[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

You don't have to believe in an afterlife to believe that life is worth living and worth living well.

That is correct, as I said before, you only have to believe in God to have a BASIS for that belief.

The sylogism stands:

1) Objective moral values only exist if God exists
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore God exists

Even the greatest of atheist or agnostic minds (Kai Nielsen, Anthony Flew) have found this too great an argument to tackle. Hawking, I believe, has had to argue away the very existance of evil to maintain his position with consistency.

Originally Posted by Ninong

When you think about it, religion really does require a lot of faith.

John Polkinghorne, the theoretical physicist who taught at Cambridge, has described the odds of a universe like ours coming into existence on its own to be like taking a shot at a 1 square inch object on the other side of the universe 20 billion light years away and hitting it bullseye.

Lets be honest. Atheism takes some faith too.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

The sylogism stands:

1) Objective moral values only exist if God exists
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore God exists

1) Christmas gifts for children only exist if Santa Claus exists.
2) Christmas gifts do exist.
3) Therefore Santa Claus exists.

We can prove that Santa Claus exists because Christmas gifts exist. Christmas gifts are either made or received. Whoever gives Christmas gifts either makes them in a workshop or receives them from others. If no one made Christmas gifts, then there would be no Christmas gifts to receive. Therefore there must be a first giver of Christmas gifts which we call Santa Claus.

We can prove that Santa Claus exists by observing the behavior of little children. They tend to behave better as Christmas Day approaches. Children would not behave better just because of the approaching Nativity of Christ unless there was someone else involved who gave them presents and this someone is known as Santa Claus.

We can also prove that Santa Claus exists by the degrees of Christmas spirit. Some people exhibit more Christmas spirit than others. Therefore, there must be a source of maximum Christmas spirit and this we call Santa Claus.

Lets be honest. Atheism takes some faith too.

Which is why I have never pretended to be an atheist.



P.S. -- Proof that I exist: Cogito ergo sum.

[schrocat]

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

The proposition that tolerance of any religion, seeds the ground for all of the religious extremism that we have/are dealing with is interesting food for thought.

Scott,

I still believe that people should be free to believe or not believe whatever they choose but stories like this one may help prove your author's point.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

I wrote: “I believe that human beings come into “existence” at the moment of fertilization.”

You responded: “Which is the position the Bush Administration would like to see codified into law. It is, however, a position based on a particular religion and not science. It is based on the religious concept of a soul.”

For the sake of argument, let’s say it is based on the concept that human life is deserving of protection at all stages, especially as those where it is incapable of defending itself.

You wrote: “The "spilling of one's seed" -- male masturbation -- was also called sodomy. You will find this prohibition in both the Bible and the Koran. Remember that at that time it was believed that life resided in the man's "seed" alone. The concept of the human egg was not yet understood.”

The biblical passage that references the “spilling of seed” was pointing out the unwillingness of the male involved to fulfill his societal obligation to father children with his deceased brother’s wife. (As per Jewish law at the time) This was not a prohibition against contraception per. say.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Ninong,

I wrote: “I believe that human beings come into “existence” at the moment of fertilization.”

You responded: “Which is the position the Bush Administration would like to see codified into law. It is, however, a position based on a particular religion and not science. It is based on the religious concept of a soul.”

For the sake of argument, let’s say it is based on the concept that human life is deserving of protection at all stages, especially as those where it is incapable of defending itself.

We've been through this a dozen times already. I know your position and you know mine.

I'm in favor of embryonic stem cell research and you're against it. I would like to see a law in the U.S. similar to the one in the U.K. that allows the use of IVF clinic leftover blastocysts provided they are utilized prior to the 14th day. In fact, they are always utilized well before the 14th day. At the 14th day, the cells begin to differentiate and can no longer be used because they are no longer undifferentiated stem cells.

My position is that this is a pro-life decision based on the greater good and your position is that this is an unacceptable violation of human life because you believe in equal protection of human life from the moment of conception. There are others who consider themselves devout Christians, particularly Mormons, who do not believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. They believe that it begins at the moment when the implanted fertilized egg is viably attached. Those people have no problem with stem cell research and no problem with the morning after pill. I don't either.

