Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality

that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

New York-based group of clinical researchers

The one group of people I see wanting to use this application are people who hate homosexuals and the biggest argument they use against homosexuality is that it's a choice and that it's unnatural

The purpose of sex is reproduction. The survival of species kind of depends Heterosexualality. Homosexuality has no benefit to offer. those for whom it is a lifestyle choice tare of no use to the species.

It looks to me that as you are the people focusing on sexuality, you are the discriminating bunch. This trial is obviously meant to treat this condition

The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia.

Poor kids. My opinion is that those researchers, and the kind of parents who would submit themselves and their children to the snake oil these charlatans are pushing are the *abnormal* ones

Why do we need to cure 'innate' homosexuality? From a society perspective it has long been a useful trait within the population, or rather, strongly associated with other useful traits such as political astuteness, wit, leadership.
We eliminate variation in our genetic and psychological make-up at our peril, what if all the weedy geeky people had been corrected before birth, would we have an internet?

homosexuality? From a society perspective it has long been... strongly associated with other useful traits such as political astuteness, wit, leadership.
...what if all the weedy geeky people had been corrected before birth, would we have an internet?

Otto, you're a busy troll. This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate, not your version of petty tyranny and your twisted values.

As for these "scientists" trying to classify a natural mammalian behavior as a disease, I recommend they be publicly denounced and their vile politics exposed.

Unethical research should be remedied by revocation of licenses

Taking cues from their NAZI predecessors, any information that reveals the true nature of the war being waged against an innocent population will be suppressed, but thank God for the Internet and the bravery of American soldiers who dare to confront this injustice.

This is an issue for compassionate rationalists to debate

This is definitely one of the most abhorrent articles I've read in some time.

Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia.

But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used IN THIS POPULATION [emphasis otto's] to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest THESE GIRLS [emphasis otto's] tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

So..they're trying to cure the disease even though

"the prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH."

Hmm.

[MOST] clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. [BUT] the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.

So..they're trying to cure the disease

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.

However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.

Interesting moral question. If there is a test for homosexuality in unborn humans, and if there was a cure for homosexuality in unborn humans is it wrong to cure these unborn children of homosexuality?

Since pro-abortionist do not consider unborn children as human, they would have no moral objection in curing homosexuality in the unborn, as the unborn are not human in their eyes.

Pro-lifers consider unborn babies human, and since pro-lifers want these children to have normal lives they have no problem in curing these children.

However pro-abortionists have no problems in killing unborn humans that will have difficulties in life (like downs children) so they will have no problems in killing homosexuals before they are born, and cannot object to selective abortions that kill homosexuals.

Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will

Third, I believe you are a Christian ( I apologize for name calling if you are not) and therefore believe homosexuals will

And I ascertain that you are a Godless Socialist (more insincere commie double speak).

Reproductive technology will eventually turn the womb into a manufacturing plant.
Let's make measurably better babies, and deselect for more than just reproductive problems (like not having genitalia or using them inefficiently). We can rebuild them. We can make them stronger, faster, smarter, less sticky.

Oh, and deselect for rap. I hate rap.

More on this from NEWSWEEK ...

READ IT AGAIN. In that specific population. ONLY.
In that population ONLY, homosexuality is abnormal. Thats what it SAYS.

So..they're trying to cure the disease

NO theyre not. Theyre trying to treat the symptoms, as it SAYS.

Saying so implies one's conviction of homosexuality being - at least in some cases - an abnormality.

This implies their/your claim that homosexuality is - at least in some cases - a symptom of a disease.
Which is a bit surprising to hear from someone who is advocating overpop and a global grand scheme stretching over several millennia.

(I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."

Homosexuality does not need a cure!!

Gods got nothing to do with this. Actually, gods got nothing to do with anything, in reality. Your god is the epitome of rejection- of exclusivism- he and his so-called 'chosen people. And no I don't mean Jews, I mean all of you who think your god loves you best because you fawn over him so much.

(I Corinthians 6:9-11) "Without faith [in Christ] it is impossible to please God."

-Like I said. Your little godman is only one of a few dozen, all mutually exclusive, by Design.

And as usual, another xian spouting off who doesn't know his own holy book- or who thinks he can interpret it any way he wishes, or he can ignore parts he don't like, which is worse. Blasphemer.

