Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:13 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2782 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 112  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4919
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
A rope leash wrote:
But, seriously folks...individuals always adapt their personal "religious" beliefs into something they feel comfortable with, even if it means going against doctrine...which is why religion is bullshit.

I think somewhere in the Bible Jesus says it is better to have one's hand cut off than it would be to have it touch another person's spouse. That sort of practice has gone by the wayside, but the religion is still in business. It has to change to keep the pews full and the coffers stuffed.

Politicians lie about just about everything, so what is in their hearts is truly unknown. What comes out of their mouths is totally suspect. They need religion to help them buffalo the general public. Indeed, when we look at Napoleon or Alexander, one of the goals was to unite the religions of their empire into one...it's just so much easier to control folks that way.

Do I think Obama is a creationist? No. He grew up with mixed religious influences, so in his heart he probably thinks it's all bullshit, but he could never say that to the New York Times.


I agree with nearly all of the above, except to suggest that the only real reference I can remember in the New Testament to cutting off people's hands is:

Matthew 18:8 - Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

The only reference I know of to cutting off hands and spouses is from Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (i.e. Old Testament):
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

But I'm perferctly prepared to be corrected.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
This is probably what I'm talking about...

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matt 5:29-30 NASU).

Not precisely about adultry, but I am not a Biblical scholar.

Jesus was not all love and kisses. He was a very strict Jew, actually, as I understand it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
The point of this is that Ron Paul stated he doesn't believe in evolution, which would fall into line with his Southern Baptist ideology. Whether he's lying or not to dupe potential voters/supporters is up to interpretation.

Some people here (Disco "tweedle-dumber" Boy in defense of Ron Pauls statement about not believing in evolution) would say that to be a Christain is to believe in Creationism and deny evolution period, which is bullshit, because not ALL Christain denominations support the notion of Creationism over Evolution.



Like any other ancient or antique document, you can either take it at it's absolutist literal sense, thus ignoring historical, scientific and technological progress, or interpret it to fit with current history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
Ron Paul said "evolution is just a theory". That's true. He also said he doesn't believe in it, which is his right.

That's much better than being vague and evasive on what your beliefs are...as we have seen, no one really knows what Obama "believes".

The fact that Ron Paul says what he thinks unflinchingly is enough to garner my respect. I may think differently than he does, but at least I'm pretty sure I know what he thinks. Obama? He talks with obfuscated forked-tongue, blathering platitudes that say nothing definitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4919
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Who would you trust in a position of power more- the guy who "honestly" believes that God created the world in six days, believes that lung-fish, dinosaurs and humans coexisted and that if you withdraw before sexual climax you will be struck down by God, or the guy who "dishonestly" realizes that he isn't going to get elected, if he doesn't make a show of professing some kind of Christian faith?

That's not to say that I know what Paul's or Obama's beliefs are, but that is the proposition you're suggesting...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Atlanta
A rope leash wrote:
Obama? He talks with obfuscated forked-tongue, blathering platitudes that say nothing definitive.


I think you just defined the word politician.

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Both, Obama and Ron Paul have been forthcoming about their religious views, even though some conspiracy freaks vehemently try to paint the current president as an "other" and "not one of us", which I believe to be racially motivated.

Whether or not either of them are being honest about their religious views isn't the issue. The issue is that Ron Paul, a supposed medical doctor and man of science, doesn't accept evolution, despite that anybody who cares to pay attention, knows that it indeed has become more fact than theory. As a species, we've evolved dramatically just within the last 100 years, in the sense of knowledge and life span to name a couple. Subscribing to the absolutist views of creationism over evolution, from a viewpoint of somebody from the same idealogy as the Westboro Southen Baptist Church wacko's is more than reason enough to deduce hat Ron paul is a complete nutcase and hack grounded in bigoted religious extremism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
There is something inherently dishonest about someone that says "I have faith in the Bible", then says "the Adam and Eve story is bullshit". It is impossible to profess faith in something then turn around and say you believe part of it isn't true. The whole point of "belief" is having "faith" in religious dogma that is obviously fantastic.

