- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (princess @ Mar. 22 2011,23:04) Quote My opinion always has been that we should love christians but oppose the christianity that makes them say silly things. It looks like you can add that christianity makes them believe in immoral ideas, too. Love the christian nonetheless is this platitude, copycatting, or just mockery. personally i find it to be amusing.
really Stuart, you need to step up your game, you are becoming to predictable.
I'd say mockery mostly, but since I can show that I follow it in practice it cannot be called a platitude.If you are not happy with the idea of mockery then perhaps you should take that up with Saul of Tarsus. He warned you that would happen. In a way I am fulfilling prophecy for you, but you mock me for doing that.
Very strange.
Stuart
what i find strange Stuart, is that either you had consumed too much alcohol or over medicated yourself during the reading of my post. which ever the case may be, perhaps you should take the time and actually read and digest the information.
i cannot even create a comparison chart in re: heart surgery/abortion, so perhaps you could produce one for me. to clarify.
i do not understand the saul of tarus comment, due to the man was wrong in so many ways towards woman, so please refrain from using such nonsense in our discussions. i am sure you will be able to comprehend the matter, hopefully.
do take care Stuart. you are starting to concern me.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 24 2011,07:04) what i find strange Stuart, is that either you had consumed too much alcohol or over medicated yourself during the reading of my post. which ever the case may be, perhaps you should take the time and actually read and digest the information. i cannot even create a comparison chart in re: heart surgery/abortion, so perhaps you could produce one for me. to clarify.
i do not understand the saul of tarus comment, due to the man was wrong in so many ways towards woman, so please refrain from using such nonsense in our discussions. i am sure you will be able to comprehend the matter, hopefully.
do take care Stuart. you are starting to concern me.
So the writing of Saul of Tarsus, amounting to at least 1/3 of the New Testament, is wrong? Wow.I'd agree of course with you that he was misogynistic, homophobic and megalomaniac. But aren't his words some kind of representation of the will or wishes of your god?
Stuart
Stuart,
you ever watch a dog chase it's tail. ur post seems to have similar qualities. you call yourself a scientist, one that gathers data, analysis. i am now finding this hard to believe.
it seems that you are the type that prefers to gather and analysis information by others then doing the leg work yourself. that would explain a lot.the heart surgery/abortion chart seems not to be available at this time, strange thought for sure there would be one. we could use your analogy in many areas, perhaps self defense is an easier subject for you, or not.
take care of yourself Stuart, truly.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 24 2011,21:55) Stuart, you ever watch a dog chase it's tail. ur post seems to have similar qualities. you call yourself a scientist, one that gathers data, analysis. i am now finding this hard to believe.
it seems that you are the type that prefers to gather and analysis information by others then doing the leg work yourself. that would explain a lot.the heart surgery/abortion chart seems not to be available at this time, strange thought for sure there would be one. we could use your analogy in many areas, perhaps self defense is an easier subject for you, or not.
take care of yourself Stuart, truly.
I have never called myself a scientist anywhere on this forum.What “leg work” are you suggesting here?
The heart surgery scenario is there to point out that all medical procedures have the potential to produce squeamishness in those who view or ponder them. This is all your argument amounted to: an emotive squeamish reaction to the realities of surgery. There was no ethical argument about either destroying a foetus or destroying the tissues on the way into the heart. In BOTH cases an adult life was being saved, and in BOTH cases there is some pretty gruesome treatment of human flesh. There is no ethical argument to be had in this, but I gave you the ethical argument underneath all that in the post that you appear not to have read, despite you criticising me for not reading your posts in sufficient depth.
If squeamishness and emotional kneejerk reaction was a barrier to the ethical advancement of medical science then we would not have all sorts of life-saving technology today.
Where is your ethical argument that the death of a woman from preventable complications of pregnancy, easily treated by abortion, is preferable to abortion?
Stuart
Stuart,
alright, your not a scientist, you just play one.
Stuart, you comparing heart surgery to abortion can be used in the same reference as some one that uses herion, the one can use the medicine to help relieve pain, but on the same hand one can be an addict. whichever be the case with you they are both fine to do.
same subject, different views.
really Stuart, i find your human secular thought process even hard to work with critical thinking.
as is life.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,04:51) Stuart, alright, your not a scientist, you just play one.
