|
| Thread: what relievence does religion have now? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted July 21, 2009 02:00 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:01, 21 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Self defence is killing a perosn to defend your life. In the event that a woman is pregnant and somehow here life is in danger from the unborn child and she can't have a C-section she is justified in having an abortion.
But then, by the same logic, and taken into account your opinion that fertilized eggs are also children, if a mother was to choose between someone murdering her child and murdering her, she'd save herself and doom her child?
Oh and your country will always tell you that other countries are aggressors. I don't see how Vietnam committed acts of aggression against the USA, and yet you know what happened.
Just wars... come on. By that logic, you'd participate in the crusades (since in the middle ages you'd believe that's the just cause due to propaganda spread around). And, well, any war your country of birth ever decided to lead - since your country is the only infallible one and everyone it declares war to is an aggressor. You believe that's America cause you're American; if you were German you'd have believed it's Germany. See what my point is?
A bomb with a cross drawn onto it is still a bomb. A dead child is a dead child. No matter if it's American or Indian or Martian or how anyone's trying to justify it.
And God's judgment is God's judgment.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 03:28 PM |
|
|
@ Baklava
I have said before that the crusades were wrong. Well, the first ones were not because they were repelling Muslim invaders. Oh, and what's up with you saying I would participate in the Crusades and talking about bombs with crosses on them?
I have no idea what you are talking bout with the mother-unborn child thing. If a mother's life is in danger because the unborn child somehow is causing a health issue that puts her life in danger she is free to abort the abort the baby to preserve her life. That would be self-defense.
Yes, there are just wars. If N Korea decided to launch a nuclear missile against the US the US would be justified in going to war against N Korea.
And of course as a Christian I accept the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible clearly indicates that there are just wars. Religion is relevant in determining if a war is just or not. Because of God absolute morality exists. If there were only subjective morals there would no just or unjust wars because the terms would have only subjective meanings.
Here is a relevant passage from the Bible. As a Christian I am instructed to live in peace with all men if it is possible. If it is not possible, then hostility is not my fault. The same principle would apply to nations. Try to get along with others but some folks/nations are not possible to live peaceably with.
Quote:
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
So moral guidance is one of the ways that the religion is relevant today.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 03:43 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:47, 21 Jul 2009.
|
From today's point of view, you see they were wrong. But if you had been born back in those times, when everyone was talking about how just and necessary the crusades are, with your way of thinking you would probably support them. That's all I said.
Bombs with crosses are a metaphor.
I drew the parallel with the mother because you said unborn babies are as valuable and alive as born babies and children overall. You said abortion is murder - so, according to your logic, the mother is apparently faced with a choice of dying while giving birth to her child, or surviving but "murdering" that child. So, is it Christian to save your own life over a baby's?
And what if North Korea never planned to launch a nuclear missile but your government said it did? That's what happened with Iraq, didn't it? Your government fed you with stories of Iraqi WMDs and they didn't find any, in the end.
You need to be careful with what authority you respect and when.
No nation and no man will ever say that hostility is his fault. But it still has to be someone's fault. And you know who that someone is?
He who loses the war.
Had Germany won WW2, the Allies would remain remembered as aggressors.
Think about it.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 06:17 PM |
|
|
Okay elodin,let me qoute you sevral pages,of sevral places and we do the math,togethehr.
There is a part in the Tanach(old testamony) that speaks of how much people worth.
acording to the begining:
The Israelite man
He's servants
he's donkey
Hes wife
The rest of the people (ie not israelite).
later they update it
the israelite man
hes wife
hes servants
hes donkey/mule
The rest of the people (ie not israelite).
Meaning: signs of xenophobia in early judiaism.
Meaning if i am a jew and your not,you dont worth my mule? thats 1.
In the Qoran there is a part that speaks That all Infidels need to die by the sword. Infidels they mean people whop don't belive in allahh and the princibles of islam,ie ALL NOT MUSLIM.
meaning: if your not muslim and i am,i can kill you,for no cort.
Christinity was based of judahism. in most of it context,except for sevral changes.
notice how so devide the chrisnity became that you get to have angliken church,Cathlic and proslav. What it differs in? the amount of money each took.
i blaime chrisnity of meny things,but most of all,i blaim it for Spanish Inquisition.
how meny lifes lost then,becose someone tough they are infidels,doing the devil work.
presuime i am doing the devils work would it let you the right to kill me,or so?
the inquistion basicly contricted itself,therefore it lied. Since "god" said dont kill,but they kill who dont belive in that "god" so?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 08:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I support just wars.
