Americans hate Obamacare

btw, an atheist can AFFIRM to tell the truth in a court instead of "swearing". It's completely legal (of course), and it's already been done many times
 
metalman said:
But the sky faerie says that, if he "did the crime" he must "do the time"
Click to expand...
What the sky faerie says is irrelevant (and imaginary). The majority of cultures over time have had different faeries and they all seem to punish crime.
a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, is the same as killing a cow, there is a social advantage to not being caught killing someone, but it just a matter of risk versus reward.
Click to expand...
And an evolutionary moralist will say that a person who repeatedly tries to get away with this stuff in small groups like the social groups humans lived in for the majority of their history would not get away with it for long and that any group that did not punish such behaviour would die out as a group. Living in cooperative groups has evolutionary advantages and animals that developed emotional cues that helped them remain cooperative and also remove the non-cooperators or the detrimental behaviours would be selected for.

That does not mean that there won't be people who transgress and that there won't be people who gain some temporary advantage by cheating - it happened all throughout Christian history too. Punishment for "bad" behaviour is important. Look at the financial industry to see what happens if bad behaviour is not punished (and the bankers are doing God's work).
 
faethor said:
Islamic Congressman Ellison swore into office using Jefferson's copy of the Koran.
Click to expand...

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. During the meeting, Jefferson and Adams asked the ambassador why Muslims held such hostility toward America, a nation with which they had had no previous contacts. The ambassador replied “It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to [P]aradise.” So Jefferson purchased a copy of a Quran after the meeting.

Within days of his inauguration, Jefferson ordered four warships to sail to the Barbary Coast and blockade and attack any Barbary State that was at war with the United States

Jefferson’s copy of the Quran was his research, to help him understand the nature and mentality of the Muslim enemy.

taqiyya:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be mostly truthful to each other, but lying to infidels is permitted

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."
Qur'an (40:28) - one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

From Islamic Law
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And an evolutionary moralist will say that a person who repeatedly tries to get away with this stuff in small groups like the social groups humans lived in for the majority of their history would not get away with it for long and that any group that did not punish such behaviour would die out as a group. Living in cooperative groups has evolutionary advantages and animals that developed emotional cues that helped them remain cooperative and also remove the non-cooperators or the detrimental behaviours would be selected for.
Click to expand...

true, but we no longer live in small groups

Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
 
metalman said:
atheists
If you make your own rules, you can do whatever you want
Click to expand...
That's the old "if they were evil then they were atheists, no matter what they say they were" non-argument. You are arguing a fantasy. You change the facts to fit your beliefs. (Does that sort of immoral behaviour mean that you are actually an atheist?)
 
if being an atheist is so bad for society than why are places like Sweden - who are very atheist - full of happy people?? who mostly don't go around committing crimes??

and why are places like the south - which is heavily religious - full of crimes, abortions, uneducated, miserable people??

religion seems to suck
 
metalman said:
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff. And like the Bible it appears Islams pick and choose. The things you cited may be offensive but spend some time reading the book of laws aka Pentatuch. ReligionS are offensive....
 
cecilia said:
if being an atheist is so bad for society than why are places like Sweden - who are very atheist - full of happy people?? who mostly don't go around committing crimes??
Click to expand...
Anders Behring Breivik - mass murder in Norway! See how evil their societies are they produce mass murders who are Christian Fundamentalists.
 
faethor said:
Anders Behring Breivik - mass murder in Norway! See how evil their societies are they produce mass murders who are Christian Fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
exactly. and most people's (In Norway) reaction to him is that he's mentally ill. they don't hate him. they feel sorry for him.
 
faethor said:
Interesting stuff. And like the Bible it appears Islams pick and choose. The things you cited may be offensive but spend some time reading the book of laws aka Pentatuch. ReligionS are offensive....
Click to expand...

