Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10503476 -

Yes, I totally agree. I just thought you were justifying it.

Christians who advocate violence against non-Christians should be called on it, because it's contrary to Jesus' teachings and contrary to the standards set by modern society.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10504120 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Another poster alluded to the (non-fact) that all school shootings are done by atheists. I don't want to directly address that, but the implication that religious people are less violent than atheists. I see no indication that this is true, but let's go back to the source for a moment.

Non-violence:

Thou shalt not kill.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Various other teachings of Jesus.


Pro-violence:

All of the various sex and other crimes in Leviticus that demand capital punishment.

Hundreds of historical examples of glorifying war and slaughter as long as the Israelites are doing the slaughter.

There appears no clear or consistent stand on violence except to justify it when you are going to do it - which is what everyone does anyway.



The Bible is a compilation of writings that were arranged by a group of misogynistic men with a serious political agenda. This point must be reiterated before anything else. Many of the books that were excluded were burned by those Nicean bastards because those excluded books taught a theology of Self-Realization (as in the pseudo-Gnostic Gospel of Thomas) which made church authority and ritual superfluous.

Since those who compiled the canonical Bible were more about power/politics than salvation/liberation, their collective choice for the compilation conveys some very harsh, punitive, war-like sensibilities. As a whole, geography, who is in charge of geography and the future history of said geography (Jerusalem and surrounding land) is the historical stage of Biblical religion. That means that Biblical religion - a historical religion - is concerned more with space-time (geography and its history) than with Liberation, Transcendence. Meanwhile, all this boring physicality of geneologies, kingships, wars, etc. has very little metaphysics in it. This is why so many Americans and Europeans took a 'journey to the East' back in the day, either physically or mentally. The Bible's mythology doesn't satisfy many peoples' appetite for the metaphysical. Theophanies of God (pillars of fire and smoke, parting of the Red Sea, walking on water, etc.) are clearly midrashic/mythic embellishments, not literal physical manifestations of God's metaphysical Presence.

So, what is left without the tiny bit of metaphysics in which we follow Paul to "the third heaven," or Jesus to "paradise," is a lot of first, second and third chakra oriented human behaviors which include all manner of sexual perversities, murder, rape, and genocide. Just the same old same old, only thousands of years old. Unlike the prophets who directly or indirectly participated in the destruction of Israel's enemies, Jesus remains an almost singular, but definately best-known example of non-violence in the Bible. In fact, Jesus is so non-violent, he seems almost Buddhist compared to the Jewish and Pagan milieu in which he is said to have lived. So here is the 'narrow gate' that leads out of the violence, only there is a growing number of people who are concluding that Jesus too was not a historical person but a literary collage of several people. The first modern individual to have made this claim was the theologian-physician Albert Schweitzer who began it at the turn of the 20th century with his book 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

It doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed as a historical person or not - I will still endeavor to live according to my ideal image of Selfhood which Jesus symbolizes. But I am Gnostic from a Western perspective because of this ability to disregard historicity as the basis for spirituality. Of course Hindus have never had a problem understanding that blue-skinned, four-armed Krsna was not a historical human being, but Hindus are just polytheistic pagans damned to Hell from the same perspective that makes me a Gnostic (also damned and anathema).


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10504208 -

Rahz said:
Quote:
God doesn't need eyewitness accounts.


Funny how it worked out the brothers, friends and neighbors were the guilty ones. A bizarre crime, with a more bizarre line up of perpetrators. Can we close the case Moses? "Hold on, let me check with God..... God says Yes! Good job boys.":grin:


The point of the story was that they were all guilty. Somewhere in the past 3000 years we lost the 11th commandment.

11: Thou shalt not throw a better party than the lord your god.


--------------------
The Prophecy!

Learn To Code

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Rahz]
    #10526385 -

Quote:

Can you provide examples of atheists being intolerant?



Quote:

The main difference is no one kills in the name of atheism.




In Communist countries around the world religion is outlawed, and the penalties can be severe. Christians are still killed for their faith in many places in the world, and officially atheist countries have led the way.

Individuals who resent those who believe in absolute moral standards specifically target Christians, and Churches. The killing of a girl at Columbine because she wouldn't deny God is an example. Granted the killers were nut balls who were killing at random, but they specifically targeted her because of her faith.

Atheist's are only tolerant of religious people who keep their faith secret, keep it confined to their home, church and don't allow it to influence their life choices, view points or try to discuss it with others. 

