When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[cybrsage]

All religions were created by humans, too.

Nope, that is where you are wrong. However, I will allow you to sway me by providing supporting evidence for your position.

Support yourself well enough and you may sway me.

 

[dank69]

All of them which were created by humans are examples of things created by humans.

I thought that was obvious.

I thought it was obvious that they were talking about examples of ignorance, not examples of things created by humans. :hmm:

Yeah, there it is:

Humanity breeds ignorance.

... of which all religions are an example.

Of which all non-religious views are an example.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought it was obvious that they were talking about examples of ignorance, not examples of thing created by humans. :hmm:

Yeah, there it is:

Ah. No, I was making fun of his stupid statement by replying in kind. Sorry, I could not think of an emoticon which would work in that situation.

 

[zsdersw]

We expect people to deny their nature all the time. That is a requirement for any society to exist.

Not when that aspect of their nature does not intrinsically harm anyone else.

 

[dank69]

...

You put extreme limitations on the discussion. Why not limit it to two, mutually consenting mature opposite sex adults isntead? It is not much more limiting then the limits you placed on it.

As I said, legally I find no reason not to create the new rights for the new type of civil union. Ethics and legality are not always the same thing.

Haha, limiting it to two consenting adults qualifies as 'extreme limitations.' 🙄

 

[dank69]

Ah. No, I was making fun of his stupid statement by replying in kind. Sorry, I could not think of an emoticon which would work in that situation.

It's okay, we've all gotten used to you not understanding most of your own arguments, let alone the arguments of others.

 

[cybrsage]

Haha, limiting it to two consenting adults qualifies as 'extreme limitations.' 🙄

It does if adding opposite sex is an extreme limitation.
😎

 

[zsdersw]

Nope, that is where you are wrong.

According to you.

However, I will allow you to sway me by providing supporting evidence for your position.

Support yourself well enough and you may sway me.

All religions are the human interpretations of events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago. Some are human interpretations of events supposedly recorded by other humans hundreds or thousands of years ago.

They are stories passed down from person to person; subject to human fallibility each and every time.

To further demonstrate my point, I'm going to ask the following questions:

- What makes your religion, for example, not something created by humans?

- Why is yours special? ..other than it being the one you believe?

A religion with no believers is just another ordinary book on the shelf in the library. It only becomes a religion when someone believes it to be the truth.

A leader with no followers is just a guy taking a walk.

 

[momeNt]

/fodder for cybrsage to complete his quest in devouring these forums with ~60 retarded posts per day.

 

[cybrsage]

According to you.

Correct.

All religions are the human interpretations of events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago. Some are human interpretations of events supposedly recorded by other humans hundreds or thousands of years ago.

They are stories passed down from person to person; subject to human fallibility each and every time.

You failed to provide any supporting evidence; you only provided opinion. By supporting evidence, I mean something that is not your own personal opinion...nor simply the opinion of someone else. I was some hard evidence...some proof. Otherwise you are simply stating a faith based belief system (faith is belief without proof).

To further demonstrate my point, I'm going to ask the following questions:

- What makes your religion, for example, not something created by humans?

God Himself provided the information.

- Why is yours special? ..other than that it is the one you believe?

This ties into the next, so I will answer it there.

A religion with no believers is just another ordinary book on the shelf in the library. It only becomes a religion when someone believes it to be the truth.

To continue, we must posit that the existance of a god such as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can exist. If you are unwilling to allow this to be part of the discussion, the rest is meaningless as you have already decided the result prior to asking the question.

Any god which would create a religion would want that religion to survive. If not, then there is no reason to create the religion. Thus, we can say that any religion which does not survive is a false religion. This reduces us to just a handful of religions.

We can say that any god which is perfect does not lie to us. We may not fully understand what this god says, but this god would not lie...that would defeat the purpose of instructing us in what to do. From this, we can say that not all religions can be true. This does not mean that any are true, but we can certainly say that not all of them are true.

When I look over the various religions which exist, I can filter more out based on things we know. For example, the moon is a chunk of rock and is therefor not a true god. An idol, carved by human hands, is a human created object and is therefor not a true god. After looking over the various religions (granted, not all of them), I am left with the three Abrahamic religions as being the only ones with a god who defies an easy dismissal or who seems to be able to exist.

Of these, Christianity is actually an offshoot of Judaism (with major perversions added by Emporer Constantine) in that Christians believe Jesus is the promised Messiah who will return to finish fulfilling all the prophecies while Judaism does not believe this. Had Emporer Constantine not so radically altered Christianity, it would look a lot more like Judaism.

I can dive deeper into why I say Allah (to prevent confusion, I call the god of Islam Allah) is not a true god, but suffice to say I find Allah is not a true god.

