Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

Posted by: Mike Dudley on 08 January 2010

Well, what a surprise...

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WO...an.taliban.children/

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by droodzilla

quote:
Why are you not replying to my question? Are you Gay, and are you a member of Outrage!?

Not really a fair question, in my view.

Mike D - I'd be interested to read your thoughts on my last post, if you can keep it civil.

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Are you transexual? Are you a member of the Conservative Party?

No, and no.

Are you, etc?

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

Ref Haiti, and the wider problem of suffering; I know that CS Lewis wrote on thi issue. I'e found this passage on t'internet which naturally will offend at least one polemicist here:

"But Love is not mere Kindness. "Kindness cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering", while Love "would rather see [the loved ones] suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes".

The goodness of God means that we are true objects of his love, not of his disinterested concern for our welfare. "

M

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Paper Plane

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Ref Haiti, and the wider problem of suffering; I know that CS Lewis wrote on thi issue. I'e found this passage on t'internet which naturally will offend at least one polemicist here:

"But Love is not mere Kindness. "Kindness cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering", while Love "would rather see [the loved ones] suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes".

The goodness of God means that we are true objects of his love, not of his disinterested concern for our welfare. "

M

So this god would rather see people suffer than be happy doing something he/she/it doesn't like or approve of? That's a pretty small minded deity with an ego bigger than Warren Beatty's to my mind.

steve

steve

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

Dunno, not an issue for me. Much more of a need for Mike D to know, and "dunno" did not seem to be an answer he liked.

Wonder if he'll answer my question - which is prefectly reasonable given his vety aggressive defence of the gay side of things.

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Must Do Better.

Now go away.

totally unessary and nasty

True colours, remeber.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Sorry, but you are missing the point . I ran your answer by my brother-in- law, a low Anglican minisiter, and he agrees that you don't know what "hate the sin, love the sinner" means (I'd add that we don't agree on very much.) Reread the posts or get someone to explain it to you.

No need. Both you AND your brother are wrong. Simple really.

When did the Christians hang somebody in UK between 2000 and 2010. Just a few details will suffice.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by u5227470736789524

Hi Don

We cross paths again on a ~~political~~ atheist monologue. Perhaps, destiny draws us to these threads, in some strange way. Hope you are well.

regards
Jeff A

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by DanielP

quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
Sorry, but you are missing the point . I ran your answer by my brother-in- law, a low Anglican minisiter, and he agrees that you don't know what "hate the sin, love the sinner" means.

No need. Both you AND your brother are wrong.

I don't have a brother.

quote:

When did the Christians hang somebody in UK between 2000 and 2010. Just a few details will suffice.

Apart from the fact that I think you're suffering from collogialism in time, what on earth does that have to do with the subject? In particular, your apparent belief that "hate the sinner" implies no harmful consequences for sinners, and in particular, your belief that religious hatred of homosexuality implies no harmful consequences for gays? I've read your posts carefully, more carefully than you read mine

, but there are no reasons given.

-- Daniel

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson

Hi Jeff,

Yes, last time ISTR it was Mrs Clinton v Fred Simon in the contest with Barak Obama....but I could well be wrong.

I am well, but the old flying instruction has been slack due to the economic downturn and more recently the weather - snow and fog!!

Trust you are well?

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Apart from the fact that I think your suffering from collogialism in time, what on earth does that have to do with the subject? In particular, your apparent belief that "hate the sinner" implies no harmful consequences for sinners, and in particular, your belief that religious hatred of homosexuality implies no harmful consequences for gays? I've read your posts carefully, more carefully than you read mine

I think you might be getting confused. Where, exactly, did I ever mention hatred of homosexuality or gays? Perhaps somebody did, but I don't think it was me.

I have asked when did Christians in the UK, betweem 2000 and 2010, hang anybody? You don't seem to have answered that, despite consulting with your brother-in-law.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by u5227470736789524

Don,

I am well, thanks.

The debate continues ......

Jeff A

ps. that "destiny" thing was a bit tongue in cheek but if we don't mention it they will never see it. remember, god is in the cables, or at the very least, The Sound

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by DanielP

quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I have asked when did Christians in the UK, betweem 2000 and 2010, hang anybody?

Then I have no idea what your "question" is about, the thread I was participating in was the "hate the sin, love the sinner" one.

-- Daniel

Posted on: 16 January 2010 by DanielP

quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I'm not totally familiar with the 10 Commandments. Appart from the "love thy god" one, which of the other 9 would be out of place today in a responsible, civilised scociety, if they were invented by a non-believer?

