Category: philosophy/religion topics
I just finished reading an article which was most likely the most vulgar piece of dogmatic propaganda I've ever read in a very long time.
In a nutshell, the author is illustrating female masterbation, and labelling it a sin. In the article, the author states that any form of female masterbation, the viewing of pornagraphic material in concert with masterbation is a large sin which needs to be treated. Furthermore, the authors also state that if females masterbate more than once a week, they would be considered addicted, and they have atempted to compare that with other forms of addiction such as substance.
The religious group in question is a christian identity group based out of Tennessee. They have developed a 12 step process to get women off of masterbation, off of viewing porno as well as even thinking sexual thoughts.
I ask you. Is this really for real? Since when can masterbation, and I might add which has been noted by doctors as healthy be classified in the same breath as substance abuse?
This illustrates my total frustration of religious groups who think they somehow are given the right to clens others whom they deam to be dirty. What gives them the right to tell a woman, your committing a sin by you masterbating. This is by far the most rediculous, irrational movement I've ever heard of. What continues to amaze me is how these women seem to be going along with this rediculous notion. To me, I had pondered, who female in her right mind could possibly believe in this dogmatic bull shit and go along with it?
The article also states that this is also creating a problem since when ever women have sexual thoughts after going through the 12 step process of feeling guilty, and are not sure of themselves. So now ladys and gentlemen, we see the total rediculousness of this movement as it is clearly creating a reduction of one's self worth.
So I ask you, how can this kind of movement take route in this country. Surely, women are better than that.
I end this post with a quote which was in the article:
"god had meant for a man to have sex with a woman, not for a man to have sex with himself."
Here is the link to the article if anyone wants to read it and comment about it,
http://www.utne.com/Mind-Body/Dirty-Girls-Ministries-Evil-Female-Masturbation.aspx
All I can say is, this seems to be a very extremist so-called Christian movement. I don't think the majority of mainline Christianity views such issues this way. Certainly the churches and other Christian leaders I have interacted with did not seem to believe so.
But unfortunately, it's extreme organizations such as this one that get all the press and the hype. It's the ones that have resonable beliefs that just kind of fit in with society, so to speak. But, because of idiots like these, people often judge Christianity as a whole. So all I would say is, when forming your opinions, please take into consideration that not all, I'd wager to say not even the majority, of Christians think this way. It's the same thing as some calling all Muslims bad because terrorists who happened to be Muslim committed a horrible act on 9/11. Judging all Islam for that is not right, either.
The things this radical group is saying would almost be laughable to me, except for the harm it causes those who fall for it, and the harm it does to the Christian religion in general. Ugh.
Tend to agree with Alicia here.
Note that all zealots tend to use catch words like 'addiction' and improvable, nonfalsifiable claims designed to make you feel something. They have their rights to produce such novelas of propaganda, and the rest of us have ours to consider them shamelessly incompetent fools.
One thing that does surprise me, though, is the high and fatal attraction these groups have to women. After all, according to conventional wisdom, these are patriarchal, anti-woman ideas. And yet, visit any such establishment and note that many of its most prominent are themselves women.
Baingridge, one of the most famous political witch-burners of 15th century England, at one point wrote that in order to make a witch accusation stick, all one need do is convince the women. Men rarely will stand up to women, and especially on such matters, hence my board topic about us men being fools.
Don't take me wrong, I don't blame women: we are all responsible individually. But zealous marketing by these groups tends to aim at certain sentiments perhaps more widely held among women, not men.
The older I get, the more I end up agreeing with the writings of H. L. Mencken.
The wealth of these organisations suggests they attract a significant following.
They obviously don't understand their religion. If they did, they'd know which parts were addressed to them, and which parts were addressed to the people to whom they preach. People shouldn't follow religions they don't fully understand.
I find it funny, even to the point of outwardly laughing, when christians read something like this, or are told about it, and then say things like, "well the majority of us don't think that way". I find it especially funny when it deals with the oppression of women, or the beating of children. Considering that these things are in the bible, directly written out, to say that the majority of you don't believe it, means that the majority of you don't believe in the bible, which makes your religious claims rather weak. If you don't believe in the bible, its kinda hard to be a christian; the two go hand in hand.
Its also funny how so few people will actually stand up and say "stop". When you have extremists, at least in the religious realm,you hardly ever see people of the same religions standing up to say, "Hey, that isn't what we believe, they're nuts". Now, maybe this is because the nuts scream louder than the slightey less nuts, but if I were a slightly less nut, I'd make sure to be heard over the nuts.