The Bible tells the story of creation. All Christians and Jews are supposed to have faith that the Old Testament is "God's Word". Just because a particular sect declares the story of creation to be some sort of metaphor does not change what the Bible actually says, and I'll gaurangoddamtee that the Pope, leader of the supposed original Church, will insist that the "Word of God" be taken literally, in your heart if not in your practice. Why do you think Christians are so big on forgiveness? Because they constantly go against the Word, and indeed they sometimes must.

No, it doesn't matter what Ron Paul's religious beliefs are, so long as he believes in protecting and defending the Constitution, and has a general moral distaste for war and corruption. One does not have to think evolution is fact to be a doctor or a great leader...at least Ron Paul isn't using his religious beliefs as some sort of pretext to justify immoral behavior, as I perceive GWB has done, and as I think Obama would do if progressive Liberals went for that kind of thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3333
Location: Between the Badges
A rope leash wrote:
There is something inherently dishonest about ...

People.

Have you ever seen the tv show House?

Image

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
Probably one of the greatest characters ever to be borne out of television.

Everybody lies, but which person is more honest? One that says "I have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe in evolution", or a person that says "I have faith in the Bible, but some of it is bullshit"?

One might say that they are both honest, but which one is more consistent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 19069
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
What if God intentionally put all those bones and stuff into the ground, just to help weed out the faithless?

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
There are people who actually believe that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
I have had many debates with theists, and nearly every one ends up with the theist defending their "faith", because the facts are just not on their side.

Essentially, some theists believe that an entity from outside our universe came to exist, and developed into a magnificent entity that could not only create new universes, but also control everything within them. This entity is just crazy about the most advanced creatures it created on a tiny speck in a universe it created, and loves to play a game with them whereupon he hides from them and yet demands fealty from them, under a penalty of an after death punishment.

It is easier for them to believe this, than to believe something logical like evolution.

In the past, this was unacceptable to me, but now I've come to understand that the right to think in this way is what America was built upon. So long as there is no law requiring me to do the same, I guess I'm okay with it...to each his own, and if believing in impossible fairy tales it what turns your turbines, have at it.

I might even vote for a theist if he's talking sense otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3643
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb and Caputh,

STOP misquoting/misinterpreting what I've stated...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

What you two geniuses don't seem to realize is that I was referring to CHRISTIANITY (not other denominations that follow different interpretations of Genesis). And since Obama claims to be a Christian, that means he would HAVE to adopt creationism as part of his belief system, otherwise he couldn't be considered a Christian. Which just goes to show how completely full of shit he really is (not that ANY further proof is needed).

A rope leash wrote:
No, it doesn't matter what Ron Paul's religious beliefs are, so long as he believes in protecting and defending the Constitution, and has a general moral distaste for war and corruption. One does not have to think evolution is fact to be a doctor or a great leader...at least Ron Paul isn't using his religious beliefs as some sort of pretext to justify immoral behavior, as I perceive GWB has done, and as I think Obama would do if progressive Liberals went for that kind of thing.


A-fucking-men. And as usual, you make the best points. If only certain others here would realize this.

It absolutely astonishes me that some posters here ACTUALLY support Obama, despite the fact he's:

* flip-flopped and downright LIED about almost EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN '08 campaign promise, apart from maybe Obamacare
* owned and operated by the Military Industrial Complex (just like Romney)
* destroyed almost all of the 4th Amendment and part of the 1st Amendment
* has added over $6 trillion to the debt - which is more than ALL 40+ US Presidents in history COMBINED...and in only 3 1/2 years - which to date brings the total to $16.8 trillion
* doesn't know JACK SHIT ALL about economics or fiscal responsibility to save his life and hence is driving the US (and much of the world) into a double-dip recession that will make the current Housing Bubble Crisis look like a CAKE WALK
* wants stricter gun control laws, despite the FACT they haven't worked in other countries, but is partially responsible for the killings of TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians through collateral damage throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan

...to name but a few...

Yeah, I know. But don't laugh, folks...some people ACTUALLY support this hypocritical fucking idiot...

Here's are indepth summaries of Obama's lies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDDbTaWpwoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puS-yjwsiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40KXIqnpdvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNpulPISgWI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsbKe9WLWBk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc3J5ZLf9W0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFlBU_yWoNs

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
A rope leash wrote:
There is something inherently dishonest about someone that says "I have faith in the Bible", then says "the Adam and Eve story is bullshit". It is impossible to profess faith in something then turn around and say you believe part of it isn't true. The whole point of "belief" is having "faith" in religious dogma that is obviously fantastic.