Quote:
The main problem with religion as I see it, is that religious folks have a tendency to try and convert others to their faith

If everyone would just keep to themselves in this regard, the world would be a much better place to live in.



An atheist who expresses their view, allows it to influence their political, moral and every aspect of their life, even if that means intentionally offending religious people, it is considered a legitimate expression of freedom.

However a christian missionary who sacrifices their comfort to go to a third world country, build schools, churches, provide medical care and preach the gospel are committing genocide!? Ive heard that a few times.  People who discuss religion where an atheist might overhear is screamed at for being intolerant and forcing their view on others. Christian students who gather in a private place to pray, have professors barge in on them, screaming about how intolerant they are being and gets the ACLU to sue them.

Quote:
if that doesn't work out they ridicule and mock them.



I really cant think of an example of this directed at atheists, but mockery is used on a daily basis against religion and the people who believe. Daily on TV, on the internet, in schools and college Christianity is mocked. Biblical texts are regularly taken out of their historical context, and even the context given within the same books and chapters and mocked. Though the church and devout Christian's used to be respected, and were some of the greatest advocates of education, Christians are now all portrayed as dumb, hick, illogical, hypocrites as a means to discredit Christianity. It's true, Christianity doesn't require a college degree, or intelligence but neither does Atheism. Not all Atheists are genius'. Christianity doesn't require ignorance either. Many are very well educated. While all Christians struggle to live up to the example set by Christ, failing occasionally isn't hypocrisy unless they never correct their behavior. While a true unrepentant hypocrite probably deserves some mockery, but they don't reflect the whole religion.
 
Quote:
Because I can find plenty of examples of intolerant Christians who won't apologise after being told that their actions are inconsistent with their faith.



These individuals discredit themselves not Christianity.

Quote:
Atheism is not a religion. To be more specific, atheism is the lack of theism.



This was discussed in more detail before, but to recap. Religion is the beliefs that form the basis of your moral code and how you live your live. The absence of a God figure does not make those beliefs any less religious. Just as Buddhism doesn't have a God figure, Atheism is also a religion. The belief in the absence of God is an act of faith and provides a justification for a contrary and competing view of the world, mans role and purpose in it, and what is right and wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
They are offended even by displays of the ten commandments



On public property, yes, because it's unconstitutional.




The Constitution says that Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion. That is what separation of church and state is. The Government is not supposed to tell people what to believe, how to worship or where they can worship.  It is not a mandate to tell people they must separate their religious beliefs from how they behave and any discourse they have in the public arena. Look at the speeches and monuments on public property made by the Constitutions writers, or just the Declaration of Independence, they clearly didn't interpret it that way. How can the Supreme court make a judgment stating people are not able to celebrate their religion in public buildings, when the Constitution specifically forbids any such regulations from being placed in the Constitution? Yes they did, and by doing so, they have done the exact opposite of what they founders intended and mandated and enforced Atheism as the only religion which can be discussed in our schools and public places while restricting the free expression of religious beliefs.

Its extremely rare that any religious person is offended by the phrase merry Christmas, a display of the ten commandments or a manger scene.  Its almost always atheists.

Quote:
I have yet to see any atheists go door to door and preach about how good life is without religion.



They may not know on doors but they are often very outspoken and express their views and philosophies and contempt for religion and who intolerant it is, at every opportunity and in every sphere of life. Meanwhile they resort to lawyers and lawsuits to prevent others from expressing their religious views, and suppress reasonable religious discussion. They are also very outspoken in schools and colleges, haranguing religious students, sometimes failing any student with a philosophy opposing their atheist faith. I think that the door knockers of any group are far less of an intrusion and far less intolerant than the practices employed by religious atheists.

Quote:
If everyone would just keep to themselves in this regard, the world would be a much better place to live in.



Forcing everyone to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves isn't tolerant. Being able to openly and respectfuly discuss and debate by those honestly seeking truth is the tolerance we should be aiming for, leads to a better understanding of both our neighbors and ourselves. While not every Christian or members of any Religious group practices this, No atheist requiring religious people to keep their views to themselves is practicing it. 

Quote:
the qualities you ascribe to a true Christian can also be found to be present in some atheists, and in members of other religions which either acknowledge no God, or have different Gods. Since the qualities you describe are not defacto true Christian qualities, we must assume that being a true Christian is not the source of morality.



This has also been covered somewhat previously. People are products of many social influences beyond just their faith. There is no perfect christian, even those truly seeking God will sub-consciously make decisions based upon what is popular or accepted in secular society or their group of friends or how they were raised.