Take the west burro baptists for example. Those are the ones who stand outside soldier's funerals with hateful signs like "thank god for IED's". Why isn't every christian in america standing up and screaming, "shut up you anti-christian nuts!" Instead, all they do is say, "well, the majority of us don't believe this". Then they wonder why people think all christians are crazy.
Of course, if you actually believe what is contained in the bible, your well on your way to being crazy. I mean, that is a very very cruel and unusual book.
As for women masterbating and it being sinful, I've heard worse claims made towards women by christians. Yet people always seem to be able to ignore it. I fail to understand how any woman could claim to be a christian. I couldn't follow a religion that says, "blind people, shut up and do as your told because your not good enough to be part of society". Thanks, but I'll take the fiery pit and be able to speak my mind. I'm surprised so many women agree to that oppression.
And again my base argument with any organization the extreme is bad, because it is possible for the major part of a religion or non religious group not to follow the beliefs and teachings of the extreme. Why is that such a difficult concept? This group is not following the Bible, nor are the groups that oppress women, or beat children. People tend to get so narrow minded they can't see the grass before them.
Maybe its because they actually are following the teachings of the bible; as were the slave owners before them.
Wives, submit thee unto thy husbands.
The bible forbids women to do many things. Dress fancily, speak in church, teach, hold any position over a man, and the list goes on.
In more than one verse the bible says that disobedient children should be stoned to death. If a child curses their parents, they are to be killed.
I don't see how you can claim they aren't following the bible. I'd even go so far as to say that those who choose to ignore those verses, aren't following the bible.
the sad fact is that those churches you curse, like the ones found at godhatesfags.com and godhatessinners.com, are actually following the letter of the bible more closely than your neighborhood church. That fact should terrify anyone who claims to be a christian, and should make them truly and deeply question the reasons they are making such a claim.
Ya know, they say masturbation will make you blind. So I wonder if it would work in reverse for us blind folks instead? Heheheheh.
I don't see how if anyone were to not agree with the movement of a church regardless of how extreme they must be, it doesn't make them any less christian. Yes, if something in the bible says to do something specifically and not doing so is a direct rejection of the bible, but something like throing stones or not allowing same sex couples to get married especially in this day in age can be safely bipassed. A lot of what the bible bespoke of is situations dealing with an era centuries ago. Adapting to the norms of today is only part of becoming a better person regardless of what religion your following.
Guess the bottom line is that anything can be read and Interpreted how you wish. Christians are able to believe in there belief, even though some Christian groups push this idea and others , the same way Atheist believe in it, even though some groups calling themselves Athist believe in oppression of women, child beatings, sacrifices of virgin girls, and many other things.
Christians believe in their beliefs. Uh, no shit? If they didn't, they wouldn't be their beliefs now would they?
$1400 for a 12-step program?! I think I'm going to start something like this just to help me through college. Hahahaha!
It seems like this woman confused an addiction to porn with an addiction to masturbation. They're not one in the same, although viewing porn can be accompanied with masturbation. If people really want to stop feeling guilty about anything and stop any kind of sin, they need to pray and have another or others pray for that sin/s to be removed from their lives. This ministry is no different from the man who predicted the end of the world earlier this year. This is another scheme to get loads of cash, and it's working on people who obviously aren't going to God first. It shouldn't cost anyone $1400 to keep their hands off themselves if that's what they want. I'll pray for them.
And now he says the world's going to end in October.
Harold? I got a feeling he himself will end before October rolls around. He's quite an old fossle.
Regarding the last sentence of post 10, I know of no such atheist groups.
What I said in my previous post about Christians not understanding Christianity is also true of critics of Christianity such as atheists, who despite not believing in Christianity, have taken more time than many Christians to read the Bible.
As masturbation has been mentioned several times in this thread, I'll use it as an example. Let's assume the Bible says something like "Do not masturbate, God considers it a sin". This passage is addressed to followers of the Bible. It is telling them that they shouldn't masturbate. It isn't saying that they must implement measures to stop atheists masturbating.
Remember the Bible tells people that they shouldn't kill other people, and says a life for a life. These two statements are not contradictory. Those who don't understand this are not intelligent enough to be able to follow or criticise any of the Abrahamic faiths. I don't think people should follow or criticise things they don't understand.
