It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 28
30
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Oh so I didn't realize that gays wanting to get married was tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum for a cookie. I thought I lived in a country that guarantees freedom for all people regardless of difference and that everyone should be given the same rights and privileges. So apparently (according to you) gays shouldn't get married and they shouldn't complain about it either. They should just accept the fact that they aren't considered equal under law and be happy about it. Fantastic. How about you go live in another country now? Because the United States doesn't work that way. And people's ability to complain is what has gotten more positive changes done in this country than bad.




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


Oh so I didn't realize that gays wanting to get married was tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum for a cookie. I thought I lived in a country that guarantees freedom for all people regardless of difference and that everyone should be given the same rights and privileges. So apparently (according to you) gays shouldn't get married and they shouldn't complain about it either. They should just accept the fact that they aren't considered equal under law and be happy about it. Fantastic. How about you go live in another country now? Because the United States doesn't work that way. And people's ability to complain is what has gotten more positive changes done in this country than bad.


The united states doesn't work period and it hasn't for some time now. Its a decades-long war time economy and mentality, killing relentlessly on borrowed time and with money borrowed from children yet unborn. American jobs sent to Indonesia where workers are paid pennies for items that are priced as if they were made in the US at union scale. Tens of thousands of people existing from one antidepressant pill to the next, others depending on street drugs grown in Afghanistan to deal with life's inequities. How many thousands of empty houses? How many families without houses? People living under bridges or in tents and others hoping their food stamps will stretch for two or three weeks. People and their pets being shot down in cold blood by rogue cops who are never held to account. That's the country you live in.

But the biggest complaint you have is about who you can marry, and what will make you life "all better" for you is if everyone who thinks there are more important issues on the table moves to a different country.

I am so done with you.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


So the country falling apart is an excuse not to better ourselves socially? That is some straight up BS if I ever heard it. If you want to fix the country, you have to start with the small things. Bickering over whether some sub-set of the population can get married or not is stupid. The Constitution already has the answer to that argument. Everyone is equal under law. Religion should mind its own damn business for once.

But here you are fueling the hate. Perpetuating this "I can't be bothered" attitude. You get all annoyed at the gays for wanting to be equal (likened it to a child throwing a tantrum) then you get annoyed at me for DARING to stand up for them (trying to ragequit the conversation). Well I ask you buddy, what is going to happen when you need help? What happens when the law decides to start discriminating against you? You already said it, our country is in the gutter. We are a stones throw away from a police state if we aren't there already. So when the time comes for your equality to disappear, do you think the gays will be willing to reach out a hand and defend your rights? Some will of course because they aren't assholes, but they certainly shouldn't have to, it's not like you gave a damn about them and their plight for equality.

If you want unity and cohesion (and that includes the country), you have to start with yourself son.

ETA: by the way if you think my biggest complaint with this country is social inequality for gays, you have another thing coming. You should go read my post history in the Political Madness Forum.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You do realize that there are churches here in America that accept homosexuality and not only accept it, allow them to get married right? These homosexuals who attend these churches are then what you would call religious. Therefore you are MORE ok with two non-religious (read: non-believers) getting married rather than two religious (read: belivers) getting married ALL because they are of the same sex? The fact that you fail to see your own hypocrisy is so laughable it hurts.

Keep in mind it is YOU who keeps insisting that marriage is a religious activity, not to mention you are adamant about it not being the sole property of Christianity. So if there exists a religion that accepts and marries homosexuals, your argument falls flat. Marriage is part of religion, a religion exists that accepts and marries homosexuals, therefore marriage between two homosexuals is ok. As a corollary, you have also said that it is ok for atheists to marry, therefore atheist (non-believer) homosexuals can get married as well.

You've argued yourself into a corner. Of course I've already predicted your response. You are going to say that the religions that accept and marry homosexuals (keep in mind they are Judeo-Christian as well) are wrong. But I already have an answer to that. That religion is as wrong as your religion, in that you have just as much proof for your religion as the one you will be denouncing as wrong.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 



All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?


I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 



All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?


I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.


And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

frazzle
But the biggest complaint you have is about who you can marry,

Actually that seems to be the complaint of the OP and, by the looks of it, you too.

Those on the other side would just grant them the right and be done with it.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


So the country falling apart is an excuse not to better ourselves socially? That is some straight up BS if I ever heard it. If you want to fix the country, you have to start with the small things. Bickering over whether some sub-set of the population can get married or not is stupid. The Constitution already has the answer to that argument. Everyone is equal under law. Religion should mind its own damn business for once.

