You're welcome. Got to be theologically correct when i can.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

...and those documents are "more important" according to what standard? The morality expressed in those documents?

I'm not disagreeing with you; I don't think the Bible makes a particularly good essay on proper morality (at least not taken as a single document).

I'm just always amused by phrases like "a better morality", they beg to be asked "what do you mean by better?"

I'm not aware of anywhere where the Bible claims absolute knowledge or that one's future punishment/reward depends on having 'faith' in the text. As I said, the Bible doesn't actually refer to itself anywhere.

But again, I know some people hold to these beliefs. I can't explain their reasoning and so I won't try.

Well I can't speak about people killing for any given text; I think that's absurd, especially when the text forbids just that. You'll have to ask someone who believes that's acceptable what their reasoning is.

As for taking its "intrinsic value" or taking it "seriously", let me ask you this: Which has more intrinsic value, your human rights declaration or Harry Potter #4? Which do you take more seriously, Plato's Republic or Curious George goes to the Zoo?

I hope you voted for the declaration and the Republic; I did. Yet neither of those claims a divine origin. Why do I value you them more than I value the others? Because I think they express something true and something beautiful that the others lack.

That's why I value the texts in the Bible; I think they express truth and beauty. In those texts you find beautiful expressions and descriptions of love, grace, truth, justice and stunning descriptions of their opposite vices. You find philosophic myths with intriguing characters and moral lessons. You find historical accounts of major events (according to the text THE major event in human history) that exist in such clariety no where else.

I don't need a doctrine of "divine authorship" to make the Bible a valuable text to me; and for the most part I don't have one.

WHAT?!?

Did you not read what I wrote? I wanted an explanation from someone who disagreed with me on the issue.

I just don't want someone who doesn't believe it to try and justify it for me. People are terrible at correctly expressing the reasoning behind beliefs they consider unreasonable.

I couldn't disagree more.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, in very large numbers globally hate gays, and cause them suffering, because god hates gays. They think they need to please god first, instead of empathizing, accepting, promoting, and loving their fellow human regardless of their sexual orientation. Gen. Pace's comments the other day were religiously motivated and he caused suffering to gays in order to please his god.

The most powerful christian institution on the planet preaches against condom use in aids ravaged africa because god does not support condom use, this causes direct suffering to untold millions of people. This official and influential institutions orders this from the top down, out of motivation to please god, not to alleviate the suffering of their fellow humans, which they would do if they were empathetic. (they believe they are preventing suffering in the afterlife which would come from going to hell for using birth control, that is insane, of course.

Stem cells. It is a religiously motivated law preventing embryonic stem cell research, this research has the potential to alleviate real human suffering, but it is lobbied against by christians because they think god would not approve. This causes direct suffering which would not happen if they had real empathy for their fellow human.

So whatever you are taught in sunday school is apparently not working for the masses. Im more interested in how christians behave in the real world, not how the increasingly rare moderate like yourself behaves.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

you are getting your "global" info from fred phelps

i am a christian i dont hate gays

my partents are zealots they dont hate gays

my brother is a preacher he doesnt hate gays

we dont think its a norm/natural but hate is not a word i would classify it as

you once again are demonizing the people you dont agree with it seems to be your thing and make you think you are right andrew

it doesnt , just like me deamonizing those that side with the terrorists, doesnt make my position any stronger nor does it change anything

but thats just my 2 cents

Precisely. They are fasr mopre moral than anything in the bible, and easier to understand as well. And they carry no baggage. And they can be modified as we learn more about ourselves. So much more value for those reasons alone.


I mean more valuable, more worth preserving, more effective. I.e., a moral document that calls for the murder of gay people is far worse than one that claims it is wrong. This should be self-evident. But hey, there it is, in many religious texts that people claim as a source for moral behavior. Only when sensibility and secular morals eventually push their way through do moderate religious people say well ok, that is just an fallible part of the bible, we recognize that now.... but why the resistance in the first place



The bible says god exists, really and truly, does it not? When i ask a religious preson how they know god exists they say its because the bible says so, and when i say how do you know the bible is right they say its because its the word of god....