That leaves me with Judaism and Christianity. I am actually a Messianic Jew, so I follow a fusion of the two.

 

[cybrsage]

...I have nothing intelligent to say so I will simply blather about in an inane fashion...

You succeeded in your attempt.

 

[fskimospy]

You succeeded in your attempt.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[cybrsage]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for saying I am succeeding in my attempts to provide instruction and information to the unlearned masses. 🙂

 

[Broheim]

A US law does not say it only applies to humans which are within the boundaries of the United States. Yet we both know these are requirements for most US laws.

You have to start with knowing what a covenant is. A covenant is an agreement between two (or more) parties. Each side has their own requirements and expectations which have to be met. Anyone who is not a party to the agreement is not bound by the agreement. If you sign an agreement for your rent, I am not bound by your agreement - only you and the landlord are bound by it since you both agreed to it.

The rule is a religious one, I am sure you agree on that without me needing to explain it. Since it is religious, a religious court would be needed to find guilt and proclaim punishment. You do not think it was mob rule anarchy, do you?

To be a judge on a religious court, you had to first be recommended for it, second you had to accept, and third you had to receive semicha. Semicha is a direct passing on of the power to sit on the court by someone who is already authorized to sit on the court. A modern semi-related thing is the swearing in of the President. He has to be physically present with the SC Justice in order to be sworn in.

that has got to be one of the weakest diversions I've ever seen....

 

[zsdersw]

You failed to provide any supporting evidence; you only provided opinion. By supporting evidence, I mean something that is not your own personal opinion...nor simply the opinion of someone else. I was some hard evidence...some proof. Otherwise you are simply stating a faith based belief system (faith is belief without proof).

Actually no... what I've stated about religions is essentially a fact. Sacred texts were written by humans, and interpretations of those texts have always been and continue to be made by humans.

God Himself provided the information.

Says who?

To continue, we must posit that the existance of a god such as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can exist. If you are unwilling to allow this to be part of the discussion, the rest is meaningless as you have already decided the result prior to asking the question.

Anything is possible.

Any god which would create a religion would want that religion to survive. If not, then there is no reason to create the religion. Thus, we can say that any religion which does not survive is a false religion. This reduces us to just a handful of religions.

A human interpretation, based on and bound by the mortal concepts of "creation" and "survival"... which would not apply to a "god" who is, supposedly, immortal.

We can say that any god which is perfect does not lie to us. We may not fully understand what this god says, but this god would not lie...that would defeat the purpose of instructing us in what to do. From this, we can say that not all religions can be true. This does not mean that any are true, but we can certainly say that not all of them are true.

We cannot assume that any god, perfect or otherwise, would not lie to us... nor can we assume that any god has any desire to "instruct" us in what to do.

When I look over the various religions which exist, I can filter more out based on things we know. For example, the moon is a chunk of rock and is therefor not a true god. An idol, carved by human hands, is a human created object and is therefor not a true god. After looking over the various religions (granted, not all of them), I am left with the three Abrahamic religions as being the only ones with a god who defies an easy dismissal or who seems to be able to exist.

Yes, the moon is a chunk of rock... and the sun is a big ball of nuclear fusion and electromagnetism. We know these things now, with a reasonably high level of certainty, but we did not always know that and, once upon a time, we believed... with as much certainty and credulity as you believe in your god... that those two things in the sky were gods.

How is your god any different?

Is it impossible that, sometime in the future, human knowledge can explain away your god?

Of these, Christianity is actually an offshoot of Judaism (with major perversions added by Emporer Constantine) in that Christians believe Jesus is the promised Messiah who will return to finish fulfilling all the prophecies while Judaism does not believe this. Had Emporer Constantine not so radically altered Christianity, it would look a lot more like Judaism.

I can dive deeper into why I say Allah (to prevent confusion, I call the god of Islam Allah) is not a true god, but suffice to say I find Allah is not a true god.

That leaves me with Judaism and Christianity. I am actually a Messianic Jew, so I follow a fusion of the two.

Yes, lots of modification and interpretation along the way from the past to the present. The degree of human meddling makes very dubious, from a proof point of view, the claim that your religion is not man-made.

 

[momeNt]

I meant "gets tough", that is...

Well not surprisingly, a slew of republican candidates fearing they are losing momentum, have brought out the "Gays are bad" talking points. When it's time to get people irritated, raise money, or simply grab a few news headlines, nothing works better then bashing a Gay person.

Yesterday it was Bachmann vs the little kid and his Gay mom.
And today?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/rick_santorum_gay_marriage-sex-_n_1131485.html



But not to be outdone, queue the monkey (woops, I mean Rick Perry):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/rick-perry-gay-rights_n_1132537.html





And there you have it....
Your 2012 republican presidential candidates.
Make room for them in your bedroom, America.

