Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on March 30, 2011 at 7:22pm

Yes I thought that also. Still waiting for evidence. Will check back after "family guy".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on March 31, 2011 at 2:47am

It's really sad that a person of any religious persuasion, talks to atheists, 'cause it just turns into a circular discussion. A religious person just never answers a question, any question.

 

Which one do you prefer:

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

I would like to hear your reasoning for this one - in my view, he is a mass murderer, what say you.

I know you won't answer these, because:

1. This is just one of many, many contradictions in the bible - and yet religious people of all persuasions - bible, quaran, tanakh - say they are infallible. 

I prefer to think lovely thoughts about my lovely Pink Unicorn. No death, no destruction, no fear, no hypocrites, no dictator, no slaves, no concubines, no killing of babies, no pre-occupation with penises.

 

Cheers - Suzanne

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on March 31, 2011 at 3:58pm

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."

—THOMAS PAINE (1 737-1809), in The Age of Reason

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 31, 2011 at 4:01pm

[Like]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 31, 2011 at 4:05pm

[Love]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will Sloan on March 31, 2011 at 4:39pm

One-upper. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 31, 2011 at 4:45pm

Two-upping. ;)

Damn.. that's not a concept.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on March 31, 2011 at 6:11pm

yeah we need all of those buttons...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Real Life James Bond on March 11, 2013 at 12:30pm

There is a huge problem about quoting scripture and that is that it represents 2000 year old moral values. For example Exodus 35:2 - "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." Or Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Point your scripture quoting friends my way and we can quote some scripture. Now they might say that the Old Testament is not to be taken literally, well the 10 commandments are in the Old Testament so should we take those literally? I formulated two arguments that go like this:

Premise 1: If the Ten Commandments are true, then God is changing.
Premise 2: If God is changing, then His word is not eternal (by 'eternal' I mean his word/teachings are always relevant).
Premise 3: If God's word is not eternal, then all the lessons from the Bible can be disregarded.
Conclusion: The Bible can be regarded as immoral for modern society.


Premise 1: If the Ten Commandments are false, then God is unchanging
Premise 2: If God is unchanging, then his word is eternal
Premise 3: If God's word is unchanging, then all lessons from the Bible are relevant today.
Conclusion: If all lessons from the Bible are relevant today, then it is permissible to kill people who work on the Sabbath.
You can tell your religious friends to pick which one they are going to go with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on March 11, 2013 at 1:54pm

Sam, first, you are committing a fallacy known as Argumentum Ab Annis. One does not determine the truth or falsehood of a proposition (including moral ones) based on the age or era from which it came, i.e. newer does not necessarily mean truer.

Secondly, neither God nor moral values have changed. In the case of the 10 Commandments, all that has changed is the application of certain moral imperatives.  In Christian theology, the civil/ceremonial aspects of the Law (Sabbath laws, eating shellfish, etc) have changed due to (1) the theocracy being no longer extant, and (2) Christ fulfilling those aspects of the Law. 

You'll notice that certain moral imperatives transcend the civil/ceremonial aspects of the Law (e.g. murder) and are upheld by the New Testament. So, your post has to do with internal aspects of Christian theology and the application of moral values and duties (Applied Ethics).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 11, 2013 at 2:07pm

Sam, first, you are committing a fallacy known as Argumentum Ab Annis.

That doesn't really seem to be the case to me. I think he is questioning the relevance of the Bible to modern society, and made a case for it. Whether you accept the case he argues or not (and I see that you do not), I don't think the intended message was that the Bible is wrong strictly because it is old; we just aren't beholden to the moral dictates of men who died a couple of millennia (or longer) ago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on March 11, 2013 at 2:37pm

Kris, the moral relevance of something should be determined on its own merits. That's why it is a fallacy to fault it based on how old it is. And that's exactly what Sam does ("it represents 2000 year old moral values"). "You ought not lie", "you ought not murder"; both of these moral values are over 2,000 years old. Are they therefore no longer relevant?

BTW, despite what Sam says, the 10 Commandments are much older than 2,000 years! 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page