Leviticus

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

-Plus what Paul had to say, plus what happened to Sodom and gemorrah because the men wanted to rape an angel-

That's otto1923's opinion. A legit opinion. But why does he present his opinion to the public? Does he really think it will have any effect on anybody, enlighten anybody?

As a confessing anti-Christian you are definitely not entitled to tell what a "good Christian" has to believe of the scriptures.

why you don't grasp that your ostensible knowledge of all Christianity is at best the knowledge of a relatively small, albeit - because at home in the US - not unimportant, part of Christianity?

So what the heck is otto1923 trying to accomplish?

In the future to have this kind of modular fetal editing technology there probably will be cures too, so if some child is frustrated in the way they were designed they can change it with procedures

You people have been politically corrected. To death.

This is wonderful. If homosexuality can be cured; what a glorious day for its millions of suffers.

Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.

The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection, http://www.scienc...459.htm, demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family.

Science has proven that homosexuality is beneficial to our species. There is no need to tamper with mother nature, as we know she always comes back to bite you in the back.

You wanna be more specific? You have any links to non-religious info to support this? Anybody?

I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.

I do know that they now theorize post-menopausal women fulfilling the same role as a reason for genetic selection. Im not sure if gays around the house would be superfluous, or what experience they could provide to aid in survrval, and I cant think of any prevalence for that behavior in modern society.

Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.

The research is rather recent and isn't really too politically correct.

How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.

to suit their own weltanschuung.

How about we start performing prenatal procedures to instill logic and rational thought.

It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.
Ratio can be offered, but then it has to be accepted by the intended recipient to become effective. Without consensual acceptance it won't work as brainwashing never has worked in history.

I wonder if there are observed examples in modern-day primitive societies which might bear this out?

Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.

Much like eunichs in the harem eh?

When you examine Romans as a whole, and account for the historical times, it is clear that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

Romans interpretation by scholars

Although frightening, post menopausal women don't have the increased size and strength that a homosexual cave man would have in defending the family whilst not raping every female he could while the alphas are away.

Much like eunichs in the harem eh?

While I don't appreciate the unreasonably simplifying notion of "alpha males" (which serves the one and only purpose of yielding a projection role for dissatisfied male individuals of the species homo sapiens), I neither see any reason for using the relation "much like" when comparing homosexuals and harem eunuchs, my main reproach being the (un- or intentional) omission of the consent factor.

It's an irrational belief that ratio can be instilled prenatally or otherwise.

"Weltanschauung", se parakalo.

Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship.

Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities.

Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

otto1923: I have read both sides. -One side (The anti-gay side) cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it's wrong with no evidence.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Oh I would say, and if you were being objective and detached you would agree with me, that 90% of the sex people are having today is little more than mutual masturbation.

To see gay sex as a population controlling mechanism seems to be to be an unintended result of the process and rather a pie-in-the-sky conclusion.

Not when seen in concert with other social developments: the reversal of mores throughout society; abortion legalization, decriminalization of extramarital sex, pornography, and masturbation, women in traditional male professions, destruction of the traditional family and church influence, etc.

Taken as a whole, the most substantial effect of these social changes has been the drastic reduction in growth of western populations, allowing for immigration of third worlders and the further re-homogenization of the species.

One of the stronger arguments in favour of legal abortions is that abortions will and do happen despite any legal status. Legalizing it just makes it safer.

masturbation is a new thing? Aux contrare, mon amie.

women in unconventional occupations?? Not sure what you mean there - farming is a very difficult occupation and the majority of farmers in the world are women ....

You leave no room for rational decisions here? A woman's right to chose encompasses the choice to have a baby or not.

it is an intellectual decision, not a sociological or scheduling one.

I submit there have been wankers all along

One of the stronger arguments in favour of legal abortions is that abortions will and do happen despite any legal status. Legalizing it just makes it safer.

Skeptic_Heretic: "Uh, no it wasn't." "No, that's not true either."