I believe somewhere in this forum, probably another thread, I went into Thomas Aquinas' rather complicated definition of human life as it relates to his concept of three different stages of the development of the human soul. I don't feel like getting into all of that all over again. Aquinas' teachings are the foundation of natural theology and fundamental to the current teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Suffice it to say that I know what you believe and you know that I know what you believe. We just don't believe the same thing. I think that I'm being practical and realistic and you think that I'm being a relativist. You believe that you're a moral absolutist. I believe there is no such thing. You believe that you believe in the Bible. I believe that you, and ALL Christians, practice cafeteria Christianity -- you pick and choose only those passages you like and ignore those that don't suit you. That's why I delight in picking only the passages that are ignored by most Christians and giving them more exposure.



Ninong's Bible tip of the day for practicing Christians: You probably already know from Leviticus that you should not wear garments of blended fibers but did you know that colors are forbidden? Ecclesiastes says "let your garments always be white." (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10). There are exceptions, however, such as when God wants you to walk stark naked throughout the land to impress people. (Isaiah 20:2-3)

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

You wrote: “The "spilling of one's seed" -- male masturbation -- was also called sodomy. You will find this prohibition in both the Bible and the Koran. Remember that at that time it was believed that life resided in the man's "seed" alone. The concept of the human egg was not yet understood.”

The biblical passage that references the “spilling of seed” was pointing out the unwillingness of the male involved to fulfill his societal obligation to father children with his deceased brother’s wife. (As per Jewish law at the time) This was not a prohibition against contraception per. say.

The "spilling of one's seed" is prohibited, period. There are probably other passages besides the two that you are referring to (Genesis 38:7-10 and Deuteronomy 25:5-10). I can probably find other passages that proscribe contraception, per se and otherwise, if I look. In Genesis the penalty for refusing to impregnate your brother's widow is death but in Deuteronomy it's just having your shoe removed from your foot and being spat upon in the face by your dead brother's widow and from then on your "name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe loosed." I wonder why the penalty is death in Genesis but much less severe in Deuteronomy?

We know from Leviticus 20:10 that the penalty for adultery is that "the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" but according to Matthew 5:27-28, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Does that mean he must be put to death? If so, then what's Jimmy Carter doing still alive? Remember that embarrassing moment when he confessed to having had "lust in his heart" on one or more occasions? And Matthew 5:32 says that you're committing adultery when you marry a divorced woman: "and whoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I guess that means they both must be stoned to death.

If you suspect that your wife may be committing adultery, have a priest give her holy water to drink. If she's an adulteress, "her belly shall swell and her thigh shall rot." (Numbers 5:11-27) That's how you can tell if your wife is cheating on you.

Jewish law at the time is still in full force for all Christians because Jesus said so in the New Testament. Jesus was born a Jew and he died a Jew and he is quoted in Matthew as saying that every single one of the laws (meaning Jewish laws) is still in full force and to be observed. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find anything that says you can ignore the laws of the Old Testament.

Ninong's Bible tip of the day for practicing Christians: God made the Earth flat with four corners.

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Revelation 7:1).

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12).

"And the devil taking [Jesus] up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time" (Luke 4:5; see also Matthew 4:8).

"The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth" (Daniel 4:11).

[Ninong]

Scott,

OK, here ya go. I found two more Biblical proscriptions against male masturbation. Actually one of them is against voluntary masturbation and the other is against involuntary ejaculation while sleeping (a wet dream).

In both cases the remedy is the same. You have to wash yourself and leave town and not return until evening.

“And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even” (Leviticus 15:16-17).

“If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: but it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again” (Deuteronomy 23:10-11).

[Ninong]

While we're on the subject of adultery and the Bible, just remember that polygamy is acceptable for men but not for women. The Bible is quite clear on that point. If you want more than one wife, go right ahead, the Bible endorses that idea for men. The Bible does say that a divorced woman commits adultery if she takes another man, so I think that means it's not OK for women to have more than one man. I couldn't find any references in the Bible where it said it was OK for a woman to have several husbands but plenty of references that condoned multiple wives for men.