Likewise the Atheist is a product of social influences beyond just their faith. As a result they will adopt behaviors which are not logical extensions of Atheism, but which are popular, socially acceptable by a society which is still significantly influenced by its historical judeo-christian tradition, their friends or how they were raised (which often will have been influenced by judeo christian precepts.) So Atheism isn't an automatic passport to evil behavior. It doesn't provide a logical framework to support the moral codes which are based upon religious influences however.

Quote:
I ask again, worded slightly differently, do Buddhists exemplify the negative qualities you describe? If not, why is that?



I have tremendous respect for anyone truly seeking wisdom and trying to lead a good life in peace with your neighbors. A devout Buddhist may not harm anyone and they may not offend anyone, but should not offending anyone truly be our highest goal in life? It is by being challenged that we reevaluate and improve ourselves. I'm not an expert on Buddhism and so can only really comment on the image atheists seem to have of it. I can see why Atheists like religious people secluding themselves from the world to become enlightened, and who have "being above the concerns of the people on Earth" and essentially wash their hands of what everyone else does. If someone attacks your neighbor, is standing aside and watching truly the moral course? If you believe you have found the truth, and that it has demonstrably improved your life, is it moral to watch while your neighbor struggles to find meaning and hope for their lives? If religion isn't motivating you to improve yourself and help those around you then its pretty selfish, and wont have a significant positive impact on society.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10527113 -

:blah:
:blah:
:blah:


Didn't realize one post could contain so many errors. Please tell us how your lack of belief in Thor shapes your views.

I have posted numerous studies on here that show that atheists are slightly more moral than Christians (in areas such as divorce, alcoholism, spousal abuse and so on). This tells us what about those who allegedly dedicate their lives to Christ?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10527138 -

Quote:
The Bible is a compilation of writings that were arranged by a group of misogynistic men with a serious political agenda. This point must be reiterated before anything else. Many of the books that were excluded were burned by those Nicean bastards because those excluded books taught a theology of Self-Realization (as in the pseudo-Gnostic Gospel of Thomas) which made church authority and ritual superfluous.



A conspiracy theory doesn't make something true. Sometimes the historical record is actually telling the truth. The Council's selections were rational, based upon reasoned discussion, motivated by a common and genuine faith, and recognized the historical importance of what they were doing. People took their faith pretty seriously. Books were selected based upon who wrote or authorized them.  The Old testament books were each authored by a recognized prophet or king recognized as someone who heard from God or people writing under their direction. The New testament books were written by Disciples and Apostles or people who writing under their instruction. Because there was money to be made by distributing fake documents about the life of Jesus, many documents were being produced and sold at the time of the council (which prompted the Councils formation in the first place.) Some made claims of having being having been written by disciples, but didn't show up till over 300 years after the time in which the authors lived. Others were written by random nobodies or people specifically criticized by the apostles.  Each was vetted and the contents considered. These suspicious documents directly contradicted the documents in rest of the legitimate documents, which were consistent with each other and presented a natural progression from the Old Testament based upon Jesus teachings.

The Christian message wasn't a secret, people who hated Christians and who lived at the time of Jesus, and knew him growing up, didn't contradict anything that was said about him.  Don't you think they would have if they could? Likewise the authors that were accepted hadn't profit of their writing, almost all of them died for their belief. Many were brutally honest about their own failings. In the old testament the punishment for being a false prophet was death. Yet they were quite willing to stand up and tell kings they were wrong, and that everyone in the country sucked.  You've got to know your right before you do something like that, knowing everyone going to be looking to stone you if your prophecy doesn't come true.  So look at the sources.  They weren't just story tellers.  The historical stories were well known, and sudden new revisions by those trying to profit or take the faith in a different direction were correctly discarded.

Quote:
Theophanies of God (pillars of fire and smoke, parting of the Red Sea, walking on water, etc.) are clearly midrashic/mythic embellishments, not literal physical manifestations of God's metaphysical Presence.



Why is this clear? If you believe God created the Universe and all of the laws governing it why is this beyond his capabilities? How many people have truly been operating completely within Gods will. The God of the Bible could reasonably be expected to do something miraculous for someone following his will, bravely standing up to a Pharaoh with nothing to give him creedibility except the home for some miracles, and to save an entire nation he promised to bless from anihilation. The fact that someone hasn't seen a miracle while buying a taco and denying God's existence isn't proof that miracles don't happen. If the story was only a myth it wouldn't have required lengthy genialogy lists and a full accounting of Israel's legal codes to relate it.  The authors clearly intended it as a historical account and tried to provide as much detail as possible to substantiate it.