Stuart, you comparing heart surgery to abortion can be used in the same reference as some one that uses herion, the one can use the medicine to help relieve pain, but on the same hand one can be an addict. whichever be the case with you they are both fine to do.
same subject, different views.
really Stuart, i find your human secular thought process even hard to work with critical thinking.
as is life.
Well then you still don't see the reason why I mentioned heart surgery. If you go back to that earlier post and ignore the part about surgery altogether then it still communicates the important point: there is an ethical argument to be made for abortion, and it is principally that no one has the right to tell anyone else what medical care they must and must not consent to undergoing. The foetus is entirely dependent on the wellbeing of the pregnant woman. The only party capable of giving medical consent is the woman and her rights must be upheld regardless.Stuart
Yes, Stuart, your adament about that a person can do what they want with their body. Perhaps I take the same stand as you.
If one chooses to believe in a deity, then it is their choice. who are you to tell them any different.
their choice, isn't Stuart.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,18:45) If one chooses to believe in a deity, then it is their choice. who are you to tell them any different. their choice, isn't Stuart.
Hi Princess,
the problem is that many people who believe in a deity appear to have no choice except for what they emagine the deity tells them.Tim
Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,18:45) Yes, Stuart, your adament about that a person can do what they want with their body. Perhaps I take the same stand as you. If one chooses to believe in a deity, then it is their choice. who are you to tell them any different.
their choice, isn't Stuart.
You are entitled to believe what you like. In addition to Tim's point I would also note the danger of coming to a limited and impoverished knowledge of the world because of a prior commitment to a religious dogma. That might take the form of submission to the wrong idea that the universe and the humans in it must have been created: the only explanation we have that really is an explanation does not involve any “creation”. Worse it might appear as the laughable nonsense encapsulated in the ideas of creationism.It might also take the form of holding a conspiracy theory view of the universe in which everything that happens or exists is the result of some kind of intent by a deity. There is no good reason to think this is a valid way to view the universe and in my experience it can lead to some pretty complicated excuses made for the deity when it appears things have gone wrong.
For example, the recent earthquakes and tsunami: was all that NOT the work of an omnipotent god that is supposedly responsible for the existence of everything, including tectonic plates? If it is not the intent of the god, then why not? If it is then why have some been killed and others not? Why would anyone worship a god that apparently has arbitrary views about who should live and who should die? What is the point of even thinking on such a god if its actions and motives are so unfathomable? After the Christchurch earthquakes I heard some religious arguments that went something like “the earth just did what it does but we saw god in the heroic rescues and comforting of those who suffered”. These people were very quite on the elephant-in-the-room question of whether their god could have thought to prevent the earthquake. So is this god think malicious, or impotent or petulant? No doubt there is another layer of apology available to further confuse those who wish to think clearly about these questions. Although you never hear the words “sorry we must have been wrong” from their lips. One woman who was rescued from the Christchurch rubble said on TV that she believed she had been saved by god because she had a purpose to fulfil that was ahead of her. As if all those who died did not. What a really miserable view of others this evil belief system causes some christians to take.
What of the fact that there is not one single scrap of unambiguous evidence to support the existence of these claimed things called gods? Is that not just wishful thinking? It certainly requires a lot of special pleading.
On the other hand, the Good News of Jesus is that he was probably a decent bloke but all the superstitious gobbledygook invented by the gospel writers, Saul of Tarsus and one of the Johns is all messianic make believe fantasy and the reality is that the earth shakes because of tectonic plate movement, and survival comes down to good architecture and chance natural effects that contain no INTENT whatever.
It is entirely your choice to adopt this immoral belief system. Good luck with that. I wouldn't expect anything to make clear sense for you if you do.
Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2011,22:14) Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,18:45) If one chooses to believe in a deity, then it is their choice. who are you to tell them any different. their choice, isn't Stuart.
Hi Princess,
the problem is that many people who believe in a deity appear to have no choice except for what they imagine the deity tells them.Tim
timdo not disagree, the common factor in all religions is that they must do this or that to ensure they are pleasing the god/gods.
make the god happy all is well, upset the god, all is hell.
tim when you read a book on let's say ' how to change the oil in your car' would you open the trunk?
all religions have traditions, practices, beliefs. some are strange, some are cruel, some of loving. whichever the case may be it is theirs. deities are worldwide. what i find most intriguing is that the majority of religions are peaceful, with this it seems they are the minority that is listened to.
it all applies to the golden rule, whoever has the gold rules.
such is life.
as always tim, a pleasure.