I guess im confused as to the reason people latch on to the bible so tighlty if they don't truly beleive it has a divine source. That seems to be indispensable to christianity.

These are the people im criticizing, and there are lots of them, seems like more and more all the time.


There are at least a dozen religious wars raging as we speak.


I think they all have the same intrinsic value, in other words, none of them has any real value beyond what i as a thinking ape attach to it. Religious texts are considered to be more than this, by religious people, without any evidence.

True? In what way. logically true? sure. A universal truth? I doubt it. I could only value them for their ability to make life better for people. If they fail at that than they no longer hold any value for me. They should be scrutinized for their success at all times, never made absolute.

Truth and beaty to you, yes. Not to me. I find it quite boring and uninspired, and in other places i find it scary and brutal. In other places it is just childish. In some places i can see the ignorance people had 2000 years ago about earthly matters and human relationships.

Do you think it contains objective truth about the universe?
Thats good. I respect that you as an individual find value in it. My criticisms are not directed to you than.


Ahh... my apologies, i misread you there.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Other Christians don't think you are a Christian. Not that you care. But you don't define Christianity, i look at polls and scary numbers of people who are Christian feel this way. They are proud of it. Add in the millions of other religions who share the same feelings and it is an enormous problem.

Doesn't matter. The feelings are religiously motivated, that is undeniable.

Than he should be preaching against the large numbers of christians who do.

Ahh, so here it is. Not normal or natural? Based on what? What do you know about normal and what is natural? Where did you learn what was natural and normal. I cant point to many animal species that engage in homosexuality, and you say they aren't natural or normal? Your only source for this could be religious. And that leads to hate, whether you possess it or not.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I have no answers for that kind of circular reasoning. I am equally perplexed.

Surprise! I don't consider it indispensible at least. It's a book. An extremely profound and IMO valuable book, but still just a book (or collection of books, as the case may be).

Which is a tragedy, I agree.

I'm not sure what "make life better" means in this sense.
It sounds perilously close to "if it makes people happy, it doesn't matter if its true or not" or "whatever makes people happy is true."
But I'm hesitant to attribute that sort of silliness to you, so I'm probably misunderstanding.

Ooooh, based on past experience I'm extremely wary of the phrase "objective truth", so I'd perfer a definition before I answer that one.

Is the fact that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea an "objective truth about the universe"? Cause that's in there.

Thank you. I hope that, if you don't find the same truth and beauty that I do in the Bible, you find it somewhere else.

lol, no worries. My first thought was "oh crap! I mis-typed and probably looked like an idiot!"

you once again equate all with some

and the average christian with fred phelps

isnt that what you dog others for

republicans for?

Indeed. Andrewl doesn't seem to realize that he is using a logical fallacy by attacking strawmen to support his inductive reasoning.

Also, it seems that the crux of his argument is an illicit major fallacy (aka sweeping conclusion) that takes the following form...

(A sometimes = B) Some Christians read the bible
(A sometimes = C) Some Christains hate fags
( Therefore B = C) Therefore the bible hates fags

It's illogical nonsense.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Didn't Aquinas use Aristotelian logic to prove the existence of God? What about Anselme's proof? Same thing eh? Use of logic? No?

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Actually no. Aquinas used reason but not logic. And his "reasonable" proof rested on the "argument from ignorance". He regarded the fact that we are unaware of the nature of the "first mover" as proof of God's existance. Anselm's proof was flawed in that it is based on a premise which is a value judgement.

Logic is a strictly defined formal system which is only capable of deriving proofs within that system. It has no application outside that formal system and the existance of God cannot be reduced to terms which can be included in the system.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Thanks timj - that certainly clears up some misconceptions I had.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

And yet, still somehow true:

From Leviticus:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

AND

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I never stated a goal to help someone come to an understanding of reality. I've spent months presenting logical arguments that undermine "faith" and yet those entrenched in faith stick with it. A message board likely isn't going to be the place to stop someone from believing inanities. However, I do believe that my posts likely have an effect on those on the "margins" or "on the fence," the "undecided," if you will. That's my real target audience.

And, for the record, I get no "rush" of feelin