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10).

“And [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3).

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom” (Matthew 25:1).

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32).

In the New Testament, Jesus speaks approvingly of King Solomon, so I guess he was cool with the fact that Solomon had a lot of wives.

Ninong's Bible tip of the day for practicing Christians: Are female babies considered holy? Nope, just male babies.

As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; (Luke 2:23)

[SPasse]

Ninong,

Actually I am in favor of allowing voluntary Polygamy. But also one wife – multiple husbands.

But I can’t imagine entering into that myself. (one wife is quite sufficient, thank you.)

Also, I mentioned contract marriages a while back.

I listen to the BBC on my satellite radio while commuting and there is going to be a news story on this subject from Germany. I will let you know as soon as I can pin this down.

Here is a YAHOO News link on the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage

Regards,

Scott

[jimlas]

It is obvious that none of you have actually read the bible and are grabbing scripture out of it here and there just to hear what you want to hear and make your selves feel guilt free of any sin that you might have your selves. Yes, adultry is wrong. Ask anyone that it is committed against.
On the question of religion- Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which I believe from what I have read, all of you could get to know the man that gave his life up for you on the cross.
Sin is sin, there's no way around it. You can call blue, red all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it is blue. Sounds like you have all made up your own god and you want him to do and be and make you feel okay about anything that you think is right. I am sorry to have read so many people quoting bible verses without even studying the bible front to back and comming up with your own conclusions. Again, making up your own god.

[Ninong]

jimlas,

Your statement that "Christianity is not a religion" is absurd. Of course Christianity is a religion. It may be irrational, it may be barbaric, it may be patriarchal but that's because, like Judaism and Islam, it's based on an ancient Bronze Age text, the Old Testament.

Like all good Christians, you believe that anyone who makes disparaging remarks about your irrational beliefs is doing so because of some personal sense of guilt. Christianity is big on fear and guilt; even guilt for things that happened before you were born.

The original topic of this thread is: "The proposition that tolerance of any religion, seeds the ground for all of the religious extremism that we have/are dealing with..." The End of Faith is the title of a book by Sam Harris that the topic starter found interesting. The topic starter, as far as I know, is a Southern Baptist. I believe he's still a Southern Baptist. Nevertheless, he read a book by an atheist and found it "interesting food for thought."

An irrational belief in an afterlife made 9/11 possible, just as it continues to fuel the suicide bombers in the Middle East.

[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

An irrational belief in an afterlife made 9/11 possible...

Thats as silly as saying airplanes made 9/11 possible.



I've been gone a while (to know ones regret I'm sure), but I got an email that this thread was being revisted and couldn't resist a peek....

Hope everyone is doing well!

Respectfully,

Jason

[Ninong]

Do you actually think it's silly? You don't think that a belief in an afterlife is fundamental to persuading someone to turn himself into a human bomb?

Do you think, like George W. Bush, that they did it solely because they "hate our freedom?" Flying a plane into a building or strapping explosives around your waist and blowing yourself up are not the actions of a rational, thinking human but that's something that can easily be overcome.

What you need is a human who doesn't mind being blown up. You might say to yourself, nobody is that stupid. But what if we could sucker them into believing that they're going to come to life again after being blown up?

Let's promise them that they are going to go straight to some Sandals in the Sky all-inclusive resort where all of their desires will be fulfilled. We could tell them about a land of milk and honey and flowing fountains with angels and harps and clouds and all that good stuff. Hey, here's an idea. Since most of the humans we will be targeting will be young men, let's promise them 72 beautiful virgins each! Do you think they would go for something that preposterous? Maybe.

It would probably help if we started working on them when they were very young. Give them a holy book and have them learn it by heart. That has been proven to work. You can get people to believe all sorts of irrational things provided you start working on them when they are very young. It helps if you tell them to just believe without questioning. Call it faith and tell them that anyone who questions their faith is an infidel.