Quote:
It doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed as a historical person or not - I will still endeavor to live according to my ideal image of Selfhood which Jesus symbolizes. But I am Gnostic from a Western perspective because of this ability to disregard historicity as the basis for spirituality.



This was stated earlier but I'll repeat it-
Quote:
The Bible isn't the only place Jesus life is recorded, Josephus recorded him. In fact the historical documentation covering his life, is both more broad in sources, consistent in account, and its writing can be traced closer the events that the written accounts of any other historical figure.  So if your going to dismiss him as a historical figure then you have to dismiss Julius Caesar and everyone else too.  Back in the sixties and seventies I think there was a big push for this idea that Jesus wasn't a historical figure.  Its pretty accepted now though, not even hard core atheists deny that.

The biblical authors who profited nothing by preaching the gospel, gave up everything and would not deny the faith even when they were executed for it?  That's not the way a con artist behaves. It wasn't one crazy lunatic with awesome magician skills preaching the gospels and doing fake miracles.  The disciples of the early church were people from every class and walk of life.  People who had no motive whatsoever to go along with this if it was fake, and who are unlikely to have had awesome magician skills.  Some with no formal education who presented the case for their faith before the leaders of the time, and those leaders couldn't fault them despite this being their goal.



I think honest, rational respectful and reasoned discussion of religion should be based on whether there is truth to a belief or not. Faith, Codes of Morality and personal experiences supporting a religious belief should not be easily discarded. I think people abandon their faith too easily more often then not. Just because a religion doesn't seem to be benefiting you, or your going through a tragedy doesn't justify abandoning your Faith.  People will often blame God first, rather than look at their own lives. Religion should prompt some introspection and self evaluation, are you really living up to your religious beliefs? Are you making the right choices in life? If God gave some advice in the Bible your not following and your screwing up your life, is it proof God doesn't exist or that your messed up. However honest debate and the honest seeking after God will for your life can't be accomplished if someone will embrace a point of view, not because they believe it is correct, or is improving their character in anyway, but because its comfortable. I believe God exists. If I believed my religion was based on a lie, I'd be looking for God elsewhere.

Believing in a Religion doesn't mean denying science or history or abandoning your religion at the first revelation denying it. It does mean recognizing that man is flawed and not lightly abandoning your personal knowledge of the reality of your own experiences with God.  Trying to Reconcile your beliefs with Science is fine, but you cant base a moral code upon something that changes, and realizes it was completely wrong about something, every couple months. Scientist in the middle ages believed humans crawled out of flowers, I'm glad people didn't base my religious beliefs around that idea or no one could ever give flowers, for fear of killing someone. History is likewise revised every couple years. People with axes to grind are always trying to prove the Bible false. These discoveries, or the interpretation of their significance, have so far always proven false later on.  Not so long ago they said the Hittites were fictional creations from the Bible that never truly existed, proving the Bible false. Until they discovered they did in fact exist and were in fact a pretty major empire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10527163 -

Quote:
I think honest, rational respectful and reasoned discussion of religion should be based on whether there is truth to a belief or not. Faith, Codes of Morality and personal experiences supporting a religious belief should not be easily discarded. I think people abandon their faith too easily more often then not. Just because a religion doesn't seem to be benefiting you, or your going through a tragedy doesn't justify abandoning your Faith.


No matter how many other cultures the missionaries fuck up.

Quik Quiz: Psilocybin ingestion was made a capital offense by what group?

A. Christians
B. Atheists


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10527259 -

Quote:
This tells us what about those who allegedly dedicate their lives to Christ?



Alleged is the operative word. A person may have a belief or just claim a religious affiliation which doesn't mean they are devoting their lives to Christ or even basing their life choices of those beliefs.  The model used to judge a religion should be those who are living their lives consistent with their faith, not those who aren't.

Quote:
Quote:
The main problem with religion as I see it, is that religious folks have a tendency to try and convert others to their faith, and if that doesn't work out they ridicule and mock them.



Didn't realize one post could contain so many errors. Please tell us how your lack of belief in Thor shapes your views.



Does this mean you've given up on trying to convert me to your atheist religion? :P

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10528368 -

Arghhhh said:
In Communist countries around the world religion is outlawed, and the penalties can be severe. Christians are still killed for their faith in many places in the world, and officially atheist countries have led the way.



looool. Come on. I'm not going to read the rest of your post if you make a blatant lie like that straight out. How many countries have banned religion? North Korea, and...? What about the other communist countries, like Cuba and China? Because they've got a pretty big religious population.