The Bible tells the story of creation. All Christians and Jews are supposed to have faith that the Old Testament is "God's Word". Just because a particular sect declares the story of creation to be some sort of metaphor does not change what the Bible actually says, and I'll gaurangoddamtee that the Pope, leader of the supposed original Church, will insist that the "Word of God" be taken literally, in your heart if not in your practice. Why do you think Christians are so big on forgiveness? Because they constantly go against the Word, and indeed they sometimes must.

No, it doesn't matter what Ron Paul's religious beliefs are, so long as he believes in protecting and defending the Constitution, and has a general moral distaste for war and corruption. One does not have to think evolution is fact to be a doctor or a great leader...at least Ron Paul isn't using his religious beliefs as some sort of pretext to justify immoral behavior, as I perceive GWB has done, and as I think Obama would do if progressive Liberals went for that kind of thing.


Faith really depends on the individual, whether they take the bible in a metaphoric or literal sense, or both, depending how an individual wants it to fit into their own personal criteria.

Regarding claims that Ron Paul "has a general moral distaste for war, I refer you back to the very first post in this thread, where...

Quote:
H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


The claim that Ron Paul is anti-war has already been disproven in this thread yeas ago. His vote resolutions to not limit or dismantle intercontinetal ballistic missles were/are purly a pro-war posturing stance.


This thread gets better with age. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Atlanta
Disco Boy wrote:
tweedle-dumb and Caputh,

STOP misquoting/misinterpreting what I've stated...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

What you two geniuses don't seem to realize is that I was referring to CHRISTIANITY (not other denominations that follow different interpretations of Genesis). And since Obama claims to be a Christian, that means he would HAVE to adopt creationism as part of his belief system, otherwise he couldn't be considered a Christian. Which just goes to show how completely full of shit he really is (not that ANY further proof is needed).


Just because you don't like the fact that some Christians are not following the rules of their own book does not mean you can say they are not Christian. For your edification:

Percentage of CHRISTIANS who accept evolution:

A survey in the U.S., in 2007: "16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants".

Another, from 2009 this time:
"51% of Catholics, 32% of Protestants, and 16% of born-again Christians believed in Darwin's theory of evolution".

"The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).[79] These religious groups include the Catholic Church, as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[80][81] A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.[82]"

Whether you like it or not, all of the above are denominations OF CHRISTIANITY. A denomination does not mean they are part of a different religion. A denomination is a sub-group of a larger religion. In this case, all of the above groups are sub-groups of Christianity. Based on your argument, huge proportions of people who call themselves Christian are not. Your opinion of whether they are Christian or not is irrelevant. Just because a person chooses not to accept every single facet of a belief system does not mean they are not a member of that group. Do you accept every single portion of Ron Paul's political platform as complete truth without ever looking at it critically? If not, then you are not a true believer based on your own argument. Also, that would make you a fanatical cult follower. Only through critical analysis and using one's own brain can you make decisions about beliefs. If all Christian accepted every single word of the Bible as completely literal then they would all be thrown in jail for killing and maiming non-believers.

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3333
Location: Between the Badges
A rope leash wrote:
Probably one of the greatest characters ever to be borne out of television.

Everybody lies, but which person is more honest? One that says "I have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe in evolution", or a person that says "I have faith in the Bible, but some of it is bullshit"?

One might say that they are both honest, but which one is more consistent?

Awright, definitional stuff.
More honest. It doesn't work that way. Its like "pregnant" or "love". They are absolutes, so you can't be "a little honest" or "very honest". Either you are honest in a particular situation or you are not. Anything else is a rationalization. Its difficult when language uses phrases like "I love you alot", which are meaningless. Either one loves the other or doesn't. Anything else isn't love.
Consistency. As a fan of CC, I like this too. It is the means of integrity. The basis of integrity is having something worth continuing to believe in. Unfortunately, the topic is believing in God and God is dumb. The Bible does have some things worth at least a read (such as do unto others as you would have them do to you etc...) and if people want to parse, I have no problem with that, as I do so myself.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
I kind of disagree. Is that okay?