Stuart
Once again it shows that we think from two different ends of the spectrum, the world was created, it is a working machine, even though we understand how the machine works. does not mean we should try to control it or destroy it. it is all we have.
here i thought that religions around the world would take notice of how japan handled itself afterwords. the amount of damage that occurred, only 70 stores were stolen from, 70. that number in itself, astounding. however, such things are swept under the rug. so whatever religion system they have, something should be taken from it, taught & applied.
perhaps you are a perfectionist, it would expand on your thought process. in how you present humans are faulty.
i personally do not care that you bring up such biblical characters and try to discredit them, in all honesty i could do a better job, however not my plot in life so to speak.
and Stuart, luck has nothing to do with anything. it is skill.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,23:29) Stuart Once again it shows that we think from two different ends of the spectrum, the world was created, it is a working machine, even though we understand how the machine works. does not mean we should try to control it or destroy it. it is all we have.
here i thought that religions around the world would take notice of how japan handled itself afterwords. the amount of damage that occurred, only 70 stores were stolen from, 70. that number in itself, astounding. however, such things are swept under the rug. so whatever religion system they have, something should be taken from it, taught & applied.
perhaps you are a perfectionist, it would expand on your thought process. in how you present humans are faulty.
i personally do not care that you bring up such biblical characters and try to discredit them, in all honesty i could do a better job, however not my plot in life so to speak.
and Stuart, luck has nothing to do with anything. it is skill.
What do you mean by “the world was created”? It's a just so story, a myth that doesn't actually say anything. Christianity is full of examples of telling its adherents nonsense phrases that have no explanation attached. In fact the Judeo-christian scriptures contain no properly satisfying explanations for anything as far as I have read them. Do you know of any?I'd be guilty of stepping into the territory of Godwin's Law here by mentioning Hitler but I recently read an account of the hours-long speeches Hitler gave after he first became Chancellor. He would shout, cry, blame and assert but never explain, evaluate or analyse anything. Of course most of what he was claiming would never have stood up to analysis or evaluation. That analysis was done by the cartoonists who mocked him, which is why they were so damaging to him and why school children study wartime cartoons to this day.
It's exactly the same with christianity. There is cajoling and emotional rhetoric and naming of non-believers as “fools” and all sorts of asserting of things that just sound like superstitious claptrap to any critical thinker (you included yourself as one of those in an earlier post but I did see any critical analysis of anything you wrote). There is no explanation, no analysis and no evaluation. The Judeo-christian mythology and Mein Kampf appear to have quite a bit in common. Of course you seem to be rejecting the writing of Saul of Tarsus, and I would view that as a moral act!
Perhaps the one exception to the lack of critical thinking in your post is the part about the religious beliefs of Japan. If you look it up on Wikipedia you will see that a clear majority of Japanese do not believe in any god or do not believe in Buddha. It would be easy for me to say that since Japan is one of the most atheistic nations on the planet (and not in a dictated way like China) that therefore atheism produces less looting, but that is probably not where the reason lies. I would say there is less looting there because of cultural expectation. To say they don't loot because they are atheists would be to give no actual positive causal explanation at all.
Is a religious belief system that only ever asserts and never explains or analyses a moral one? If one took Judeo-christian scripture as your only source of “teaching” then one could never develop those higher order thinking skills. Perhaps that explains a lot of the low-level of thinking that can be observed in posts on religious forums.
Meantime, christianity appears to me to be immoral on this front too.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ Mar. 25 2011,23:10) it all applies to the golden rule, whoever has the gold rules.
Yup!
Stuart
Stuart, perhaps you should re invest some time in your sources, they seem to be outdated and problematic.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi….me.html
Stuart, your bang, the gang is all here, is as believable as the story of the a turtle holding up the earth. perhaps you prefer the crocus flower, or just a shot in the dark, you may be one of those that believe we are the mistakes/trash of a higher intelligent race. you believe what you want, i prefer creation. how could i not, i have me as an example.
i disagree somewhat with your conclusion:
Quote If one took Judeo-christian scripture as your only source of “teaching” then one could never develop those higher order thinking skills. this is due to my own experience, without these 'teachings', i would have never have grown spiritually. i understand you have not been able to experience such things, which to me gives me a little edge on ones like yourself.
alas Stuart, abortion is immoral to me. does abortion effect the world as religion does, no, how could it the ones that should have a say don't get a chance, they had to rely on someone to survive, and that person choose to take their lifeline away.
however, i would not want to be one that believes in karma and hold abortion in such high respect. could not image such a death.
well dear Stuart, must finish polishing my nails. do take care of yourself, give your cat a pat on the head for me.
