Religion

[formerly known as hf]

Let me ask you a question "formerly known as hf".

Why is murder, stealing, and lying wrong?

Because they all affect others in severly adverse ways.

Homosexuality doesn't. At all. My sexuality, your sexuality, cannot do harm.


I fail to see why you even asked that? Except to divert attention?

[west]

Let me ask you a question "formerly known as hf".

Why is murder, stealing, and lying wrong?

Because they all affect others in severly adverse ways.

Let me expand on that: because they're anti-social.

Humans are social creatures - we rely on others and we live in communities, as we always have been. There are very rare exceptions, but those are always a conscious choice on the part of the person who removes him/herself from society. Our default is "social".

Now, if I lie to you, you are not going to trust me. If you don't trust me, it's going to be harder for you and me and our tribe or our family or our village to get along with each other. This means we will not survive as well, our quality of life will be adversely affected, etc. Same with stealing. Stealing is taking something that isn't yours that you didn't work for, which means you are not pulling your weight and you are harming the community. This is also anti-social behavior.

Murder, obviously, is the most anti-social behavior because it deprives the community of a member who is someone's parent, someone's child, someone's friend, someone's partner, etc. And it breeds mistrust, anger and resentment, and all of these things are bad for our social units.

That is why murder, lying, and stealing are "wrong". Because humans need to live together, and those things work against that. It's simple.

[saztronic]

Who says humans "need" to live together? Let me just play devil's advocate for a moment.

The fact that murder and lying are bad for the group -- i.e, for society -- doesn't make them "right" or "wrong". It just makes them "worse" for the group. Who says "worse for the group" equals "wrong"?

The group is often wrong -- a majority of people used to support slavery in the United States -- and as a lot of people forget to mention, in many other countires as well. A majority of many peoples have, throughout history, supported the mass murder of a minority group because they thought the minority group threatened the majority. Was this right? What about capital punishment? This is the community actively depriving a parent, child, friend, partner, whatever of someone close to them. It breeds mistrust, anger and resentment. Is this right or wrong?

My only point being that the "social acceptability" of an act is no basis or for determining its ultimate "rightness" or "wrongness". At one time or another, societies have accepted and applauded every manner of atrocity you would care to mention.

[Elros]

What about capital punishment? This is the community actively depriving a parent, child, friend, partner, whatever of someone close to them. It breeds mistrust, anger and resentment. Is this right or wrong?

The act of capitol punishment is taking away a person that has and probably will again deprive a parent, child, friend, or partner of someone close to them. You have it backwards, it is the Murderer who is depriving the community of people, not the communty depriving the people of a Murderer. When Capitol Punishment is put into affect, it saves lives of people in the community that would or could be harmed by the Murderer, Rapist or whatever else the criminal has done.

[west]

Who says humans "need" to live together? Let me just play devil's advocate for a moment.

The fact that murder and lying are bad for the group -- i.e, for society -- doesn't make them "right" or "wrong". It just makes them "worse" for the group. Who says "worse for the group" equals "wrong"?

The group is often wrong -- a majority of people used to support slavery in the United States -- and as a lot of people forget to mention, in many other countires as well. A majority of many peoples have, throughout history, supported the mass murder of a minority group because they thought the minority group threatened the majority. Was this right? What about capital punishment? This is the community actively depriving a parent, child, friend, partner, whatever of someone close to them. It breeds mistrust, anger and resentment. Is this right or wrong?

My only point being that the "social acceptability" of an act is no basis or for determining its ultimate "rightness" or "wrongness". At one time or another, societies have accepted and applauded every manner of atrocity you would care to mention.

I didn't say 'social acceptability'. I said that murder, stealing, and lying are bad for a social unit. Human social units are generally pretty small; we didn't have mass slaughters and genocide or slavery against specific racial groups until we had huge numbers of people in societies. I'm talking about the evolutionary and societal fact that people spend their time in small units, even within these larger ones, and that murder, stealing, and lying WITHIN a unit jeopardize its chances of surviving and thriving vs. the world or vs. other units. And this is why society considers these things wrong WITHIN units but can justify them in times of war, institutionalized hatred towards OTHER, or whatever.

I was using "right" and "wrong" because Elros did, when in fact the terms are more accurately "pro-social" and "anti-social", where "social" means "the small societal unit that I am part of" -- my tribe, my clan, my village, my sports team, whatever. Obviously humans have been killing each other, lying, and stealing as long as they've been around, and the only time society (or God) condemns it is when it's done to a member of one's own group.