2char limit

 

[cybrsage]

Actually no... what I've stated about religions is essentially a fact. Sacred texts were written by humans, and interpretations of those texts have always been and continue to be made by humans.

Support your opinion. Saying "cause I said so" is not support.

Says who?

God.

A human interpretation, based on and bound by the mortal concepts of "creation" and "survival"... which would not apply to a "god" who is, supposedly, immortal.

What is the purpose of creating a religion which does not survie?

Yes, the moon is a chunk of rock... and the sun is a big ball of nuclear fusion and electromagnetism. We know these things now, with a reasonably high level of certainty, but we did not always know that and, once upon a time, we believed... with as much certainty and credulity as you believe in your god... that those two things in the sky were gods.

How is your god any different?

My God is not a chunk of rock or a nuclear fusion reaction.

Is it impossible that, sometime in the future, human knowledge can explain away your god?

Nope, not possible.

Yes, lots of modification and interpretation along the way from the past to the present. The degree of human meddling makes very dubious, from a proof point of view, the claim that your religion is not man-made.

Actually, if we use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a guide, we can see that the writings of Isaiah (for example, since they found a LOT of scrolls of that book) written around 70AD are the same as they are today. That is pretty significant.

One of the things Judaism, for example, used to pass on important information is via song. How many songs can you sing perfectly...and none of those songs are actually important? Add to it that the person teaching the student the information honestly believes the information is the commands of God and you will have a teacher that requires perfection in learning from the student. The student, also believing the same, will apply the same diligence in learning as the teacher does in teaching. 99% is not a passing score.

 

[cybrsage]

that has got to be one of the weakest diversions I've ever seen....

Wait...you are claiming US law applies to Sudanese citizens while they are in Sudan?

You are a strange, silly, man.

 

[zsdersw]

Support your opinion. Saying "cause I said so" is not support.

That's not what I'm saying. The Torah and the rest of the Bible were written by humans and have been interpreted by many scholars, theologians, priests, rabbis... and those interpretations were themselves interpreted by various believers and non-believers throughout history, were they not?

God.

According to what or whom?

What is the purpose of creating a religion which does not survive?

Your question hinges upon the assumption that god created a religion. This assumption is not supported by any part of your argument.

Working within that assumption, though, doesn't allow us to escape the following question: Why must god care if the religion survives or not?

My God is not a chunk of rock or a nuclear fusion reaction.

The people who believed the sun and moon were gods also thought their god was nothing that can be so easily and demonstrably explained.

Nope, not possible.

That's what sun and moon worshippers believed, too.

Actually, if we use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a guide, we can see that the writings of Isaiah (for example, since they found a LOT of scrolls of that book) written around 70AD are the same as they are today. That is pretty significant.

One of the things Judaism, for example, used to pass on important information is via song. How many songs can you sing perfectly...and none of those songs are actually important? Add to it that the person teaching the student the information honestly believes the information is the commands of God and you will have a teacher that requires perfection in learning from the student. The student, also believing the same, will apply the same diligence in learning as the teacher does in teaching. 99% is not a passing score.

An imperfect teacher cannot teach perfectly.

 

[Broheim]

Wait...you are claiming US law applies to Sudanese citizens while they are in Sudan?

You are a strange, silly, man.

and you are a weak, silly troll.

where does that leave us?

 

[PingviN]

God.

God actually told you directly that gay sex is wrong?

 

[Fayd]

After reading that I realized that religious people are a lot dumber than I thought. God has to keep repeating "I am the Lord" as if the religious zealots keep forgetting who is speaking.

"You can't have sex with relatives!"

"Why?"

"Because I am the Lord!"

"Not because it's gross?"

"NO! FOR I AM THE LORD"

because speaking of genetics and retard babbies resulting from incest would be a bit of an advanced topic for people from 2500 years ago.

 

[cybrsage]

That's not what I'm saying. The Torah and the rest of the Bible were written by humans and have been interpreted by many scholars, theologians, priests, rabbis... and those interpretations were themselves interpreted by various believers and non-believers throughout history, were they not?

Depends on the portion and what you mean by written. Some of it was written (under the guidence of God) by man, some was merely transcribed by man as the words were directly provided by God.

Interpretation, definately you are right. Man interpretes the writings, but that is how everything works. A person writes something down and others interprete what that person said. The interpretations were written down. Sometimes they have changed, definately so. That is because we have learned more about both the words and about our universe. Our understanding of things has improved, so our interpretation has improved as well.

All that said, some things are so clear as to not require interpretation. Honor the Sabbath Day, Keep it Holy. That is pretty clear. The interpretation comes into what is meant by honor and keep it holy. Same with murder. We are not to murder..but what is murder?