Lol, nice arguments. Now wheres your proof? Oh thats right! The anti-gay side never offers valid proof =)

ie Sous Khristos"

Ahh, either bad trolling, or bad reading comprehension. Which one is it? I never said i was a biblical scholar. However, i cite the sources of biblical scholars and historians to prove my point.

otto1923: "You're wrong. All sides cherry pick to support their views. "

Lol, OoooO, more comments without any backup :)

But most gay couples are not having mutual masturbation nor idol sex nowadays. Most of it is real sex. What's your point? =)

If you're trying to troll

Let's see it then :)

These incidences happen regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, since straights far outnumber gays, it is logical to assume that those incidences have a far higher occurrence among straight people.

Lol what? I already cited my own sources. And you have clearly not provided evidence of your views.

Lol, and this my friend, is what we call intolerance. The difference is though, i have backed up my views with links, evidence, and logic, which you have failed to do.

Ahhhh, more claims without evidence i see.

I would say, to cite only one example of 1000s of incidents which happen every day in pickup joints and restrooms around the world, that George Michaels was not looking to express 'love' of anything but the big 'O' when he propositioned that undercover cop in a toilet not so long ago. And Cosmo is not teaching women how to express their love by telling them how to experience the perfect orgasm.

If you're trying to troll

Nah, just being observant and commenting on it sincerely. You ARE myopic.

Was that not Larry (Wide Stance) Craig - another one of the 'family values' Republicans?

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality.

Hold on thar shadow person .... am I missing something here - are you a moderator - or one of the people that (both) Sceptic H and otto rail against

Now, let us get back to a discussion of the article - I have found many of the entries enlightening.

Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

I have a copy of "the Skeptics Annotated Bible' on my hard drive ..searching for it I found this, 'Homosexuality in the Bible' - a quick read shows the Bible to be somewhat ambivalent toward gay behaviour, even as it the measures are extreme.

If there is any 'odd-man-out' (no matter what gender) it is you for slagging other posters.

The following people are trolls:

skeptic heretic
otto

If there is any 'odd-man-out' (no matter what gender) it is you for slagging other posters.

You obviously didn't read most of otto1923's comments. He ought to get this award.

there is an alert mind eager to learn.

Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Clearly, above all else, Jesus teaches us not to hate

Nah, thats what he SAYS but its clearly a lie.

"21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Nah, that's just his cynicism coming through. He teaches love, but knows many won't accept the lesson.

The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?

Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.

The bible teaches how to spread Order by FORCE. It explicitly TELLS us this and tells us how to do it, and how to feel while we're doing it. And our reward is nothing less than immortality in a perfect place. How could you refuse?

Nah, only the Old Testament does that. The new testament just concedes that it's man's nature to be violent. To Say otherwise, would be presumptuous (to say the least!) Truly, Jesus taught peace. But, not being stupid, he knew only a relative few would accept the lesson.

Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.

Leviticus 18:22 makes a direct statement on the matter.
"18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Judiasm, and its child, Christianity hold this to be their edict.

Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

Jesus led his followers into jerusalem on the hebrews holiest day, marched into the temple, threw out all the lawful currency traders there, and confronted the sadducees face to face and told them he was their king. He then calmly awaited martyrdom as an example for the millions who would follow. This is a clear expression of audacity, of Force of Will. Not Peace.

You cant have revolution without martyrs. Jesus taught the world how to do this as no one else ever had.

Thats right. He's COUNTING on it. Hence his words in Matthew, the actions of his followers, the wars and revolutions which result, and the Order that was established due to the amazing success of it all. All this accomplished by someone who never existed.

Wouldn't that be like blaming every mistake you ever made on your teachers? And, since teachers know you won't absorb all the information they provide, wouldn't that similarly mean they intend for you to screw up?

It's a teacher conspiracy! :)

And this is why democracy perseveres. He taught us to question authority, and the status quo. How is that a bad thing?

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

-xians can selectively invoke the OT any time they need to conquer and exclude.

Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New. That the Old Testament law is to be set aside is both in the Old Testament (where it predicts the New Covenant) and in the New Testament. "Hebrews" comes to mind as a good resource (off the cuff). By "fulfilling the Law," He means it's done... finished... kaput.

The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.

The bible was not written by any god. It was written by Politicians who wanted the people to fight, suffer, and die on command. Thats what They WANTED and thats what They GOT. We have our existance to thank for it.

Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.

Seriously, it was primarily written by believers and scholars, not politicians. That some happened to have political connections is largely irrelevant, as they obviously weren't well enough connected (hence the persecutions).