That's why David got in trouble with God for killing Bathsheba's husband (one of his generals) but Samson didn't get in trouble for slaughtering an entire wedding party full of Philistines.

[Pie]

Let me ask you a question. Do you belive that George Washington was the first President? Do you believe that we landed on the Moon? Do you believe that there are Great White Sharks in the ocean?

All of the things above you ave not seen with your own eyes, and "Men" wrote about all of it, but you have no problem believing it. You have no "Proof" besides what other men have told you. You belive all these things and 100's more without hesitation. So why is it so hard for you to believe in God?

Was the birth of Jesus on TV?

Are there hundreds and thousands of contemporary writings and newspaper clippings which substantiate the Bible?

You sounded intelligent, Elros, but I'm sure even you can see those comparisons are just plain stupid...

are there hundreds of witnesses in a murder trial? Are there even 8 witnesses of a murder in an average murder trial?

(don't worry, I have more to say, it'll just take a wile for me to edit it in)

[Pie]

I am very thankful the world is not full of bigoted Christians like yourself, or similar Muslims. A world full of homosexuals might not last as long, but at least women would have equal rights, and people wouldn't be persecuted based upon their sexuality, colour of their skin, or the name they give to their god. It'd be a damned more peaceable and happier place.

Well lets see here... You said that without christians people would not be persecuted for the name they give to their God. Well what do you call everthing you have been saying and to me and Dee and the others that "name our God". It looks like you, which are no where near a christian, is the one that is "persecuting" as you call it the people that "chose to name their God". So don't go judging christians when you are doing the same thing that you are condeming. I myself have no problem being "persecuted" as you call it for my Faith in God. I expect it. So I am not "whining and asking you to stop picking on me", I am just pointing out that the same thing that you say you hate, is what you are doing right now.

I judge Chritians and Muslims, I hold negative opinions of the people and their beliefs, yes.

But I do not actively persecute them.


I would argue you are wrong in you beliefs - but I would not deny you your right to hold and follow those ebliefs.

I would not deny you the right to declare their love in the form of partnership in the eyes of national law.

I would not deny you the right to equal job opportunities.

I would not deny you the right to work with children.

I would not deny you the right to join the armed forces.

I would not declare you sinners, and perpetuate, or even be involved in, physical violence against them.


I may condem your beliefs as plain stupid, in my opinion, but even in my pedjudiced opinion, that does not make you unworthy of the rights we all share as human beings.

I would never condem your beliefs as sinful or unnatural, perpetuatuating a situation of discrimination and violence.

There is no ingrained discrimination of Christians in our western society for my views to perpetuate.

(about all those things, holding negative thoughts against cristians and things... I do them likewise to other people. Exept I don't judge the people by there beliefes. I judge them on how they use there beliefes, and on how they act, how they are as an individual.)

there is discrimination of christians in many other countries. Ever hear about that one genacide in afrika... sudan, somewere around there?

Wasn't that a cristian thing?

[Pie]

We've been through the gay argument already, somewhere back in the forty-ish pages, I think.

I'm quite sick of people trying to say that Christ never existed. Pie already disproved several of those theories (i.e. historical documents say that Christianity existed before HF claims it was created, and they were obviously around at least 135 years before the third century because Nero was killing them circa 65 AD).

I am of the opinion that a Christ-like figure probably did exist, I do deny he was the son of God, was resurrected, was able to perform miracles etc etc.

There's more corrobatory evidence for the existence of Mohammed.


Archaeologists found the site Troy, and are very close to finding the site of Odeyseuss' palace, Ithica. Both of which have provided more hard-evidence for the Illiad and Odessyus myths than exists for the Bible, but that's largely because the Bible has been re-written to a much greater extent than Homer's work, and utterly falsified passages have been rammed-in all over the place (The oldest texts relating to the Bible cover about 10% of what it currently is - even the oldest edition of the Bible is about 2/3 of the current editions) and as such, it's unlikely that hard evidence from 0-60AD will substantiate additoins added during the 13-17th centuries.



But just because they found hard evidence for Troy, does not mean the Goddess Athena came down and helped lead the Greecian armed forces...

ooooh, this is good.

Now, we may have proof that muhammad existed, but we have none that he actually did see allah in the cave, becaus he was the only witness and he had something to gain.

jesus, on the other hand, didn't, and the apostles also had nothing to gain.

