my self interest.

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.

You've stated you don't believe in moral absolutes, meaning the concept of 'hypocrisy', doesn't actually exist for you.

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.

So why would it be wrong for me to improve my standard of living at the expense of others?

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.

Again, this argument relies upon the presupposition is that Christianity is in fact a universal truth. If it's not - then there's no reason why depriving people of it would be harmful to them.

I reject the entire thing, because it's largely nonsensical.

Thank you. Finally. Glad to get that out in the open.

That doesn't stop me thinking it's more morally palatable than the vile blood soaked old testament.

You say you reject all of it meaning you can no longer appeal to the New Testament for *anything* - including the preposition that Christians should love their neighbors.

****, even you'd be stoned to death if you were ever judged by that nasty book of fearmongering.

So was Jesus.

[rah]

If you actually think that marriage hasn't change in general over the centuries, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. And I didn't think that was possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you actually think that marriage hasn't change in general over the centuries, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. And I didn't think that was possible.

Uh, you really think interracial marriage is a 20th century novelty?

It's changed, sure, but the concept of Matrimony can be found in Roman society going back as far as there's been a recorded Rome.

It's not a new idea.

[Berzerker]

the pope criticizes the mafia

and supports criminalizing pot

doh!

[Sava]

the pope criticizes the mafia

and supports criminalizing pot

doh!

The mafia are horrible and bad. We should guarantee them a source of income.

[rah]

It's changed, sure

Thank you. Since that was my point. Geeze

[kentonio]

Survival of the Fittest would argue that I have an obligation to make an attempt to do so if it's in my self interest.

I repeat the question you ignored the first time: "What does survival of the fittest have to do with anything at all?"

You've stated you don't believe in moral absolutes, meaning the concept of 'hypocrisy', doesn't actually exist for you.

Don't be stupid, what does moral absolutism have to do with hypocrisy? That makes no sense.

So why would it be wrong for me to improve my standard of living at the expense of others?

Because you don't need to believe and fear a creator figure to desire a world where the lives of all are enriched by cooperation rather than conflict.

Again, this argument relies upon the presupposition is that Christianity is in fact a universal truth. If it's not - then there's no reason why depriving people of it would be harmful to them.

We were still at the point of picking gaping holes in religion at the time when that came up. Of course there's no harm depriving people of it.

Thank you. Finally. Glad to get that out in the open.

What, that I find the dogma of organized religion nonsensical? When was that NOT out in the open?

You say you reject all of it meaning you can no longer appeal to the New Testament for *anything* - including the preposition that Christians should love their neighbors.

Does anything you say actually make sense even in your own head? Do you really see everything in such ridiculously stark black and white that you can't even wrap your brain around a (fairly simple) concept?

So was Jesus.

So why in the hell would you refer to it as a foundation for your beliefs then for crying out loud?

[Berzerker]

The mafia are horrible and bad. We should guarantee them a source of income.

so true, god cant be too smart if this guy speaks for him

[Sava]

God has already settled this issue. Someone should tell this pope.

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth

Why does the pope disagree with God?

You don't even have to hunt through the Bible for this. It's in the beginning.

Though, it's possible God is just against feminized seeds. But then he'd be pro-male and pro-hermaphrodite.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you. Since that was my point. Geeze

So have cars. Doesn't mean that there's no longer 'cars' around.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does the pope disagree with God?

You don't even have to hunt through the Bible for this. It's in the beginning.

Funny man.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

For sustenance.

[Sava]

Funny man.



For sustenance.

I don't see the word "only" there. And you only addressed one specific quote. There's litany of verses clearly stating we can do whatever the **** we want with plants.

Wait a minute... if you're arguing against it, it must be correct.

Thanks for the confirmation (another thing you never had ).

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see the word "only" there.

I notice you conveniently chopped off the 'for sustenance' portion of the verse.

And you only addressed one specific quote. There's litany of verses clearly stating we can do whatever the **** we want with plants.

For sustenance, yes.

Do you use pot the same way you use a Hamburger?

[Sava]

The verse you refer to says this:

To you it will be for meat

Wrong again!