But here you are fueling the hate. Perpetuating this "I can't be bothered" attitude. You get all annoyed at the gays for wanting to be equal (likened it to a child throwing a tantrum) then you get annoyed at me for DARING to stand up for them (trying to ragequit the conversation). Well I ask you buddy, what is going to happen when you need help? What happens when the law decides to start discriminating against you? You already said it, our country is in the gutter. We are a stones throw away from a police state if we aren't there already. So when the time comes for your equality to disappear, do you think the gays will be willing to reach out a hand and defend your rights? Some will of course because they aren't assholes, but they certainly shouldn't have to, it's not like you gave a damn about them and their plight for equality.

If you want unity and cohesion (and that includes the country), you have to start with yourself son.

ETA: by the way if you think my biggest complaint with this country is social inequality for gays, you have another thing coming. You should go read my post history in the Political Madness Forum.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


One more time, nowhere in the constitution will you find any clause stating, or even suggesting, that congress or government in general has the authority to interfere in personal relationships. The voluntary act of applying for government contracts and/or licenses effectively waives your "rights" in exchange for privileges that can be revised or revoked at any time because you signed up for it. They wave the benefits carrot in your face and when you bite they apply the studded celery stick to your head. The only rights you have are those you didn't agree to waive with your signature, which at this late date would be about nada, zip, zilch. Illegal aliens have more rights than the American citizens simply because they have signed NOTHING. Once they go for the welfare carrot, its all over for them, too.

So yeah, lets start with the small things. Kiss my sore toe, mommy, and put a band aid on it. Don't worry about the gaping festering hole in my head. Sorry, my bad.

If there is ever to be any unity and cohesion it has to begin with the widespread understanding that government is not benign. It is not your friend. It is shadows and mirrors, trickery and fakery and has always been. I admit that I get sarcastic and maybe even a little abusive with people who are under the delusion that they can squeeze a few painless favors out of officials who don't give two %#%s about them. They care only about continuity of government to protect their own power and control over their citizen subjects and they flagrantly USE delusional people to do that, usually with contract law. That's how we got to where we are.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Then your problem is with the institution of marriage. Might as well say, no one should get married. It obviously doesn't mean anything to you. Personally, I don't care either way. Either no one gets married or you let everyone marry who they want. Also, stop twisting this thread into a thread about welfare. I never brought up welfare. I'm not even a Democrat for your information. I'm Libertarian. So I AGREE with you about smaller government, but as a Libertarian I also seek out social progressiveness. It's not my business if two gays get married, therefore I have no right to deny them the ability to do so. Therefore it should be allowed. End of story.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


Then your problem is with the institution of marriage. Might as well say, no one should get married. It obviously doesn't mean anything to you. Personally, I don't care either way. Either no one gets married or you let everyone marry who they want. Also, stop twisting this thread into a thread about welfare. I never brought up welfare. I'm not even a Democrat for your information. I'm Libertarian. So I AGREE with you about smaller government, but as a Libertarian I also seek out social progressiveness. It's not my business if two gays get married, therefore I have no right to deny them the ability to do so. Therefore it should be allowed. End of story.


I'm not saying that at all, marriage should just not involve contracting with government, which becomes the dominant "partner" in a three way partnership. The government is a corporate entity, not a we the people construct. Married couples (and their offspring, if any) are subordinates to the central corporation.

I only used welfare as an example of the creation of a contractual nexus between individuals and corporate government in exchange for certain benefits and privileges, which people tend to misconstrue as rights. They are not rights, they are privileges. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

It always amazes me when a libertarian says he's for smaller government all the while he's calling out for bigger government. And I don't care who gets married in a church, by a justice of the peace or by the birds in the elm tree out front, I just think it would be good if they knew ALL of the ramifications beforehand.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 



All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?


I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.


And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?


It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

frazzle

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


Then your problem is with the institution of marriage. Might as well say, no one should get married. It obviously doesn't mean anything to you. Personally, I don't care either way. Either no one gets married or you let everyone marry who they want. Also, stop twisting this thread into a thread about welfare. I never brought up welfare. I'm not even a Democrat for your information. I'm Libertarian. So I AGREE with you about smaller government, but as a Libertarian I also seek out social progressiveness. It's not my business if two gays get married, therefore I have no right to deny them the ability to do so. Therefore it should be allowed. End of story.


I'm not saying that at all, marriage should just not involve contracting with government, which becomes the dominant "partner" in a three way partnership. The government is a corporate entity, not a we the people construct. Married couples (and their offspring, if any) are subordinates to the central corporation.


Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


I only used welfare as an example of the creation of a contractual nexus between individuals and corporate government in exchange for certain benefits and privileges, which people tend to misconstrue as rights. They are not rights, they are privileges. I don't know how to make that any clearer.