If you will not accept any philisophical line of lodgic supporting jesus's resurection, than I will not try to debait this. It's a wast of time. Also, if you won't take my argunments at face value, than I will stop trying to debait this, for it will then also be a wast of time. Also, if you keep on slinging mud, I will stop trying to debait this, for it will be a wast of time.

Saying that they found troy, dosen't say anything about the bible. And might i add that the bible has alot more archeological and sociological evidenc in it(it is the best refurence when trying to study the sociaty of the roman world at that time)

Must i look it up? I'll do it anyway.

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_his ... bible.html
http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-is-true-faq.htm
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/discoveries/index.htm

And not to mention the government of the romans are told in there, not to mention the names of the prelates and the government officials and the like. alot of archeological proof also. such as, it has been taken against the bible in past debaits that there weren't any villages near enough to the dead sea (or wichever sea it was) for there to be pigs to drop over a cliff into it. Buuuut... there was one found. Also, it has been taken against the bible that IRL, there is no mentioning of a government official named a prelate... or something of the sort. Buuut, they found it.

*ehem* more evidence in the illiad?

[Pie]

Who says humans "need" to live together? Let me just play devil's advocate for a moment.

The fact that murder and lying are bad for the group -- i.e, for society -- doesn't make them "right" or "wrong". It just makes them "worse" for the group. Who says "worse for the group" equals "wrong"?

The group is often wrong -- a majority of people used to support slavery in the United States -- and as a lot of people forget to mention, in many other countires as well. A majority of many peoples have, throughout history, supported the mass murder of a minority group because they thought the minority group threatened the majority. Was this right? What about capital punishment? This is the community actively depriving a parent, child, friend, partner, whatever of someone close to them. It breeds mistrust, anger and resentment. Is this right or wrong?

My only point being that the "social acceptability" of an act is no basis or for determining its ultimate "rightness" or "wrongness". At one time or another, societies have accepted and applauded every manner of atrocity you would care to mention.

I didn't say 'social acceptability'. I said that murder, stealing, and lying are bad for a social unit. Human social units are generally pretty small; we didn't have mass slaughters and genocide or slavery against specific racial groups until we had huge numbers of people in societies. I'm talking about the evolutionary and societal fact that people spend their time in small units, even within these larger ones, and that murder, stealing, and lying WITHIN a unit jeopardize its chances of surviving and thriving vs. the world or vs. other units. And this is why society considers these things wrong WITHIN units but can justify them in times of war, institutionalized hatred towards OTHER, or whatever.

I was using "right" and "wrong" because Elros did, when in fact the terms are more accurately "pro-social" and "anti-social", where "social" means "the small societal unit that I am part of" -- my tribe, my clan, my village, my sports team, whatever. Obviously humans have been killing each other, lying, and stealing as long as they've been around, and the only time society (or God) condemns it is when it's done to a member of one's own group.

That's why David got in trouble with God for killing Bathsheba's husband (one of his generals) but Samson didn't get in trouble for slaughtering an entire wedding party full of Philistines.

west, sociaty does not belong in philosiphy. It is just, stupid. In philosiphy we are trying to find truths to the world, and sociaty biasses these truths into a lie. Saying that we do something becaus it is sociably acceptibal is just stupid.

becaus sociaty changes.

In the mideavle ages, it was sociably acceptable to burn wemon at the stake becaus they were "wiches"

You say you aren't saying what is sociably acceptible. I may argue that you are saying sociabally acceptibal but that will take to long...... so i will say it in a different way.

In the mideavel ages, it was good for the social unit to kill 'wiches', to get on the good side, or the Sociabally accesibal side(you can acces the sociaty of(it's something i just made up.) to the catholic curch.

[Dee]

Why can't we all just live in peace and harmony...

I swear... Sometimes I feel like killing myself.


That was totally random, I know.

[Pie]

Definatly.

[Nosajimiki]

:roll:

Why can't we all just live in peace and harmony...

I swear... Sometimes I feel like killing myself.


That was totally random, I know.

please don't.

[edit: and the unable to live in peace thing is probably just compansation for a lack of violence in Cantr

and really, don't do it... it's bad for your health]

[Nosajimiki]

As for the 100 gays in 100 years stipulation, you are basing that on the idea that a malignant genes are actually garrented to die away. A number of ressessive genes inparticular are commonly terminal. More-over, in a reccessed situation the same gene that would cause a man to be homsexual can instead cause a man to just get along better with other men thereby making him more fit to survive and reproduce. It's the same as with sycle-cell aenemia, ressessed it makes you virtually immune to maleria, unressessed, it's ussally fatal.