As it happens, the bible does say that masterbation is a sin; as is ejactulating on a girl, rather than inside her. Wasting of your seed in any way is a sin against god. One for which death is the punishment according to the scriptures.
So just remember that the next time you decide to rub one out. God kills you if you spill your seed.
ironically enough, I believe atheists have a more thorough understanding of christianity than christians do because they are always forced to defend themselves by speaking about specific passages from the bible.
As a Lutheran, I was taught to believe that masturbation was a sin. Not just cause the Bible says so, but because there's a whole line of belief in Christianity, particularly Catholicism, that has to do with honoring one's body. It's kinda complicated, so I won't expound on it now. Having said that, this group does sound a bit extreme. When the Harold camping saga was scheduled to unfold, I was rocking out at an absolutely awesome U2 concert. If the world was going to end, I would have been in a great mood. As a Christian, I do believe in the second coming, but I try to lead the best life I can, and leave the rest up to God. $1400 for a 12 step program? That comes out to about $100 give a take a few bucks, per step. That's kinda pricey! If you're so concerned about helping people as a Christian group, you're first priority shouldn't be how much moola you're gonna end up with after each enrollment. I didn't read the article, so could be a bit confused. But seriously? That sounds kinda shady!
I wonder how may posting on the Bible have actually read the Bible and not a doctored version? Yes I agree 1300 to stop your pleasure seems a large price. 12 steps? Seems like it requires only 2 to me. Stop rubbing and pull up your panties. Smile.
Well I tell you what, since I'm pretty sure that the comment you made was directed at me, you tell me what you consider an undoctored version of the bible, and I'll tell you if I've read it.
Please don't tell me that you think the king james version is undoctored. Please, tell me your not that stupid and historically uneducated.
If, however, you are that much of a mentally stunted theological and historical ignorant, then please possess the self-pride and dignity not to advertise it to the world at large.
Perhaps you should mention one of the other versions of the bible. Maybe one of the ones that were written in say the past fifty years, or two hundred years; you have plenty to choose from.
Perhaps your going to reference the greek or aramaic versions though. I mean, they can't be doctored in the orriginal language, can they? Well that question will have to go unanswered, as there is actually nothing more than theory on who wrote the orriginal bible gospils, and where they buried them. The ones you read today are loose translations of stories told to the author by someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone; going back multiple centuries. It would be something like you writing a history of columbuses voyage, based on stories your grandmother told you when you were a kid, and which she swears to be true, and yet has no evidence of.
So, keeping all that in mind, I pray you, tell us what you view as an undoctored version of the bible.
All I'll say on the KJV, is that I don't know why people read it that way when they don't speak that way in normal convo.
Probably because it was put together at a time when people didn't speak the way they do now, ya think?
My mmy. Its nice to log on to the Zone and get called stupid. Lol *sigh. Yes that was directed at you, and no I don't think the King James is not doctored. What i meant my such stupid sayings is that I think maybe you and other have not even read the bible doctored or not, but rely on others opinions to state your case. I have noted that you have mis quoted it several times, and I have noted that some Christians have not even read it to know this, so I guess it falls on both sides. As always I take the middle road and think others can believe what they like. However, you at no time have noted me writing that anyone is stupid, and such things. I can state my opinion s without. Now, I do believe this issue came about when men were said to have sined when they spillt the seed. I believe it was ment to incurrage people to create, so when not like waisting anything it was termed sin, or wrong, or wasteful.and I have not read anyplace where it was a sin punishable. It is said that when the Bible was written, and language has changed, and people have decided what they want it to read for there own purposes, that the loving, giving, and "love of God" has been dropped. Sex in many peoples minds is taboo and they don't understand how to deal with it, so they choose not, call it sin, and push others to think this way. A sad state when sex is life giving, and in this case relieve much stress at times.Women became sick and had to go to the doctor to have it done in past times. It was called by some term, I'll have to look up that spelling, but anyway the tool the doctor used to help them relax is now called a vibrator. Smile. The things sell well and "thank God" aren't medical tools anymore.