Elin Nordegren would probably have objected to the one about adultry, because in biblical times it would have meant that she was the property of Tiger Woods, and could only have sex with him, whereas Tiger Woods could have several wives, concubines, handmaidens and slaves, all of whom he could have sex with. A modern non-believer would likely want something more symmetrical, and leave open the possibility of mutual consent to an open relationship.

The commandments against killing, stealing, and bearing false witness are on pretty solid moral ground, represnting moral values with which a non-believer would be comfortable with.

The 10th commandment would appear to rule out coveting your neighbor's 552/500 CD555, so forget that.

The "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is interesting, because it alludes to an older time when the Hebrew god (a derivative of the ancient Caninite sun god El) was still one of many gods, but from a modern viewpoint it has no moral value. Similiarly "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" has no moral value.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" is interesting, there's a book called Blasphemy which talks about this. There's a tradition from the scriptures that the blasphemer was to be put to death, so that became the law. The Jewish religious leaders, apparently, weren't that keen on killing people, because they came up with ingenious ways of limiting the applicability of the law. They couldn't change the law, because it was based on the text, the Blasphemer had to be killed. But they reinterpreted it so that Blasphemy was given a technical definition as damning god by himself, so you had to say something fairly complicated to qualify as Blasphemy. In later times, the Christians used a much broader definition to determine who was to be burned on the stake. But in any case, this commandment seems to have no moral value.

"Honour thy father and mother" is contentious, some people think it is more about blindly accepting authority than a moral value. It raises some interesting issues if parents make demands that might be seen as unreasonable, such as in the choice of a spouse.

-- Daniel

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Sniper

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

[QUOTE] The HFi system and cabling are actually, demonstrably there and are producing an effect.

Actually your HFi (sic) system is 99.999999999 empty space and ultimately not there at all

but seeing as you experience it there as solid matter you will have to take the quantum physics on faith.

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by BigH47

quote:
Actually your HiFi system is 99.999999999 empty space

You've been conned then!

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by rodwsmith

quote:
Originally posted by DanielP:
Similiarly "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" has no moral value.

It seems to me that the biggest transgressor of this commandment, but surely some considerably whopping margin, is the catholic church.

I went to Lourdes once - shudder - I cannot believe there is a god that actually thinks a virgin Mary water bottle with a screw-off head, or candles that involve burning a model of Jesus from the head down, are in any way edifying.

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

quote:
Originally posted by rodwsmith:
I went to Lourdes once - shudder - I cannot believe there is a god that actually thinks a virgin Mary water bottle with a screw-off head, or candles that involve burning a model of Jesus from the head down, are in any way edifying.

I don't think its God running these stalls, more likely the French.

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

quote:
Originally posted by DanielP:
I don't have a brother.

I love it when people try to make really petty points on what are very obviously minor errors

and then pile in by making exactly the same kind of error themselves, viz:

quote:

your apparent belief that "hate the sinner"

The only person spouting that Christians "hate the Sinner" is the intolerant Mike Dudley.

[quote} I've read your posts carefully, more carefully than you read mine

,-- Daniel[/QUOTE]

Best read your own posts with equal fervour.

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by DanielP

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
quote:
Originally posted by DanielP:
I don't have a brother.

I love it when people try to make really petty points on what are very obviously minor errors

and then pile in by making exactly the same kind of error themselves, viz:

quote:

your apparent belief that "hate the sinner"

Good catch! Thanks

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Mike Dudley

Actually I'm very tolerant. You can hold a belief in any sort of imaginary twiffle that you like. Just don't expect me to feel anything less than complete contempt for it, that's all.

Pet Shop Boys are good, aren't they?

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

Mike
For the fifth time (?) now; I am not a Christian. You are, judging by your posts, one of the least tolerant people on this forum.

Some people are religious, deal with it.

Pet Shop boys made some fine singles.

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Mike Dudley

So, you've personal relationship with the lord, then.

Are you a Pet Shop Boy? Do you belong to the "Kennel Club"?

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
So, you've personal relationship with the lord, then.

Not entirely sure what you are on about.

quote:
Are you a Pet Shop Boy?

No but I strongly expect you to be.

You did not answer *my* question, by the way, despite my courtesy in answering all you have asked me - are you gay, and are you a member of Outrage!?

Posted on: 17 January 2010 by Mike Dudley

quote:
by the way, despite my courtesy in answering all you have asked me

Must be frustrating for you.