The government giving a person money for not doing anything is COMPLETELY different than the government letting two people share legal marriage status. For one, one takes a TON of bureaucracy to implement and disperse these "privileges". The other is just a legal document.


It always amazes me when a libertarian says he's for smaller government all the while he's calling out for bigger government. And I don't care who gets married in a church, by a justice of the peace or by the birds in the elm tree out front, I just think it would be good if they knew ALL of the ramifications beforehand.


Explain to me how the government issuing a legal document to more parties than it was previously issuing said legal document to expanding government? All I see is that it is just changing the rules of the existing size of government. Like I said, either no one gets married or anyone is allowed to marry whoever they want. It really is as simple as that. Any other argument is based in ignorance and prejudice.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 



All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?


I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.


And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?


It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.


Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


You make "setting the rules" sound like a final determination that what they make legal today will remain legal forever. Do you know what revised statutes are? Let me give you a hint: just about the time you think you've figured out the rules, another party takes control and they change the rules. Keep in mind that they won't necessarily tell you they changed the rules until after you've broken one of them.

That's how it is.

ETA: I think you forgot to point me to the constitutional clause that gives congress (the authority) to "set this new rule".
edit on 17-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)





edit on 17-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


You make "setting the rules" sound like a final determination that what they make legal today will remain legal forever. Do you know what revised statutes are? Let me give you a hint: just about the time you think you've figured out the rules, another party takes control and they change the rules. Keep in mind that they won't necessarily tell you they changed the rules until after you've broken one of them.

That's how it is.


Ok, so what do you think the odds are that government will take its say out of marriage? I'm going to bet close to zero. So until marriage becomes the sole domain of religion again, anyone should be able to get married to whoever they want.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


You make "setting the rules" sound like a final determination that what they make legal today will remain legal forever. Do you know what revised statutes are? Let me give you a hint: just about the time you think you've figured out the rules, another party takes control and they change the rules. Keep in mind that they won't necessarily tell you they changed the rules until after you've broken one of them.

That's how it is.


Ok, so what do you think the odds are that government will take its say out of marriage? I'm going to bet close to zero. So until marriage becomes the sole domain of religion again, anyone should be able to get married to whoever they want.


I actually agree that its about a zero chance of that happening because people cherish their documentation and their licenses, it defines them, it makes them feel "real". But government control of marriage isn't done through legislation, its done through contractual agreements as I've pointed out multiple times. They write the rules for people who have such licenses and documentation. Its purely voluntary. At least it was until this current push for more lawmaking sans lawful authority.

Like I said, you can get married by the birds in the elm tree out front and be free of government regulation and probably from any outside interest in it. Oh, the horrors. Libertarian my skinny backside.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

frazzle

Krazysh0t

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


You make "setting the rules" sound like a final determination that what they make legal today will remain legal forever. Do you know what revised statutes are? Let me give you a hint: just about the time you think you've figured out the rules, another party takes control and they change the rules. Keep in mind that they won't necessarily tell you they changed the rules until after you've broken one of them.

That's how it is.


Ok, so what do you think the odds are that government will take its say out of marriage? I'm going to bet close to zero. So until marriage becomes the sole domain of religion again, anyone should be able to get married to whoever they want.


I actually agree that its about a zero chance of that happening because people cherish their documentation and their licenses, it defines them, it makes them feel "real". But government control of marriage isn't done through legislation, its done through contractual agreements as I've pointed out multiple times. They write the rules for people who have such licenses and documentation. Its purely voluntary. At least it was until this current push for more lawmaking sans lawful authority.

Like I said, you can get married by the birds in the elm tree out front and be free of government regulation and probably from any outside interest in it. Oh, the horrors. Libertarian my skinny backside.


AND that's why I said either everyone can get married how they want or NO ONE can get married at all. When it comes to the government, it is all or nothing. If you want to keep it PURELY religious, then fine, but no legal benefits, pieces of paper, tax benefits, etc FOR ANYONE. THAT has been my entire argument. Explain to me how that is anything close to wanting bigger government? That is the EXACT mentality of Libertarianism. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive. We are NOT about picking and choosing what benefits groups of people get. Equality for all no matter what your difference.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 



All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?


I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Conscience comes from God.

We are at cross purposes as to what fundamentalism is. As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind. This revelation was turned into religion, which is only an echo of God's word. But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience. Everything we need to know about God has already been said by those mentioned above and by the mystics and saints. What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.


And what proof do you have that these men weren't simply just extremely brilliant people who said some great things? Which then got turned into a religion?