There are certainly degrees of love, and categories of love. Some people are more honest than others.

All I am saying is that if a person says they believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the consistent path of intellectual honesty would require them to reject the theory of evolution.

Everyone is free to pick and choose what to believe. Saying that you are Christian, but you don't believe in divine creation, is typical of hypocritical religious bullshit...as the Pope would say, "who are you to deny the Word of God?"

It may sound odd, but I have more respect for someone that thumps the Bible and stands firm on doctrine that I do for someone who says "well, yeah, I believe in the God of Abraham, but parts of the Bible are false".

That sort of thing is intellectually dishonest. You can't have it both ways...ask any preacher. People want to say God is real, because they are afraid He is real, and they will be punished after they die if they deny He is real. They don't know anything for certain, they just want to cover their asses just in case Hell really exists, and they do not want to be shunned by society...which, trust me, can happen to a person that declares atheism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Atlanta
A rope leash wrote:
It may sound odd, but I have more respect for someone that thumps the Bible and stands firm on doctrine that I do for someone who says "well, yeah, I believe in the God of Abraham, but parts of the Bible are false".


I agree completely about the respect issue. If I were to adopt a belief system, I would feel compelled to accept all parts of it in order to feel like I was being true to the given faith I chose. However, it is not always that simple. It is simply not possible to follow every single thing written in the bible completely literally. Some parts of the book actually contradict other portions of it.

Some examples of contradiction:

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


Based on this, does the Bible say wisdom is a good thing or a bad thing?

GEN 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

JAS 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."


So God tempted Abraham, but God cannot tempt any man?

Finally, in some places the Bible is just scientifically wrong:

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it. So, in this case, people are told NOT to eat a rabbit, because it is unclean because it "chews cud", but this is flat out untrue.

Also, many Christian believe that the New Testament of the Bible is a new agreement with their God, and that many of the restrictions that are in the Old Testament are no longer there. Many Christians believe Jesus Christ in the New Testament abolished the laws of the Old Testament and that we no longer have to keep any of them because "Jesus did it for us."

My point is this. I don't think many people who are making choices about what to believe in the Bible are always being dishonest. In many cases, the Bible is written in such a way that following the letter of the law is not possible, or is up for vast interpretation. In my mind, the fact that it is so inconsistent (and sometimes flat out wrong) should be enough to convince these people that their faith should be questioned, but instead, they feel they must reconcile it rather than abandon it. They need a safety net, and I do not fault them for needing to find a way to justify that net.

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4919
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
A Rope Leash wrote:
I kind of disagree. Is that okay?

There are certainly degrees of love, and categories of love. Some people are more honest than others.

All I am saying is that if a person says they believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the consistent path of intellectual honesty would require them to reject the theory of evolution.

Everyone is free to pick and choose what to believe. Saying that you are Christian, but you don't believe in divine creation, is typical of hypocritical religious bullshit...as the Pope would say, "who are you to deny the Word of God?"

It may sound odd, but I have more respect for someone that thumps the Bible and stands firm on doctrine that I do for someone who says "well, yeah, I believe in the God of Abraham, but parts of the Bible are false".

That sort of thing is intellectually dishonest. You can't have it both ways...ask any preacher. People want to say God is real, because they are afraid He is real, and they will be punished after they die if they deny He is real. They don't know anything for certain, they just want to cover their asses just in case Hell really exists, and they do not want to be shunned by society...which, trust me, can happen to a person that declares atheism.


But doesn't that mean, by that logic, that Ron Paul should go around chopping off people's hands (c.f,. above), greeting the wiping of whole cities (c.f. Sodom) with more jubilation, wishing plagues on America's enemies (c.f the Israelites and the Egyptians), condemning those who withdraw before climaxing as godless and worthy of death (c.f. Onan) a bit more than he does?
Also how about a converse point:

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven".
(Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25)

Now Conservative christians expend an awful lot of time trying to deny it, but Jesus did not like rich people very much. A lot of time and interpretation has been expended trying to explain that one away. However, Ron Paul's chances of entering heaven are fairly slim if we take this phrase literally - particularly with his gold obsession.
Everybody religious picks, chooses and interprets including both Obama and Ron Paul as well as their respective churches. As duchamp points out so rightly, with a book like the Bible (both Old and New Testament) that is filled with contradictions you probably have to.