Maybe in your particular sect or denomination.

Bullshit. You too are critically Naive. See a [witch]doctor.

Supposing that is true, who then is the architect?

...it must have been conceived by scholar philosophers, probably those in places like Alexandria or tarsus.

Who knows? Doesn't matter. A trap set for all those enamored with the Star Culture. Only matters what They did, and are doing, and Why.

ubavontuba: Otto is a confirmed troll :) Prove him wrong with facts, but never let him incite anger, that's what he wants.

Politicians? Really? I didn't know Caesar wrote the Bible! LOL.

No, but you might concede upon reflection that people like Nero and Constantine did a great deal to tailor the emergent form of roman Catholicism, by Force, in culling all xians whose beliefs did not conform. And Jews of course. Xianity was a powerful backfire set against Hebrew proselytism which had threatened to engulf empire. In the end Rome had to destroy the entire state.

Wow. You give a lot of cedit to those ancients. Do you really think they could possibly predict that something they supposedly made up would so change the world?

Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New.

Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

Nah, that's out of context. We're to keep it as a record, and even a reference, but not as law. That's why Christian's call it "The Old Testament" (or Old Covenant) as it's been replaced with the New.

That's NOT what the passage says. 'Jesus' is very explicit here and elsewhere that the NT is an extention of the OT- it's why they are canon. Jesus and the disciples quote the Law and the prophets, major and minor, many times. Of course, heresies in your particular cult or coven may differ.

Then one would wonder why Jesus would instruct those who wish to be Christian to be "of greater knowledge of the laws than the Pharisees".

I hear often that Jesus came through and changed all the rules but this doesn't jive with Christian dogma. If Jesus is an avatar of God as Christianity holds then why would he change his mind if he is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and not subject to causality? Just a few logical reasons for this would be
1. God doesn't exist and Jesus was a philosopher on the human condition. His divinity is a mortal invention
2. God exists but Jesus was not his avatar and Chirstianity is wrong
3. It's a total sham and JC did not exist.

All equally valid and, given the established evidence, more valid than the current dogma of all Christian sects. No one can say there isn't a God, however, once you claim to know something of him you immediately invalidate your stance.

Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.

Hebrews 8:6- 8-13. Says that God found fault (yes, fault) with the Old Covenant and replaced (yes, replaced) it with the New Covenant.

Or, society evolves - and God knows this. He calls us "children" for a reason.

And right there you claim knowledge of a being you cannot have knowledge of. ie: Bearing false witness. If you're a Christian, that's a forbidden practice.

This is the problem with organized religion. Self contradictory and logically impossible to follow. Effectively you can never be good enough, regardless of how good you are at suspending your rational mind.

Wrong. The Bible explains this relationship quite clearly, in many places.

Regardless, just as we can observe the behavior of a parent with his children and make valid assumptions about his feelings for his children - and we can even go so far as to predict probable future behavior - we can likewise do with any other socially interacting group (i.e. God and man).

Wrong again. There's no being "good enough" to being a Christian.

Uba- I didn't know you were one of those godlovers with self-inflicted myopia.

People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.

"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -rev22

-and��2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

-The bible is the complete and perfect word of god hisself IN IT'S ENTIRETY. You really shouldn't be claiming that god makes mistakes or forgot something in the OT- you'll burn in the lake of fire with the rest of us.

Technically, I'm not. I'm rather open minded about the whole thing. I simply choose to be a Christian because Jesus is worth believing in - if not for the religion, then for the philosphy.

Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person.

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.

Let otto set aside his incendiary persona for a moment:

Pauls letter to the Hebrews is an argument that the gospel is a continuation of, and not a replacement for, the Law. Throughout the book Paul uses the Law as proof that jesus is a High Priest of a New Covenant (contract), a new agreement to abide by the Law.

Gods first 'covenant' was not faulty in itself. The people he made it with were faulty. 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people..." A covenant is an agreement between parties to abide by the Law. The Law is still valid but god seeks a new agreement with the people to abide by it, the covenant being jesus himself and the NT

In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.

This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.

-God makes repeated covenants which are basically agreements to abide by his laws in return for deliverance. His people break these agreements many times but god comes up with new agreements each time. The Laws as described in the OT do not change, only the ways of observing them; xians still practice the ritual sacrifice with the eucharist; the 10 commandments still stand; etc.

Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.

Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.

Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.

Sure. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Christians honor this with a "sacrificial ritual" of wine and unleaven bread, but it's only in memory of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not a new sacrifice.

Correct. It fulfilled the Law; it didnt replace it.

But the Bible isn't the authority on the concept of God. You cannot use the Bible as evidence for nature when it was clearly authored by men, and not by divinity.

But we are not unique in that respect, and within nature all manner of relationship is represented. That means that the relationship between God and man could parallel anything within nature, including predator and prey, master and slave, torturer and tortured.

Then you haven't read your bible. To be a Christian is to follow rules. Xians state that there must be submission

Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.

Submission to God, not to the rules of men.

Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).

"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

-It is not the Law which is obsolete but only the contract the hebrews made with god to abide by it.

"6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.'

-Again it is not the Laws that are new but the ministry of them- the way they are delivered to the people- which has been updated

God is offering better and more enticing lies of eternal life (which is really only freedom from the fear of death in this life):

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

-Which Paul blatantly admits to.

Over and over the NT repeats this mantra because it is its most powerful bribe. God promises unending free tickets at NirvanaDisney to compel the people to love only him and his #1 Pudel jesus;

and to obey all those appointed by him unto the death, so wahr mir gott helfen.

(the evil otto has returned)

People mistakenly believe it's a religion that calls you to task for your weaknesses, but it's not. It's more about enjoying life and the people around you.

Well then why isn't that the content of the faith?

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.

Now youo've taken the philosophical parts of Christianity and seperated them from the religion. The philosophy of Christianity isn't from Christianity. It's from far earlier sources.

Why keep the detrimental part of the dogma intact to promote the good when the good itself can be performed without the dogma? In short, you can be Christlike without being Christian.

But it's all there in one convenient package.

To what detrimental parts do you refer?

And yet, and yet... you still express the assurance typical of Believers, that their own particular interpretation of the gospels is gospel, and not subject to scrutiny.

Your discounting of the OT for instance... you must know that millions of xians every bit as knowledgable as you hold views opposed to yours,

and yet each will not budge unless an epiphany update finds them born again in a new and identical iteration.

Thats the problem when you place 'faith' in something insubstantial. Youre always at odds with people who feel your beliefs are threatening theirs.

Personally, I think it also helps me be a happier, friendlier, and more compassionate person.

So would ecstacy, another drug of the same ilk.

Simply put, it's worth believing in for its own sake.

I prefer the Truth.

In context, this is nothing more than a copyright statement (or ancient version threof) from one book in the Bible.

In your opinion. Which differs from millions of other pious godfearing people

This is only saying that the scriptures are a good thing.

Dude. It SAYS "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". You sure you dont want to retract that? You dont NEED a barbeque in hell-

Nope. It clearly states, in multiple places, the NT replaces the OT. However I will grant you the the NT is an evolution from the OT.

No it doesnt. Read my rational, measured arguments again.

The covenants are not the OT. The ministries are not the OT. The OT in its entirety- the prophesies, the Laws, the stories, the lineages, all of it- is necessary to justify and legitimize the NT and the identity of jesus as god. Paul and jesus himself both say this.

Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in hebrews, by repeatedly citing the OT in his explanation of jesus.

It fulfilled the terms of the Covenant, which was carried by the Ark. That was the original Jewish Law.

Sure I can. Man is a natural part of nature too.

But God cannot be.

Submission to God, not to the rules of men.

But who has made us aware of the rules of God? A man. There are no laws of God that haven't been given to us by anything other than a man. You require extraordinary evidence to make extraordinary statements.

Christians aren't good citizens because they fear eternal punishment, but rather because they want to be good citizens in accordance with Jesus' Commandment (the Golden Rule).

Then why the concept of Heaven?

The Law and the Contract are one and the same.

The Bible teaches us that the majority will get it wrong. Therefore, I prefer to be in the minority.

drugs take you away from the realities of life. Christianity helps you enjoy the realities of life.

Looky at that. I apparently presumed correctly! (Or as stated above, I'll grant you the NT is an evolution from the OT.)

But it's all there in one convenient package.