According to what or whom?

To be fair, I do not understand your question.

Your question hinges upon the assumption that god created a religion. This assumption is not supported by any part of your argument.

Working within that assumption, though, doesn't allow us to escape the following question: Why must god care if the religion survives or not?

Using Judaism as an example (since I know it pretty good), God created a religion. He gave feast days, holy days, rules on what to do on those days and why. He gave food rules, life rules, rules on how the Priests were to dress and what they were to do. Rules on how to perform sacrifices and why to do them. On and on. Leviticus is chock full of the foundational rules of a religion.

If God would care enough to provide such details into a religion, that same God would care that it was followed. Just makes sense. There is always the chance I am wrong, but I have faith I am not.

The people who believed the sun and moon were gods also thought their god was nothing that can be so easily and demonstrably explained.

And they were wrong.

That's what sun and moon worshippers believed, too.

They were wrong here as well.

An imperfect teacher cannot teach perfectly.

Sure they can, to an extent. Elementary school teachers can teach their kids how to add or what the alphabet is perfectly. Not all will be able to learn, but those who cannot are never made into teachers.

You did partially hit a truth here, though. Using Judaism as a guide again, we find that there are layers upon layers of meaning inside the written word. There is the basic surface meaning, but there are many deeper meanings inside them. The surface meaning can be perfectly taught to all who have the ability to learn well. The deeper meanings require study, discussion, etc.

 

[cybrsage]

where does that leave us?

It leaves you purosefully wallowing in ignorance and me wondering why anyone would want to do such a thing.

 

[zsdersw]

Depends on the portion and what you mean by written. Some of it was written (under the guidence of God) by man, some was merely transcribed by man as the words were directly provided by God.

Under the influence of or directly provided by God? Who made the claim they were under that guidance or directly provided the information by God? What reason is there to conclude they were actually being guided by and/or in communication with God?

Interpretation, definately you are right. Man interpretes the writings, but that is how everything works. A person writes something down and others interprete what that person said. The interpretations were written down. Sometimes they have changed, definately so. That is because we have learned more about both the words and about our universe. Our understanding of things has improved, so our interpretation has improved as well.

The more man interprets and rationalizes, the more he becomes the master of and responsible for what that interpretation contains.

All that said, some things are so clear as to not require interpretation. Honor the Sabbath Day, Keep it Holy. That is pretty clear. The interpretation comes into what is meant by honor and keep it holy. Same with murder. We are not to murder..but what is murder?

Again, those things... however "clear" they are... are not necessarily from God. There is nothing but heresay and the beliefs of those who supposedly heard God to serve as the basis of that claim.

To be fair, I do not understand your question.

I asked who provided the information. You said God. I then asked "according to what or to whom". In other words, who or what said that God provided the information and why should we conclude they are correct?

Using Judaism as an example (since I know it pretty good), God created a religion. He gave feast days, holy days, rules on what to do on those days and why. He gave food rules, life rules, rules on how the Priests were to dress and what they were to do. Rules on how to perform sacrifices and why to do them. On and on. Leviticus is chock full of the foundational rules of a religion.

Those rules, again, were supposedly said by God to someone who wrote them down. Without a logical reason, let alone proof, that demonstrates this person was actually spoken to by God there is no reason to conclude those rules are actually what God wants us to do (or not do).

If God would care enough to provide such details into a religion, that same God would care that it was followed. Just makes sense. There is always the chance I am wrong, but I have faith I am not.

Perhaps, but what makes as much if not more sense is that God.. assuming he actually provided those rules.. provided the rules not as ones that are set in stone and never to be changed, but as ones essential to the initial development of a society that didn't before have rules for sustainable long-term growth; rules that society could alter and/or discard as society grows, learns, and matures. Such an explanation also makes a lot of sense if God gave us free will, as most religions claim.

And they were wrong.

They were wrong here as well.

.. and as you are just as likely to eventually be.

Sure they can, to an extent. Elementary school teachers can teach their kids how to add or what the alphabet is perfectly. Not all will be able to learn, but those who cannot are never made into teachers.

You did partially hit a truth here, though. Using Judaism as a guide again, we find that there are layers upon layers of meaning inside the written word. There is the basic surface meaning, but there are many deeper meanings inside them. The surface meaning can be perfectly taught to all who have the ability to learn well. The deeper meanings require study, discussion, etc.

The degree of perfection with which something is taught depends on the degree to which something is perfectly understood by the teacher. Basic math and communication... being concepts easily within our ability to understand because they are easy to demonstrate as true or false... can be perfectly taught because they can be perfectly understood. Other things, like what God supposedly said, cannot be perfectly understood so they cannot be perfectly taught.