My favourite historical example of a political use of the contradictions inherant in the Bible is Henry the VIII., who married his dead brother's wife with papal dispensation using Deuteronomy 25:5...

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."

...and divorced her using Chapter 20,verse 21 of Leviticus:

"And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless."

I wonder where Ron Paul stands on marrying your dead brother's wife?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Last edited by Caputh on Fri May 03, 2013 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3333
Location: Between the Badges
A rope leash wrote:
I kind of disagree. Is that okay?

There are certainly degrees of love, and categories of love. Some people are more honest than others.

All I am saying is that if a person says they believe the Bible is the Word of God, then the consistent path of intellectual honesty would require them to reject the theory of evolution.

Everyone is free to pick and choose what to believe. Saying that you are Christian, but you don't believe in divine creation, is typical of hypocritical religious bullshit...as the Pope would say, "who are you to deny the Word of God?"

It may sound odd, but I have more respect for someone that thumps the Bible and stands firm on doctrine that I do for someone who says "well, yeah, I believe in the God of Abraham, but parts of the Bible are false".

That sort of thing is intellectually dishonest. You can't have it both ways...ask any preacher. People want to say God is real, because they are afraid He is real, and they will be punished after they die if they deny He is real. They don't know anything for certain, they just want to cover their asses just in case Hell really exists, and they do not want to be shunned by society...which, trust me, can happen to a person that declares atheism.

Some people are not more honest than others. Some people are honest more often than others. See the difference?
The Bibley part of the conversation is less interesting for me than the definitional stuff.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
Very good points.

Religions go too far when it comes to punishments for infractions. No one is going to go chopping off hands because their religion tells them to, but whether or not this because they believe that part of the doctrine is wrong or that they know secular governments will come down on them for it I'm not really sure. I'm pretty sure most people who claim to be Christians would not put up with Biblical punishments, but if the church itself was in control, and had an army, they would no doubt be inquisitioning every damn person they could find.

Ron Paul's religious beliefs are his personal business. I don't think he's a zealot. As far as governance goes, I'm fairly confident that in his mind the Constitution trumps the Bible. How he feels about a brother marrying a dead brother's spouse is his own outlook, and I doubt he would be advocating legislation to make it illegal with so much other pressing business at hand.

In my mind, and I've said it before, mankind is going nowhere until they reject silly superstition, and come to recognize a common-sense morality based on the sanctity of life, which is a logical morality due to the relative rarity of life in the universe.

But, so long as children are raised in religion, and preachers make a tax-free living pushing it, religion will continue to dominate the minds of the masses. Taxing the bastards would be the first step in moving on with a new paradigm for mankind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1962
In duchamp's post, some Biblical contradictions are pointed out, one of them being the value of wisdom.

I'm not sure about wisdom, but Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, causing God to throw them out of Eden.

To me, this has to do with man's development into a sentient being, aware of being alive. Before they ate from the tree, they were just animals. God punished them by letting them know and understand things about life and the universe.

It hasn't turned out so well, has it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4919
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Both of Rope's posts above are reasoned, cogent arguments that show (once again) that he is interested in civilized debate (a little praise never hurt anyone did it? I hope I don't sound too pompous).

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
The Constitution itself, like the Bible isn't perfect nor is every single word fitting with the times. Both have historic contradictions. One only needs to read the parts regarding that all men are created equal, written at a time when slavery was legal, and certain groups of people didn't have certian unalienable rights, as one glaring example.


For some people, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are their bible, and any attempt to amend to narrow the definition of it's amendments to update it is frowned upon. It was that way when slavery was abolished, or when voting and civil rights were amended, and now with guns.


Bringing this back to Ron Paul though, and the notion of his beliefs in the bible versus his literal beliefs in the constitution...

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

...in this sense, that would make Ron Paul a heretic.




Regarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the forfathers didn't have a magic crystal ball and a guru to show them the future. They had no way of knowing how far our society would evolve in a technological or social sense. In order to preserve our union, our basic laws have to evolve with us and need to be more narrowly defined. Being a strict Constitutionalist who is against any changes for any reason, are exactly the same as members of religious fanatic cults.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2782 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 112  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group