Since when has a war been just? Since when has ANY war been anything but the self-interest of the higher-ups? Sure the poor plebeians always had to fight since Roman days, because otherwise they couldn't afford a decent meal. With the small variation in feudal days when they had the choice of going to war or being put to the sword. A war is never just, never. There is always a solution where everyone can live and there is no excuse for any other outcome.
Quote:
Religion is relevant in determining if a war is just or not. Because of God absolute morality exists. If there were only subjective morals there would no just or unjust wars because the terms would have only subjective meanings.
And what is this absolute morality? Brotherly love and peace? Morals are only created in ways that society is forged. Otherwise we'd still burn heretics (and it still happened a short while ago) and kill any man daring to kiss another man!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 10:03 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:06, 21 Jul 2009.
|
@ Baklava
It is impossible for you to determine what I would or would not have done if I had lived during the Crusades. I already told you (and said in other threads) that I did not believe in the Crusades.
A mother should be allowed to make the choice to save herself or save her unborn baby in my opinion. If you don't think so, fine.
What if an alien from outer space launched a missile and blamed it on N Korea? We could come up with "what-if" scenarios all day long for years. The fact is you have to make decision based on what you believe. If a nuclear missile hits the US it will be obvious. If it were shot down than I would have to take the word of the government because odds are I wasn't there to see it. Based on the ranting of the N Korea dictator I would not be surprised if he did something crazy.
@ Antipaladin
Perhaps you could quote the verses for me because I have read the Old Testament many times and that is not in there. Perhaps you are thinking of the Talmud or another Rabbinical writing. Again, please cite your source.
Blame Christianity all you want. Christ said to love and pray for our enemies and to do good to them. No Christian can be a murderer according to the Bible. Allow me to cite my source.
Quote:
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Jesus warned his flock that there would be wolves in sheepskin and false prophets. It is no surprise that predators will try to hide in an innocent form.
It is illogical to blame a religion for the actions of people who claim to follow the religion but who violate the teachings of the religion.
No, Christians are not allowed to kill someone because they think the person is doing the work of the devil. Christians are not authorized to punish any sin. Sin within the nation of Israel was punished because it was a violation of the nation's civil Law. The church is obviously not a physical nation and has no civil laws.
@ DagothGares
If you don't think a nation is justified in defending itself against a nation that attacks it, that is your right. But may I point out that nation would soon cease to exist. Or would be ruled over by the other country.
As I Christian I believe absolute morality is defined in the Bible. It comes from God. If you think morality is relative, fine. There is a thread for discussing if morality is relative or absolute. If you wish to discuss this further, please use that thread to comment on it so no one will accuse us of being off topic.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
I of course think that the mother should abort in order to save her life. It's just that your logic implied differently and I was merely pointing that out. 
And, certainly, I can't know for sure whether you'd participate in the crusades, I can only tell you what would be the most probable outcome. Who knows what I'd do.
I'd probably have gotten burned on a stake before I've managed to do anything though 
Bush also ranted. A lot. And he did something crazy. Yet no one bombed him.
Why? Because America's righteous? Because that was God's will? No. Because America's the most powerful around.
Iraq didn't launch any missiles on the USA. I wasn't talking about the case when someone does something, but when someone tells you someone is planning to do something and, because of that, wants you to go across the sea and shoot at people. I have trouble connecting that to God.
Hence, I don't believe in the righteousness of wars.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 11:52 PM |
|
|
elodin: i do remmber clearly studying that in school.