It is critical that they accept the notion that death is not the end. If death is final, a rational human would be expected to value his life and not be willing to end it prematurely. There is only one way to instill the insane courage required to get someone to fly a plane into a building or blow himself up: religion.

[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Do you actually think it's silly? You don't think that a belief in an afterlife is fundamental to persuading someone to turn himself into a human bomb?

No, hilarious is probably closer, but I was trying to be polite.

Belief in the afterlife played a role...so did the plane, and many other things. Not all planes are bad. Most aren't. Not all beliefs in the afterlife are bad. Most aren't.

There is only one way to instill the insane courage required to get someone to fly a plane into a building or blow himself up: religion.

Or...hatred of religion.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

No, hilarious is probably closer, but I was trying to be polite.

Belief in the afterlife played a role...so did the plane, and many other things.

Flying lessons wouldn't turn me into a suicide pilot.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

Or...hatred of religion.

Yes, religious intolerance of other religions is the underlying source of the problems in the Middle East and directly related to the perceived justification for 9/11 in the minds of the perpertrators.

[Fish R.Ph.]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Flying lessons wouldn't turn me into a suicide pilot.

Um, Nor me. Hmmm.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Fish R.Ph.

Um, Nor me. Hmmm.

What if we threw in 72 virgins?

[Ninong]

Speaking of "the end of faith"...

Remember when Oral Roberts said that if his flock didn't fork over $8 million for a new school pronto, God was going to call him home? And that was the beginning of Oral Roberts University.

This might be the end:

Among dozens of allegations of wrongdoing at the school that is now run by Oral's son, Richard Roberts, are the following:

• A longtime maintenance employee was fired so that an underage male friend of Mrs. Roberts could have his position.

• Mrs. Roberts — who is a member of the board of regents and is referred to as ORU's "first lady" on the university's Web site — frequently had cell-phone bills of more than $800 per month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. to "underage males who had been provided phones at university expense."

• The university jet was used to take one daughter and several friends on a senior trip to Orlando, Fla., and the Bahamas. The $29,411 trip was billed to the ministry as an "evangelistic function of the president."

• Mrs. Roberts spent more than $39,000 at one Chico's clothing store alone in less than a year, and had other accounts in Texas and California. She also repeatedly said, "As long as I wear it once on TV, we can charge it off." The document cites inconsistencies in clothing purchases and actual usage on TV.

• Mrs. Roberts was given a white Lexus SUV and a red Mercedes convertible by ministry donors.

• University and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework.

• The university and ministry maintain a stable of horses for exclusive use by the Roberts' children.

• The Roberts' home has been remodeled 11 times in the past 14 years.

Tim Brooker, one of the professors who sued, said he fears for the university's survival if certain changes aren't made. "All over that campus, there are signs up that say, `And God said, build me a university, build it on my authority, and build it on the Holy Spirit,'" Brooker said. "Unfortunately, ownership has shifted."

Cornell Cross II, a senior from Burlington, Vt., said he is looking to transfer to another school because the scandal has "severely devalued and hurt the reputation of my degree."

"We have asked and asked and asked to see the finances of our school and what they're doing with our money, and we've been told no," said, Cross who is majoring in government. "Now we know why. As a student, I'm not going to stand for it any longer."

P.S. -- Doesn't it remind you a lot of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? Jerry Falwell conned them out of their gig after Jim was sent to prison. I wonder who will take over this outfit?

Somebody will have to remind me again how this sort of behavior fits in with the teachings in the New Testament that Christians claim they follow. WWJD? The "D" stands for drive. A white Lexus SUV or a red Mercedes convertible? I'll have to look that up in that Prosperity Gospel. I'm sure it's in there somewhere.


Ninong's Bible tip of the day for practicing Christians: You probably already know from Leviticus that you should not wear garments of blended fibers but did you know that colors are forbidden? Ecclesiastes says "let your garments always be white." (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10). There are exceptions, however, such as when God wants you to walk stark naked throughout the land to impress people. (Isaiah 20:2-3)