It is not about proof. Outside mathematics there is no proof. It is about using our minds to form an opinion as to what is the best explanation for the world. My conviction is that these people were inspired by God. Earlier I mentioned The Axial Age. This represents a kind of spiritual equivalent of the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, the world moved forward by a whole movement of enlightenment. There are many many reasons why I am a theist. Theism is, in my thinking, the most comprehensive explanation.


Well to me, that sounds insulting to the ingenuity man. Man couldn't POSSIBLY come up with these concepts on his own, it HAS to be an outside force, a divinity per se.


Ingenuity by itself is not necessarily good. It produced the atomic bomb. My whole point is that without spiritual lights, the ingenuity of man will serve evil. Given man's history, I hardly need to argue the point.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

frazzle

Krazysh0t

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well it is. So deal with it. Now that it is, we have to determine the rules for what the government accepts as legal marriage.


You make "setting the rules" sound like a final determination that what they make legal today will remain legal forever. Do you know what revised statutes are? Let me give you a hint: just about the time you think you've figured out the rules, another party takes control and they change the rules. Keep in mind that they won't necessarily tell you they changed the rules until after you've broken one of them.

That's how it is.


Ok, so what do you think the odds are that government will take its say out of marriage? I'm going to bet close to zero. So until marriage becomes the sole domain of religion again, anyone should be able to get married to whoever they want.


I actually agree that its about a zero chance of that happening because people cherish their documentation and their licenses, it defines them, it makes them feel "real". But government control of marriage isn't done through legislation, its done through contractual agreements as I've pointed out multiple times. They write the rules for people who have such licenses and documentation. Its purely voluntary. At least it was until this current push for more lawmaking sans lawful authority.

Like I said, you can get married by the birds in the elm tree out front and be free of government regulation and probably from any outside interest in it. Oh, the horrors. Libertarian my skinny backside.


AND that's why I said either everyone can get married how they want or NO ONE can get married at all. When it comes to the government, it is all or nothing. If you want to keep it PURELY religious, then fine, but no legal benefits, pieces of paper, tax benefits, etc FOR ANYONE. THAT has been my entire argument. Explain to me how that is anything close to wanting bigger government? That is the EXACT mentality of Libertarianism. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive. We are NOT about picking and choosing what benefits groups of people get. Equality for all no matter what your difference.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Well gee, check it out. Paying taxes is voluntary, too. Just another part of the "social contract".
taxes.about.com...

I agree, no legal benefits for anyone, freedom for all. Keep the fruits of your labor. The carrots are probably GMO anyway.


edit on 17-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Conscience comes from God.

You already acknowledged it didn't. You said you picked what was good and bad about each religion based on what you thought was moral. Now you're saying that conscience was god. That you realize it the same as saying your mind is god, which makes you a prophet.


As I pointed out earlier even the Jews in Jesus' time did not take the bible literally. They saw the Old Testement as allegorical or as stories about God.

That holds little pertinence as to what we were discussing. Which was Dawkins. So we need to keep it contextual to today. Today, it seems, majority are fundamentalist.

That said, can you link proof biblical Israel took the Hebrew canon as completely allegorical. I don't buy that at all.


Through people like Abraham, Moses, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddah...God gave revelation to mankind.

And then he stopped giving revelation to people.. Why only the ancient past?

Look this religious pluralist/comparative position just don't work. We have conflicting teachings! God came down and gave completely contrary ways of how to conduct oneself? The only way you are able to make this work, again, is by picking what you like out of them and dismissing the bad! However if it was god revealing that revelation to each one of those people then what right do you have to do that?? Surely you should embrace the whole of it.


But there is great guidance in the Bible as to God's Will if we read it with intelligence and conscience.

LIke this gem?

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Rape victims should be put to death. Sorry but my intelligence and conscience is coming to a different conclusion as to its moral guidance.

Back to your earlier point. You're saying biblical Israel would have taken that as allegorical??


What we need is to let God inform us when we read these works. If we read in a spirit of prayer God will, by His Grace, illuminate the words and fill us with understanding.

Earlier it was shown majority of atheists were once religious. In the States, once Christian at least. So explain this. They were able to believe in the Bible when they read because god filled them with the holy spirit. Then he stopped illuminating the words for them?


I read The God Delusion. It is hateful. Dawkins hates religion.

Ahhh. I hate that crap too. We shouldn't allow beliefs that have zero evidence to impact our World like religion does. I am far from filled with hatred. I spend most my time in a care home facility for medically fragile children. I'd like to think I'm filled with a range of emotions and love being one of them.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join