Book of Leviticus is where you could find those passages,the book speaks about normativitie's of social and moral.
also you need god to tell you what's moral?
you can't tell yourself?
who thought you not to steal,god,or your perents? Education->Colture->Moral.[evniormentle]
codes of moral that had passed from father to son in thusands of years.
the bible speaks of 5000, years of earth existence,archeological evidence speak of more. you discount them as being ludacriss on the grounds it defiles god? you know in israel in schools you do finals in a subject called Tanach (old testamony couse juidahism does not recognise the new one). you know how meny Defacts in moral code there are? i dont mean just reading,but studying,as in what it means. not the translation,but the bible language(aicent hebrew). the latters are the same,but not the're combination. logic can help,but understanding even more. see they simplify it in translations. Ceansure. good things in hebrew tanach,they aren't allowed to even fix grammatical errors. so its Original,so to speak.
lets go basicare. Levicticus,what does it means in latin? Becouse Vaikra (the true name,can't argue there). means to be called,read,and thought.
edit: okay,wars huh? name 5 just and 5 unjust wars in the past 100 years and why?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
|
@antipalaidn.
I'm sorry, I can't accept your claim of a "pecking order" value of human life that you present the Bible as saying. I have read Leviticus and the other Bible books many times and it is not there. If you are able to cite your source I will of course say that I was wrong.
Now, I will cite a Scripture that disagrees with your claim since you are appealing to the Bible for your belief.
Quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In my humble opinion this verse shows us that man and woman have the same value in the eyes of God. Both are in the image of God.
You asked whether or not I need a God to tell me what is moral. I submit to you that it is obvious that humanity needs direction from an outside source regarding morality. As I showed, the Bible says man was made in the image of God. He reflects certain moral characteristics of God. But according to the Bible man sinned and after that time has had a flawed moral character.
Now, to the "obvious" part. Do all people have the same moral beliefs? No. Do some people thinkg it is ok to rape little babies? Yes.
What makes raping a baby wrong? Because it harms another person? Why is harming another person wrong?
I submit to you that apart from the existence of God "anything goes." Because without God there is no objective morality. Morality is then only subjective and a matter of personal opinion. What then makes one person's belief that it is ok to rape babies incorrect and the belief of another person that it is not ok to rape babies correct?
That is one of the places that the relevence of religion comes in. It will help guide us morallly. Also, it is quite possible for me to grow morally in my life. I hope each day to become a better human being than I was the day before.
No, disagree that the Bible speaks of only 5,000 years of the earth's existence. Please see my post on the previous page dated 20 July (near the top of the page.) In that post I discuss the claim that the Bible teaches the earth is only a certain age. If you have a verse from the Bible that you claim teaches otherwise, I welcome your presentation of the verse.
I have already presented my view of war and do not with to spam. Please read my previous posts about when a war is justified. I'll not name wars and debate whether the war was just or unjust in this thread.
@ Baklava
There are other threads for debating whether or not Bush was justifed. My short answer is he was based on his intelligence information and Saddam's behavior (treaty violations, refusals to abide by UN resolutions, ect) and his claims. Bush was defending the US, at least in his mind. That is as far as I am interested in discussing the war on terrorism in this thread as it is off topic to go into the detalis of the war.
Oh, one final comment. The US soldiers have been fighting side by side with Iraqi soldiers against terrorists so the US has been at war with terrorists, not with Iraq.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 10:55 AM |
|
|
Funny,i don't need god to tell me raping babys is wrong. i've been an atheist since i was 15 and i knew what it ment. i guess that makes me immoral huh?
oh and regarding leviciticus can you say "lost in the translate"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:28, 22 Jul 2009.
|
@ Antipaladin
Actually, I have a small knowledge of the original language and tools to help me understand the rest. If you can point out the passage in question please because dispite my many years of study I know of no such passage.
I did not say an atheist can't be moral. I said there is no objective basis of morality if there is no God.
Perhaps you can explain to me on what basis raping a baby is wrong.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 11:45 AM |
|
|
I disagree. Though Religion certainly has its place, and can have a profound effect on people, not having a 'deity' (of any kind) would not affect morality.
There are people in the world who do not acknowledge religious or spiritual validity that are very moral. Now as to your question it is a matter of 'socially accepted' morals. I know I don't know all of every religion, but I honestly have never seen anything similar to "Thou shalt not have sex with a child" (Rape or otherwise). Just like it is against social morals to marry somebody related to you, and going on religious text that would not be the case as everybody would be related (coming from Adam and Eve in this case). So not all morals come from religion.
Personally, if I had my way rapist would be treated MUCH harsher then they are currently, but that is offtopic.
Please either send me an HCM where age for sex is mentioned, or somehow let me know. One not dealing with sex outside of wedlock.