So, because the quotes I gave from the bible don't mesh up with your view of what it says, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that I must not have read it. There's no chance you could be wrong, or the versions could be different, or you could actually be an idiot who just talks out of their ass and doesn't truly know anything about anything at all, and is perfectly willing to accept the teaching of a two thousand year old book, written in the backwoods of a part of the world you wouldn't even want to visit today for fear of being blown up. Let alone the fact that I can tell you exactly what verse to go to if you want to make certain immoral acts legal. You want to have the bible tell you its ok to smoke pot, there's a verse for that. Want to say its ok to stone children, there's a verse for that. Want to convince that hot chick at work that all she should spend her time doing is serving you and lying naked on her back so that you can bang the shit out of her while looking at her face, (cuz sex is only godly if your looking at her face, right), there's a verse for that. Want to tell a child that he shouldn't masterbate because it spills the sperm, and that makes god really really angry, not only is there a verse for that, there's a bible story for that. Want to show the world how jesus was killed for your sins by being beaten, then dragged through the streets, then nailed to the cross, stabbed, given vinegar, or water, or water and vinegar, or nothing, and dressed in a purle, or white, robe, or maybe nothing, and then maybe said "forgive them father, for they know not what they do", or maybe it was, "it is finished", but who really cares about those pesky inaccuracies, wanna teach that little lesson, well your pretty much screwed. There is, in fact, no really good or specific or detailed or agreed upon verse for that.
The fact of the matter is, the bible often says something in one verse, then takes it back a few verses later. Want something to be good, like killing, then you quote the verse where god commands you to do it. Like that one where he says you shouldn't let witches live, you should burn them instead. That won't lead to anything bad, will it, I mean who pays attention to god? Then again, wanna make killing bad, like when you don't want raped pregnant women to abort there babies, or you don't like those people who have bigger guns than you do shooting you in the head, just quote the ten commandments; who doesn't listen to that god guy anyway, he's all powerful; (well unless you count all those things he can't actually do, like anything efficient).
To sum this up. I have read the bible repeatedly. My christmas present every year growing up, was a new braille bible, which I was then required to read by easter, when I would get to go and thank god for dying on the cross, and then be given chocolate.
You wanna know why it is atheists know more about what is in the bible than christians do, well I'll explain. Its because we read what is on the page. If it says that the world is flat, supported by four columns, and the sky is a silver bowl that domes over it, and the clouds are the dust that is kicked up by god walking across the sky, then that's what we interpret it to mean. Christians would take that and twist it into something symbollic, because they're probably not able to convince themselves to actually believe it without suffering internal bleeding from their subconscious mind rebelling against them. That's the reason.
And like us you interpet the Bible to fit your reasoning. What to find that the Bible is wrong you can find a verse for that. Us religious people that read what is on the page and use that information with the teachings of all religious books understand that no book is going to be understood the same way by all. Following the main base teachings is what all books have alike. Many of the stories in the Bible are exactly that stories to teach not facts to preach. If you as you said think about the times the Bible was written than language and culture and needs werre different. The New Testament covers changing times and the teaching can be updated, or the base teaching, or story examples can be use now. God is a forgiver, a giver, a teacher. If you read all the religious books with that angle you'll get a different prospective. If you read it to prove it folable, than you'll find it. In the case of this topic I lean on the fact that God wants us all to be well. This act creates much well bing, keeps people from looking for sex they don't really want, in that the first person will do. It is sad that this organization has chosen to use religion for its profit, but many Atheist groups do the same, so as I have stated before we are stuck with this sort of thing. The best we can do is teach.
A guy gets killed for picking up sticks on the sabbath to build a fire. Now where's the eye for an eye situation in that?
The flaw in your idea senior is that you assume I have always been an atheist; I haven't. I've read the bible many times, as I said, from many different versions, both before and after becoming an atheist.
As for why, do you really have to ask why people would want to do research on a subject that is trying to surplant itself in the leadership of government, and is one of, if not the leading cause of death in human history? We don't only read the bible, we read as many books as we can get our hands on; or at least most of us do, the ones who actually defend atheism do.
You say that we don't understand the eye for an eye system, and your wrong, I completely understand it. I also understand nuclear science, it doesn't mean I want to drop nuclear weapons on the enemies of america; if we could find them. Just because you understand something, doesn't mean you have to like, agree with, or think it moral. I seriously question the reasoning of anyone who thinks that the christian teachings of who to kill and who not to kill, under what circumstances, and how, are moral and should be followed as, (if you'll forgive the use of the term), gospil.
Let me put two challenges to you. First, explain to me how you can make the absolute claim that the bible is a moral book, and that it is the only place where in the moral code is laid out, when there are hundreds of different religions, all claiming a different moral code? How do you know which is right, and why does it almost always involve the one you grew up with?