The difference is how the two books are interpreted

The Quran is interpreted as the "literal word of God" as transmitted directly by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed

The Bible is interpreted as the revelation of God as imperfectly transcribed by man, (for most mainline denominations, a few take the bible literally, e.g. creationists) as part history, part allegory
So if there is a conflict between the Bible and science, that part of the Bible them must be interpreted as an allegory (e.g. Genesis, and others)

The Old Testament is considered God's covenant with the Jewish people
The New Testament is considered God's covenant with the Gentiles, and Teachings are from the New Testament (e.g. Sermon on the Mount)

The Catholic Church maintains that the Bible is too difficult a book to be understood without the highest learning, years of study, and the special grace of understanding given to priests, and reading without proper guidance can result in your being misled.
It was the early Catholic Church that compiled the New Testament of the Bible, and decided what books were in it. Catholics are instructed to follow the churchs moral teachings in the catechism, rather by trying to interpret the Bible themselves, which is why some Protestants consider the Pope the Anti-Christ

Only small and easily interpreted selections from the Bible (almost all from the New Testament) are ever read in the Catholic Mass.
 
metalman said:
The Catholic Church maintains that the Bible is too difficult a book to be understood without the highest learning, years of study, and the special grace of understanding given to priests, and reading without proper guidance can result in your being misled.
Click to expand...
And it's true. Studying the Bible is likely to bring you to atheism. The church loses a lot of seminary students and priests this way.

Only small and easily interpreted selections from the Bible (almost all from the New Testament) are ever read in the Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
I.e. specially selected to not offend and to fit in with current social standards. Luckily there are a lot of different quotables in the Bible that can support different social standards hence the great staying power of the church. These days we like to concentrate more on the Hellenistic stuff that fills the New Testament - stuff that mystically derives from Homer and less Jewish and more Hellenistic morals. Western religions (pagan ones) really tamed the old Testament quite a lot - the Gentiles needed a religion that was closer to their beliefs than the Old Testament was so the new religion of Christ had to adapt to Western values.
 
faethor said:
Anders Behring Breivik - mass murder in Norway! See how evil their societies are they produce mass murders who are Christian Fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

Anders Behring Breivik proclaimed himself a Darwinian Atheist, who supported Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan "Nordic culture". He admits in his writtings, he could no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I.e. specially selected to not offend and to fit in with current social standards. Luckily there are a lot of different quotables in the Bible that can support different social standards hence the great staying power of the church. These days we like to concentrate more on the Hellenistic stuff that fills the New Testament - stuff that mystically derives from Homer and less Jewish and more Hellenistic morals. Western religions (pagan ones) really tamed the old Testament quite a lot - the Gentiles needed a religion that was closer to their beliefs than the Old Testament was so the new religion of Christ had to adapt to Western values.
Click to expand...

The readings run in three-year cycles; the gospel readings in the first year (Year A) are taken from the Gospel of Matthew, those in the second year (or Year B) from the Gospel of Mark, and in the third year (or Year C) come from the Gospel of Luke. Portions of the Gospel of John are read throughout Eastertide, and are also used for other liturgical seasons including Advent, Christmastide, and Lent where appropriate.

Revised Common Lectionary

The principle behind the lectionary is that on a Sunday members of congregations should be able to follow each writer week by week, rather than readings being selected according to a theme.
 
metalman said:
Anders Behring Breivik proclaimed himself a Darwinian Atheist, who supported Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan "Nordic culture". He admits in his writtings, he could no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas.
Click to expand...
While he did write he could no longer support either Catholic or Protestant it was because he views those churches as having turned away from true Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Berwick#Religious_and_political_views His manifesto appears to talk about how Christian he is. Now pastors have come out against him but it's not pastors that get to decide if one is a true Christian or not. That's fully between you and your God.

The difference is how the two books are interpreted
Click to expand...
Both books are interepeted in similar ways. We certainly have radical Islamics, they drove planes into the Twin Towers. We also have peaceful Islamics millions of whom operate within our societies and cause no harm whatsover. Likewise we have peaceful Christians millions of whom operate within society causing no harm whatsoever. But, we also have radical Christianity. The Catholic Church in the middle ages is a great example. If you want more modern radical Christians you can look at the KKK. the murder of doctors and destruction of abortion clinics in the USA (Army of God is one such terrorist group), Timothy McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army, fighting of Catholics and Protesants in Ireland, and The Lord's Resistance Army. There are more examples. Clearly both religions have a spectrum of followers. IMO the reasoning is religion and faith are morally ambigious.

So if there is a conflict between the Bible and science, that part of the Bible them must be interpreted as an allegory (e.g. Genesis, and others)
Click to expand...
The church, pastors, and citizens that contribute to the continued Bible Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkanas are but one of several Christians who disagree with your brand of Christianity. Many Fundamentalist Christian Churches also conceive of a literal translation.

Metalman - your version of Christianity sounds less 'bad'. Though it's clearly NOT the only version of Christianity out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top