As that would be about ALL sex, not just rape and/or sex with a minor. Since you are more aware of the verses I understand you would know better then myself, but learning is a good thing.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 12:01 PM |
|
|
Alright, let's move on from wars. 500 years from now, people will say how these "wars on terror" were as pointless as crusades, that's all I'm saying.
About no God meaning no morality.
The idea, Elodin, is to be a good person without someone sending you to Hell otherwise. That's what it's about How large is God's part in how we perceive morality is another question. Especially seeing how much morality changed from the Old Testament to today.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:38 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 13:39, 22 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
@ Antipaladin
Actually, I have a small knowledge of the original language and tools to help me understand the rest. If you can point out the passage in question please because dispite my many years of study I know of no such passage.
I did not say an atheist can't be moral. I said there is no objective basis of morality if there is no God.
Perhaps you can explain to me on what basis raping a baby is wrong.
Maybe I can help here..not sure if these quotes are correct, but you will know:
Quote:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
Quote:
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives {plural} while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." {The child dies seven days later.} 2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
Quote:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Quote:
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:46 PM |
|
|
Interesting, but doesn't really specify ages, which I asked about because the subject of raping a baby/child was brought up in conjunction with Morals. If that was all there was to it, however, I would not have asked because I know that it is morally wrong. It is the connection between God and that moral I am seeking when NOT in the context you should not sleep out of wedlock. In conjunction with that specific Moral.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 09:21 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:12, 23 Jul 2009.
|
@Mystical
There is no verse in the Bible that specifies at what age a person can marry. The Rabbinical tradition is a marriageable age of 12 years old for girls and 13 for boys. The parents were expected to determine the maturity level of the individual before the son or daughter could marry. Most marriages were arranged marriages, though the parents loved the child and would take into consideration the wishes of the one to be married. Oh, the Bible does not specify arranged marriages, but that was the custom.
Another principle is that a believer must follow the laws of the land if they don't contradict the laws of God. So a believer must follow the legal age of marriage for wherever he lives.
And the Bible says all sex outside marriage is sin.
Oh, I agree with you on treating rapists more harshly.
I said that atheists can be moral people. What I said is that without God there is no basis for objective moral values. I am not talking about religion at all.
In other words, you say rape is not moral. Your opinion is subjective if there are no objective morals. A rapist may say that rape is moral. That is his subjective opinion.
What makes your subjective opinion more valid than the subjective opinion of the rapist? Because he hurt you and he acted against your consent? What makes that wrong other than your subjective opinion?
@ Baklava
In general moral principles have not changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Jesus further clarified some things and called us to a sacrificial lifestyle as he lived his life. There was a change in Covenants.
@ Angelito
Hmmm. The verses you quoted have nothing to do with infant rape and are taken out of context of the passage. One is also a bad translation and apparently you gave the wrong citation there. All that taken together makes it apparent that you did a copy and paste from an anti-Christian site. Addressing the verses in question when it appears to me that you don't actually want to know the meaning of a passage is a waste of my time. I would appreciate it if you would not waste my time.
Perhaps you would care to answer the question of on what basis you say raping a baby is wrong rather than throwing out a red hering?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 09:24 PM |
|
|
I'm an atheist who believes in objective morals. What have you to say about that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 09:38 PM |
|
|
Subjective opinion from one person indeed does not over rule another, but that is where SOCIETY comes in. In some societies in history the person raped was considered to be the one in the wrong (ie how could that person LET it happen).
However, here is my point. If a specific moral can not be attributed to a deity, and there are others that can not as my post before illistrated...then it is my contention that a diety is not the source of morals. Society is. So even without religion we have the morals set forth because it has been decided that they are what is neccessary. Right or wrong is subjective.
At one time it was 'right' and 'moral' in a certain society to go killing, raping, and pilliaging (the ancient vikings). Since I doubt any christian (please correct me if I am wrong) would say that a good diety would have those morals then I submit the following for consideration. Morals are decided by a society, not a deity.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm an atheist who believes in objective morals. What have you to say about that?
What made you change your viewpoint? I thought you were arguing with me about absolute morals before
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
Nothing. My viewpoint hasn't changed. Remember, I said something about being unsure whether my moral views were subjective or objective. Because they were juxtaposed to your objective views, I called them subjective. But now I decided that they are, in fact, objective - even though they're different from yours.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