Secondly, tell me one good or cheritable act or thought that has ever been committed by a religious person, which could not, under any circumstances, be done by a non-religious person. The opposite is easy, there are several things you have to be religious to do which are bad. Killing someone in the name of god springs to mind. You can't do that if your an atheist, you simply can't.
If you somehow want to argue that blowing someone up in the name of god is a moral act, then your insane, and this discussion is pointless.
Finally, to forereel, I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in your post. Were you trying to say that god is good? Then why does he kill so many people inefficiently? Why does god kill infant babies with sudden infant death syndrome? Surely there are better things he could plan to do with those babies. If you say that he has a plan, and sometimes it involves a dead baby, then your arguing that an all powerful god, who can do anything, has come to the conclusion that the only way to complete his master plan is to kill a baby. Let alone the fact that he can make anything happen, he has to kill a baby first. If you call that good, I call you nuts.
I have to agree with what Silver lightening had stated about who is reading the bible whether it'd be a christian, or an atheist.
It would only make sense to me that an atheist would put a more logical understanding as a result of reading a particular passage whereas a Christian would just stick to the conclusion that it was simply meant to have been.
Secondly, tell me one good or cheritable act or thought that has ever been committed by a religious person, which could not, under any circumstances, be done by a non-religious person. The opposite is easy, there are several things you have to be religious to do which are bad. Killing someone in the name of god springs to mind. You can't do that if your an atheist, you simply can't.
How about doctors that are religios, but heal for the sake of healing? They don't heal in the name of God, they heal because they have been blessed with the skill, and yes some have powers others don't. There is actually a man that heals people of Aids, and he doesn't do it in the name of God. He does believe in God, but doesn't base his practice on his faith.
Now I am totally lost. How is it God that kills babies with sudden death syndrome? If there was no God these babies would still die of this. I didn't post any such arguement, so maybe that is the reason you didn't understand my post. I posted that and this was related to this topic, not a religion debate, that the foundation of God is for the good of all, and in this case this basic natural act does much good, so can't be against God.
Because god has a plan for all of us, that's a simple tenet that all children are taught in sunday school. God has a plan for you, me, little johnny, everybody. This means, since a baby is a someone, that the same god who planned to make me an atheist and you not, also planned to choke that baby to death with sudden infant death syndrome. Its simple logic. So please explain to me how that is a good thing for an all powerful god to do? How can he not, as an all powerful being, perform an act that does not involve the killing of a helpless infant. If I said that I could end world hunger, but it would require me to slit the throat of six thousand babies, you'd probably want me arrested before i could get my hands on a single infant. Why is god held to such a high standard that he is allowed to kill indescriminately, but for us to do it in the name of the greater good, we're called hitler. (note, I am not saying that hitler did anything good, I'm saying that was what he claimed, and we all can pretty much agree he was evil)
I don't really think you understood the challenge forereel. Follow closely. Name an act or thought that can be done or thought by a religious person, which is possitive, that cannot be done or thought by a non-religious person. Let me see if I can explain a bit better.
You are obviously religious, I am not. Tell me one possitive thing that you can do, or one possitive thing that you can think, that I am absolutely not able to do.
You are able to kill in the name of god. I am not. I cannot, as an atheist, kill in the name of god. In order for me to do so, I would no longer be an atheist, and that would mean that I am not doing the act as an atheist, I am doing it as a theist, which would more or less make me you. So, please tell me one thing, just one little thing, that you can do cheritably, that I cannot.
I understood you well. There is nothing I can do in the name of God you can not do without it. You see I am not a healer, saint, holy man, or any of these things, so you see we are even. I do however believe, and have read about people that are true healers, faith healers if you will. I've even read studies about indians that can think themselves in to states I couldn't imagine. They claim God. But we are off topic. Now about these babies if you don't believe in God than why is it an issue for you? Nature takes them right, and sense there is no God it can't be God's fault right? This will be my last post unrelated to this topic. I have one more post, but that is related to this subject. I'm looking up some facts.
I think when you say god is being held to a higher standard, your almost making it seem like god is a person, or some form of sanctioned being.
Can we really say world hunger, food shortage or even innicent deaths were of god doing or simply natural disasters. But even the term natural disasters is a misnormer since a religious person not believe in natural disasters because they would have simply attributed the unfortunate event as an act of god?
Let us strip the terms of any religion, moral standings, and ethical makeup. We are just humans with equal oppurtunities of commiting acts of good and evil.