Quote (princess @ Mar. 26 2011,11:52) Stuart, perhaps you should re invest some time in your sources, they seem to be outdated and problematic. http://www.ne.jp/asahi….me.html
Stuart, your bang, the gang is all here, is as believable as the story of the a turtle holding up the earth. perhaps you prefer the crocus flower, or just a shot in the dark, you may be one of those that believe we are the mistakes/trash of a higher intelligent race. you believe what you want, i prefer creation. how could i not, i have me as an example.
i disagree somewhat with your conclusion:
Quote If one took Judeo-christian scripture as your only source of “teaching” then one could never develop those higher order thinking skills. this is due to my own experience, without these 'teachings', i would have never have grown spiritually. i understand you have not been able to experience such things, which to me gives me a little edge on ones like yourself.
alas Stuart, abortion is immoral to me. does abortion effect the world as religion does, no, how could it the ones that should have a say don't get a chance, they had to rely on someone to survive, and that person choose to take their lifeline away.
however, i would not want to be one that believes in karma and hold abortion in such high respect. could not image such a death.
well dear Stuart, must finish polishing my nails. do take care of yourself, give your cat a pat on the head for me.
To which part of the source on Japan do you wish to refer me?You are still spinning the platitudes. Your mantra is the word “creation” but it means less and less the more you use it. You are the product of slow incremental evolutionary steps. Not sure how the term “creation” applies to that process in your view. As I suggested, Judeo-christianity will not leave you with clear meaning of anything, and it seems I am right.
Regarding trash, Carl Sagan was the one who popularised the expression “you are starstuff” in reference to the fact that the atoms that make up our bodies came from a nearby supernova that blew out the gas and dust that became the matter of the planets of our solar system. He went on to say that you could also claim that be cause those atoms are the result of nuclear reactions that we are also nuclear waste. Not sure about other intelligent races. It's humans and perhaps cetaceans that have the thing you might call intelligence. Nothing else as far as we know.
Not sure what you mean by spiritual growth. What I mean by that is an enhanced understanding of yourself and your place in the universe. Perhaps it manifests itself emotionally as a sense of awe in contemplation of that. Christianity has just so stories that do not match what we observe. It is an immoral belief system founded on the desire for political power by Constantine and others. It spins tales about supernatural beings noone has ever seen and it expects you to believe things that are nonsense. Does that leave you with a sense of awe and an enhanced knowledge of yourself and your place in the universe? I don't think so. I think your spirituality must be a very impoverished one if it cannot give any insight into what is prima facie apparently true. It gives you a quite nasty conspiracy theory to believe in. Is that awe-inspiring? I think my spirituality trumps that of any believer in a conspiracy that is not supported by anything more than the Hitleresque assertions of ancient politicians.
I agree that I could not imagine being an aborted foetus, but that is because had that happened to me I would not have had a nervous system capable of knowing the experience, and would not be having this conversation now, and that it would have made no knowable difference to anything. Perhaps it matters to your god, but then I would take issue with that given the number of instances that god causes the loss of foetuses or threatens it in scripture, and the complete lack of any clear objection to the practice. It is a Catholic idea invented through a convoluted but shallow exercise in reasoning, not a scriptural imperative as far as I can see.
Why should aborted foetuses have “had a say”? What universal principle is this? It sounds almost like the “what if Mozart had been aborted?” argument, to which the natural response is “what if Hitler had been aborted?”.
Stuart
Stu and Princess;
http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
WARNING: This video contains graphic images which some may find disturbing.
Quote (pace e amore @ Mar. 26 2011,17:59) Stu and Princess; http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
WARNING: This video contains graphic images which some may find disturbing.
What does the video show? Why did you post it? Are you suggesting we watch it? Why?Stuart
Quote (pace e amore @ Mar. 26 2011,17:59) Stu and Princess; http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
WARNING: This video contains graphic images which some may find disturbing.
Same questions as Stu.
I don't arbitrarily open videos or other
sites unless I know something about why I should.Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