Meanwhile, the penalty for being atheist in many Middle Eastern countries (like Saudi Arabia) is death.

I'm sorry dude, but you're wrong. Atheists are far more tolerant than religious folk. And religious intolerance is generally more violent than atheist intolerance.

Edited by zouden (06/18/09 02:31 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10528736 -

Quote:
The model used to judge a religion should be those who are living their lives consistent with their faith, not those who aren't.



Ah yes, the old 'true Scotsman Fallacy'.

Here is the deal, if even a small percentage of Christians lived according to their proposed ideals then the effect would STILL show up in a large-scale social study.

Unsurprising to this poster is that those who take the wedding vows before God break them with a slightly greater frequency than those who do not vow before God. Just as young Christian girls forced to go to 'just say no to sex' brain-washing lectures/classes get pregnant more often than those who don't.

Quote:
Does this mean you've given up on trying to convert me to your atheist religion? :P


Once more, you made a claim about atheism so tell us how your non-belief in Thor shapes your moral stance on issues. If you really want a discussion, posting essays is not enough. You must actually respond to simple, direct questions.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10529102 -

My Non-belief in Thor means my morality does not place dying in combat to get to Valhalla as my highest goal. Nor does the blood of my enemies and the weeping of their women interest me overmuch. It didn't occur to me that that was actually a serious question.  I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Quote:
Here is the deal, if even a small percentage of Christians lived according to their proposed ideals then the effect would STILL show up in a large-scale social study.

Unsurprising to this poster is that those who take the wedding vows before God break them with a slightly greater frequency than those who do not vow before God.



When ninety percent of a country claims to believe in God and that is the only measure used to indicate whether someone is religious or not in a social study, it will of course skew the results.  That 90% will include multiple religions, creeds and philosophies including agnostics who believe in some vague irrelevant higher power, people who don't really ever think about religious issues but say, "sure I guess I believe in something", people with their own personal gods and philosophies which might not value any of the religious principles common in Christianity. Are they believe that making the vows before God is significant, or merely part of tradition? The variety of lifestyles in that 90% is huge, and people truly practicing what they believe could easily disappear in that figure.

This all assumes that the study is fair and accurate too, statistics can often reflect the perceptions and bias of those who collect it.  They can be made to say almost anything. Divorces are of course going to me more common within a community that has more marriages, than one which does not for instance.

Other statistical reports indicate that those following traditional religious morals and family have a comparatively higher success rate family stability and a higher level of happiness. Married people are generally more satisfied with their sex life than those having sex outside marriage for instance.





Just as young Christian girls forced to go to 'just say no to sex' brain-washing lectures/classes get pregnant more often than those who don't.



Girls who receive the "say no to sex" in public schools, where the religious and moral component justifying it is forbidden, are less likely to put in into practice. Receiving the class doesn't automatically make those girls religious, Christian or mean that they will chose to abstain. Those who decide to have sex are of course more likely to get pregnant. Those who make a choice to abstain and remain committed to that are of course less likely to get pregnant. If they change their mind later on they aren't automatically ignorant of condoms and the like (all they have to be able to do is read the directions on the packages. If people can't read that's a bigger indictment of the education system than just abstinence programs.)  Many christian girls and boys still do successfully choose to abstain until they are married and have very fulfilling relationships. Very few atheists wait by choice, because they don't believe its important.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10529317 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Another poster alluded to the (non-fact) that all school shootings are done by atheists. I don't want to directly address that, but the implication that religious people are less violent than atheists. I see no indication that this is true, but let's go back to the source for a moment.

Non-violence:

Thou shalt not kill.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Various other teachings of Jesus.


Pro-violence:

All of the various sex and other crimes in Leviticus that demand capital punishment.

Hundreds of historical examples of glorifying war and slaughter as long as the Israelites are doing the slaughter.

There appears no clear or consistent stand on violence except to justify it when you are going to do it - which is what everyone does anyway.


As we all know the Bible is commonly misinterpreted, therefore the Bible promotes both violence and nonviolence.

More than anything else I believe the Bible promotes confusion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zen buddy]
    #10530017 -

Quote:
You must actually respond to simple, direct questions.


I asked the same question several times and never got a response.

:shrug:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10530031 -

Quote:
Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence?