Well I, as an atheist, am more than happy to attribute natural disasters to nature. However, when you have religious people who claim that hurricane katrina was an act of god, meant to punish us, or that the earthquake in Japan was meant to punish us. Nearly any natural disaster over the past few decades, and certainly farther back than even that, have been attributed to a wrathful god.
Even in the bible, natural disasters were the punishments of god, or the blessing of god, depending on if it helped or hindered the people in question. The religious claim that god created everything, this also means that he created everything that is evil and horrible. Not only did he make the beautiful butterfly, but he also made the disgusting human bot fly. He made the brain, and he made the cancer that kills it. He made the pleasure of sex, and he made the horror of aids.
You can't say that god created everything, and then have things he didn't make. Everything is an absolute, either he made everything, or he did not, you can't have an in between.
Considering that it is a commonly held belief that god did create everything in existence, we can then attribute the evils in the world to a "so called" good god. A statement which I find utterly rediculous.
I've actually heard a friend (someone on the Zone actually), go so far as to claim Hurricane Eileen was a sign that God was preparing for the Rapture. I myself don't believe that. I'm not entirely sure whether I do or don't believe in a god. As for the god created everything bit, most really religious people will backpeddle and say that Satan created cancer and things like that. Well God created death and its miriad causes because of the business with the apple. But things like nuclear weapons they'll say that Satan influenced us to create them, yada yada yada. They can find just about any religious rationalization for just about anything that happens.
Hasn't anyone figured it out yet? If your god is angry, you must have a human sacrifice, preferably a virgin. This will stop all the bad weather but improve the crops for the next year. Doesn't matter if your god is a rain god, sun god, volcano god, whatever, stop praying, stop blaming the other guy, get in there and sacrifice a virgin and everything will be all right!
with the increased popularity of science, logical thinking and rational thought, you would think religious doctorin would ahve become a thing of the past. How is it that the US is the most religious country in the western world but we can also claim to be leading the field in research?
That's a good question. What is so peculiar about being American that makes one want to belong to any religion? Is it fear of death, or maybe people are just persuaded by a good hard sell and there are enough corrupt preachers who are willing to put on the hard sell to build a flock, which means lots of money. I'm really just doing a lot of guessing here, I wish I had a better idea.
Post 27: the killer has not acted in accordance with the Bible.
Post 28: I do agree with the teaching of Abrahamic faiths on who to kill and who not to kill, because they teach that people shouldn't kill anybody. As I have said before, the vast majority of Christians I know of don't understand their religion. This includes Republican and Democrat politicians, and televangelists. In fact many people follow interpretations of religions rather than the religions themselves. If somebody's views are influenced by the American Family Association, the chances are they follow the AFA's interpretation of Christianity, rather than Christianity itself.
Regarding your first question, I believe that good morals are preached in the Bible, the Koran and other books. When I read religious texts (including the Bible, the Koran, and texts which were excluded from the Bible), I seek wisdom and good guidance.
In what context do you ask which I or others believes is the right religious text? I don't have enough knowledge to make claims about the accuracy of the Bible. It was written at a time when there weren't many if any other sources to compare it to. However, I don't read the Bible as a historian. I read it for the reasons I've already given. I say that as somebody who is interested in history.
Regarding your second challenge, Good and bad things have been doneby people who attributed and who didn't attribute their actions to a religion, and just because somebody claims that something good they did was because of their religious beliefs , that doesn't mean it is true. Just because the same good things can be done by people who don't follow a religion, that doesn't mean that some people don't do those things because they have been influenced by their religious beliefs. Personally, I prefer to appreciate the good that is done rather than focus on what may have inspired it.
Finally with your questions about killing babies, I think a lot of people who ask these questions are hypocrites because they agree with abortion, but I believe that people can get the most out of bad situations regardless of what those situations are, if they believe that God is testing everybody, and so he wants to know how people react to good and bad situations. So for example if you're on a train and a bomb goes off, then soon the door opens, do you run off the train, or do you help somebody who is unable to move get off the train? If you become disabled, do you then be rude to those who try to help you when you aren't satisfied with their help or you're unhappy? What if it's your partner who becomes very severely disabled. Do you give up on her, or do you stay with her and look after her, even if that means making huge sacrifices and changes?
If you don't believe in God, you won't blame him for anything bad that happens, or ever feel angry with him. To feel anything about God is to believe in him. You can't have feelings about something that truly doesn't exist, except views on whether it exists of course.