My point was that after they all die from old age or whatever that they would be extinct because they wouldn't have any offspring. How were you disagreeing with that above? Where you saing that a man could have a kid?

My arguement was to why homosexuality still exists in our mixed population, but to more specifically address the 100 gays issue. Would a population of 100 people lets itself die out of reluctance to have sex with the opposite gender? If they do, then the fact that the are predisposed to homosexuality and not heterosexuality is affermed. If they don't, then they reproduce despite thier prefferences to insure thier own survival; thus, the arguement that they are unable to propetuate life is nullified.

[west]

west, sociaty does not belong in philosiphy. It is just, stupid. In philosiphy we are trying to find truths to the world, and sociaty biasses these truths into a lie. Saying that we do something becaus it is sociably acceptibal is just stupid.

becaus sociaty changes.

In the mideavle ages, it was sociably acceptable to burn wemon at the stake becaus they were "wiches"

You say you aren't saying what is sociably acceptible. I may argue that you are saying sociabally acceptibal but that will take to long...... so i will say it in a different way.

In the mideavel ages, it was good for the social unit to kill 'wiches', to get on the good side, or the Sociabally accesibal side(you can acces the sociaty of(it's something i just made up.) to the catholic curch.

You don't understand - Human relations, "right" or "wrong", no matter the philosophy, are based around social interaction. To try to separate religion, philosophy, laws, morality, or anything else from society is ridiculous. These things are all around BECAUSE humans organize themselves into groups. If we were all loners, if there were only one of us, we wouldn't have any of those things. Philosophy tries to understand our place in the universe, how we should treat each other, etc. None of these would be necessary without society. Humanity as we know it would not exist.

[formerly known as hf]

If you will not accept any philisophical line of lodgic supporting jesus's resurection, than I will not try to debait this. It's a wast of time. Also, if you won't take my argunments at face value, than I will stop trying to debait this, for it will then also be a wast of time. Also, if you keep on slinging mud, I will stop trying to debait this, for it will be a wast of time.

Your line of 'philosophical logic' has one great gaping whole.

You start your 'logic' from the assumption that what the Bible has written in it, is truth.
If what the Bible says is true - yes, Jesus was resurrected, people did martyr themselves, the apostles, yada yada.


But what is written in the Bible is not true. It is not verifiable fact. You are, yet again, chasing your tail. You are using examplars from the Bible, to verify itself.

And not to mention the government of the romans are told in there, not to mention the names of the prelates and the government officials and the like. alot of archeological proof also. such as, it has been taken against the bible in past debaits that there weren't any villages near enough to the dead sea (or wichever sea it was) for there to be pigs to drop over a cliff into it. Buuuut... there was one found. Also, it has been taken against the bible that IRL, there is no mentioning of a government official named a prelate... or something of the sort. Buuut, they found it.

Yet again, I know there is a lot of historical detail in the Bible.

I do not dispute that.

But just because a story is written that includes historical characters - doens't make it a documentary.

Much of Shakespeare's works were written about historical figures, set in factual historical locations.
They weren't 'ture stories' though.



And, yes, the Illiad is more fully backed by archaeological evidence than the Bible.
Spurious bit of the bible are verified by archaeology.

That Troy existed, that there was a large war waged, the large settlements in Greece which shipped soldiers there have been found, some islands and certain temples described have been excavated.

Yes, there is some archaeological evidence for the Bible.
But, if I said that the archaeological evidence for the Illiad meant the Zeus, Athena and the others were for-real Gods, and had miracle powers.

You would tell me that archaeological proof does not proove that part of the Illiad.
The same way archaeological proof of parts of the Bible, does not proove Jesus was the son of God, does not proove the miracles etc etc.



And 'sociological' proof.
Pray, tell, what do you mean by this? Have you even an understanding of sociological inquiry and research, and how it relates to the Bible?
I doubt it, because, if you did, you would know that 'sociology' has quite little to say about the Bible and events therein - that a lot of sociological inquiry that could be done, cannot, as the records required to make any firm conclusions are very scarce.


The things you read that claim to be based on 'sciology' - are misusing an academic term to give weight to unscientific, non-academic musings.