:rocket:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Arghhhh]
    #10531205 -

Arghhhh said:
Quote:
Just as young Christian girls forced to go to 'just say no to sex' brain-washing lectures/classes get pregnant more often than those who don't.



Girls who receive the "say no to sex" in public schools, where the religious and moral component justifying it is forbidden, are less likely to put in into practice. Receiving the class doesn't automatically make those girls religious, Christian or mean that they will chose to abstain. Those who decide to have sex are of course more likely to get pregnant. Those who make a choice to abstain and remain committed to that are of course less likely to get pregnant. If they change their mind later on they aren't automatically ignorant of condoms and the like (all they have to be able to do is read the directions on the packages. If people can't read that's a bigger indictment of the education system than just abstinence programs.)  Many christian girls and boys still do successfully choose to abstain until they are married and have very fulfilling relationships. Very few atheists wait by choice, because they don't believe its important.


But the problem is, many christian girls and boys unsuccessfully abstain. And then what? Christianity puts a larger-than-necessary emphasis on remaining chaste, so one mistake can lead to a whole lot of trouble. Falling pregnant can lead to ostracism within the religious community, and you better not think about having an abortion. The result is: more teenage pregnancies.
The fact is, abstinence is less effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy. Condoms break a lot less than humans do.
So how has religion helped? It certainly seems to make the situation worse.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10531249 -

Quote:
The fact is, abstinence is less effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy.


No.  Promoting abstinence is less effective than promoting condoms.  Actually practicing abstinence is much less likely to lead to pregnancy than using a condom.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Silversoul]
    #10531292 -

But you're taking an idealised case. In the perfect world, abstinence works 100%, but so would a condom. In the real world, condoms break and teenagers have hormones.

This means that teaching abstinence in schools actually increases the rate of teenage pregnancies. That is, by anyone's measure, an epic fail.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: zouden]
    #10531310 -

zouden said:
In the perfect world, abstinence works 100%, but so would a condom.


And in the real world, abstinence is only 99.999% effective.



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: Silversoul]
    #10531400 -

:lol:

I guess this just proves my point really. Of course Mary wasn't a virgin. That's patently false. Everyone agrees that Jesus probably was a real guy, but only Christians believe he was born to an immaculate conception. It's far more likely that Mary got knocked up by some guy. There's a large disconnect between reality and the fiction that Christians have constructed, and I think the same applies to teenage abstinence programs.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does the Bible promote violence or non-violence? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10531492 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Does this mean you've given up on trying to convert me to your atheist religion? :P


Once more, you made a claim about atheism so tell us how your non-belief in Thor shapes your moral stance on issues. If you really want a discussion, posting essays is not enough. You must actually respond to simple, direct questions.




I thought the whole point of atheism is that you believe thor and other gods don't exist, not that you fail to believe in them.  You've asserted the later is relevant when it seems the former is the truth.



I don't understand why people who are agnostic want to call themselves atheists and invite the obvious confusion that constantly plagues these discussions, but if they do so it would be nice if they'd clarify.


The philosophy sources I've looked at seem to acknowledge atheism is a belief that god doesn't exist, even those that acknowledge the use of the word to refer to teh lack of the belief.  At the minimum it woudl seem that folks who want to use atheist as equivalent to agnosticism for some reason shoudl clarify that's howt hey are using it.


Actually believing in god vs beleiving god not to exist seems equally silly and unsupportable.  Both are utterly unscientific and both are just blind faith.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 1 in 4 women U.S. women suffer domestic violence
( 1 2 all )		 MushmanTheManic 4,097 38 02/08/08 07:23 PM
by Boots
* The Holy Bible...
( 1 2 all )		 psilo25 4,005 27 09/04/02 10:21 AM
by psilo25
* The Truth About Christmas
( 1 2 all )		 chodamunky 5,763 24 12/26/19 07:19 AM
by Metaphysician
* nonviolence and its violent consequences NiamhNyx 1,925 9 08/08/04 11:59 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Changes in the bible
( 1 2 all )		 LearyfanS 3,727 29 10/28/03 12:02 PM
by Funguy
* One Glaring Problem With The Bible
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 DiploidM 13,906 132 04/30/05 09:25 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The Bible ... a trip? HB 1,537 6 09/14/01 12:27 AM
by Alowishaus
* The Bible : Bullshit
( 1 2 3 all )		 i_eat_planets 4,410 40 12/15/05 09:41 PM
by nakors_junk_bag

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
13,003 topic views. 2 members, 289 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.