But god knows everything, that is commonly agreed upon. Thus, he already knows how you will fair in his test. He knew thousands of years ago that one day there would be things named trains, and one day one would crash, and a woman would be trapped, he knows exactly which people are going to try and help her, and which are going to run away screaming. He knows all of that, and he has the power to stop it, make the lady not be put in mortal danger, and it doesn't change his knowledge at all.
Lets say I'm a scientist and I'm doing an experiment on a new pill that is supposed to cure cancer. However, it cures cancer by a process that causes such excruciating pain that you can pass out from it and even go into a coma; it can cause permanent damage and has even been known to kill a large number of the subjects who have used it. I have a group of people who have already taken the pill, I know there results, and some principle of the experiment makes it absolutely sure that the results will be exactly the same. Why in the world would I give them another pill, put them through that pain, if I already know what the result would be?
If you look at it objectively, you'll find a word for causing needless suffering for your own enjoyment, its called torture. God really is, (or would be if he existed), that kid on the ant hill with the magnifying glass.
You say that people who kill do not follow their religion. Christians who kill are going against the bible. So how do you explain the thousands upon thousands of people that god killed himself, and the thousands upon thousands that he expressly ordered killed. For someone who says, "thou shalt not kill", he does and orders a lot of killing.
Now, of course, I know why this little oversight is there. When the bible says, "thou shalt not kill", it is speaking to a particular group of people. I refer of course to the hebrews who were gathered around moses at the time. Those commandments were for them, and it referred only to their group. "thou shalt not kill", didn't mean thou shalt not kill anyone, it meant thou shalt not kill another jew. That is how god could order them to exterminate so many other groups, it violates nothing.
I truly question your morals if you think the bible is a book that contains anything like human morality. It lacks any sort of compassion, or even so much as common sense.
It is nothing more than a mythological book, written thousands of years ago by a group of uneducated peasants in the backwoods of bronze age messapotamia.
You dismiss the iliad as just a pretty story. Why can you not see that there is absolutely no difference between the iliad and the bible? They are variations on a theme.
Post 27: the killer has not acted in accordance with the Bible
Really? So what the fuck is that story of a man picking up firewood doing in the bible itself then? You sheeple continuously amaze me with your stupidity.
I once brought forth this question of god and the killing he seems to be perpetrating with meaningless deaths if looked upon with a grain of common sense. this person had told me that in order to appreciate the good that god brings forth, there has to be bad.
To me then as well as today, this is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.
Here we are:
Numbers (15:32-36)
"They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day ... and the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones."
The term I was looking for that was believed to be the cause of women being sick because they did not have a satisfying orgasm now and then is Hysteria. Doctors in the 1880’s treated it with vibrators. “Some of the symptoms women would display included fainting, nervousness, insomnia, crying, sensations of heaviness in the abdomen, muscle spasms, shortness of breath, lethargy, loss of appetite for food or sex with the approved male partner (her husband), and at times a tendency to cause "trouble" for others.” Marriage and intercourse were thought to be the best cure for hysterical women. Of course masturbation was simply out of the question. It was believed all sorts of bad things would happen to women who engaged in this type of activity (even if it did make them ultimately feel better). It was common belief that wives were healthier than widows because they had the benefits of intercourse with their husbands to keep the "deplorable curse" away.” Hysteria as a sexual mental disease stayed on the medical mental treatment section until the 1950’s. This organization has failed to notice that it is healthy for women to masturbate. Seems God, or nature has made it possible to accomplish this and has also given us, men and women the urge. If nature is God and I sincerely believe this, than natural health giving acts can’t be against God. Men don’t have this issue I suppose because even if you don’t masturbate you have wet dreams. Another thing is men are encouraged to be bad so to speak for a while until they become married. Ephesians 5:22-33 in the Bible has much to say about relationships, and posting that will bring up another fight I’m sure. But if you aren’t in a relationship it seems safer to me to masturbate and be well. Qur'an (66:1-5) from the Qur’an instructs male owners of slave girls to attend to their sexual needs. It was against God to leave them wanting. I’m not read in the others religious books, but I’m sure there are passages. Even in 1 on 1 relationship, providing each person is healthy, if your partner refuses to please you, or learn how, and you don’t wish to go looking for pleasure other places doctors in the 1800’s were treating women. We don’t have houses of prostitution for women. Like the topic poster I hope that women see this as a fraud. Maybe we need a 12 step program teaching males about women’s bodies? Smile. I’m charging 1300 boys. Sign up. Lol
Seriously I wonder if this program is run by men that have something against women. I find often times groups have agendas because of their feelings towards a group, not because they actually believe it, or they believe it, because it is oppressive to the group they have a grudge for.
America is becoming less and less a scientific world player the more and more it resembles the Middle East in its religious fundamentalism. There are some elementary statistics now that point to Asia as the scientific world leader (in continents, China and South Korea striving for the top), while the United States is striving to parallel the Middle East in its fundamentalism. Fundamentalism and science do not cohabitate mainly because fundamentalists, like the primitive tribes of yesteryear and parts of Africa today, strives to look backwards. On a societal level, those cultures and societies whose aim is backwards thinking do not survive. I am not minimizing the effects of Western Imperialism in the 19th century and before, but Native tribes often went extinct because of their fundamentalist beliefs, rather than adopt new ideas or co-operate in larger groups. The so-called Sand people of the Calahari have lost their civilization not just because of environmental encroachment, but because it was wholly based on a backwards-thinking perspective.
By backwards-thinking, what I mean is the belief that the way it was is the way it should be. Typically an era gets canonized (and fictionalized), and subsequent generations are simply looking backwards to the proverbial golden age. In America, that age began in the late 1800s and ended in the 1950s. That is what Family "research" Council and various other groups are talking about. Ironically, these canonized ages are frequently ages frought with real optimism and forward thinking. People in the 1950s were not looking backwards as are Christian fundamentalists today. Your arch-Conservative Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system, funded sciences in a way no modern churchgoing conservative would, just to name a couple of things. Just like their Christian counterparts in the west, there was a time in the Middle East when Muslims lead the world in the mathematical sciences. While Europe was playing with alchemy and other such tomfoolery, Muslims had expansive trade routes, invented your Arabic numerals, kept the writings of Pythagorus and others alive, just to name a few things. As fundamentalism triumphed, The Middle East closed up. Rarely now do we see innovations coming out of the Middle East, just as rarely will we see innovations come from this country in a hundred years, if they're allowed to perpetuate their ideas.
I think one of the more comical illustrations of fundamentalism is not found in religion at all, but in the extreme raw foods / fruits movements. Extremist fruitarians believe that you and I are best suited for digesting fruit. Never mind the logical fallacy since the genus homo evolved mainly on the Savannahs of Africa.
The medical reports are grim, but simple, and describe fundamentalists to a t: Failure to thrive. Just like fuitarians and other extreme foodists can actualy survive using artificial means (supplementation), so can religious extremists survive using the welfare provided by the rest of us. The American political action groups pay for Western fundamentalists and American oil pays for middle eastern fundamentalists. Withouth these two economic forces, both groups of fundamentalists would fail to thrive.
I still say the wrongs I used to attribute to religion I can rightly attribute to fundamentalism: a flawed and fickle human weakness. It's attractive because people don't have to engage their brains, except perhaps to learn Cicero and debate, and come off as 'smart'. Smart perhaps, but highly unproductive, and would fail to thrive in the meritocracy they so crave in society.
Cody, you may grow to despise me for saying this, but to my mind you are what amounts to a fundamentalist atheist. Sure, you probably don't dance up and down behind a podium arhythmically striking it, announcing all your vowels like a first-year Thesbian trying to impress, but you are truly in character. Perhaps you forsook fundamentalist Christianity, but perhaps the fundy charicature has not quite forsaken you.
Some of your points I can agree with: Just like the situational ethics conversations in the college of yesterday, the modern fundamentalists will attempt to justify or at least belittle attrocious acts. Yesterday's Left belittled the terrors of the Russian Gulag, and today's Fundamentalist Christians belittle or write off the terrors of old-testament genocide and lapidation. I, for one, find the attitudes of both groups entirely odious. I'm a 20th-century, Western-civilized man: There is no way I can see either the Gulag or the genocides of the old Testament for anything other than what they were. Any fundamentalist who feels differently about old-testament genocide should actively work to recall our forces from the Middle East, to allow groups there to perpetuate what is written there, stoning of women for adultery, etc.
Leviathanm I ran into that passage a few years ago, and my response is the same as it was: That is a horrid and violent episode, one for which our modern men and women in the Service, my shipmates, would fight to the death to prevent.
One cannot say it is right one moment, and wrong the next, which is the way fundamentalists paint it.
If you need something to be substantiated by evidence, then you should really just throw out the entire bible. We have next to know evidence for the entire thing, more or less.