I don't think it's all there. There's no statements on the equality of people. No statements against slavery or censorship. No edicts against human rights abuses. It's an incomplete work.

To what detrimental parts do you refer?

The prohibitions against people who don't fit the Christian edicts of personal life, the equality of women. Slavery, etc...

Show me where it states this unequivocally and why you think it does. Please.

Thats what they think about you. Whos right? Neither.

You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.'

"People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and the absense of pain." -Epicurus

The OT is indispensible to the NT. You say that its not. Which is it? You cant say its obsolete and yet is still necessary for Pauls argument. Or is Pauls argument superfluous and Jesus just 'is'? Who needs the NT then -?

Even better: "The term Torah (...or "law")..."

But again, it's disassociated from reality.

I only said; save for the Ten Commandments, OT law isn't applicable to Christians.

We're wearing you out i think.

Show me where it states that 'Law' and 'covenant' are one in the same (and I will offer an equally credible source to prove that theyre not).

(Regarding drug use) You fail to realize the similarity. The same pleasure centers are stimulated with the epiphany, the 'letting go.

But again, it's disassociated from reality.

So is your religion. Duh.

I think what youre saying is youve lost.

Jesus holds no claim to the throne of david without the prophesy and the lineage to back it up. He's just another traveling magician and snake oil salesman.

Paul was only selling more snake oil if the OT was not, in fact, setting the stage for the coming of this new and final Messiah.

Sure, you can claim he is, and cherry pick the NT for phrases which say he is, but unless the prophets were talking about jesus and the Law was written with the Lamb in mind, then he is not.

The OT must be valid for jesus to be. Jesus didnt abolish sacrifice; he IS sacrifice.

No it's not. I associate my religion in everyday activities and events. Unlike drugs, it's not an escape from reality. It's an enhancement to reality.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

How can it be applicable when He said it isn't?

Leviticus 26:15: ...if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant...

Deuteronomy 29:21: ...the covenant written in this Book of the Law...[

Psalm 50:16: But to the wicked, God says: "What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips?"

Hosea 8:1: ...the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law.

Are you not checking my references?

Jesus told us to hang on to it.

There's plenty more...

-that you havent read and understood as they were actually written. Youve only presented things that, when properly interpreted, reinforce the fact that the OT and all of its laws, in spirit if not in substance, are an inseparable part of the gospels. Jesus is the embodiment of those Laws, meant by god to be delivered in a brand new form.

Too bad none of it is real and none of it ever happened.

Here is a wiki page that might clarify things:
http://en.wikiped...iblical)

Otto should like to disclose a prophesy at this point in time, it being saturday night in the year of our lord marduk...I have been given a Vision of Great Promise! It appears thusly:

Mel Gibson has one more movie to do. He will give himself the lead role in the production to be called "Joshua". Mel will be leading the unending hordes of israel throughout canaan, destroying, plundering, raping, killing, burning, tearing asunder and otherwise spreading the good word of god across the land. Pillar of smoke by day, fire by night.

So Spraecht OttO

If I void a contract do I retain the conditions of the contract? No. They are no longer applicable.

If I void a contract and write a new one, saying only these things from the old contract are still applicable, then is the whole old contract still applicable? Of course not.

the word "covenant" principally refers to any of a number of solemn agreements made between God and the children of Israel...

...as well as to the New Covenant, which some Christians consider to be the REPLACEMENT or final FULFILMENT of these

Supercessionism. Good link. Many options, at most only one of which can be right. But which? Hold on- not door #3, that ones glowing kind of red...

The OT is Useful. It is good when the Proper time comes for hating the enemy and fighting them. It is useful when one needs to feel a part of a Chosen Group which deserves salvation instead of others- like when wall st crashes or you want to pass on the shoulder.

It is especially useful for studying Ecclesiastes and understanding how and why the world is so Masterfully under the Control of Empire.

"That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel" -that is, the covenant in which isreal promises to abide by the Law, as herein attached or referenced thereto.

(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P

...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.

But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?

(as Sigmunf Freud) Ladeez und Gentlemen, vut vee have here is a classic case uf Pathological, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. :P

Yeah. Me and Joshua, and the crusaders, etc etc. Sarcasm.

...which explains the various interpretations pretty well. None of the Christian points of view, I think, are as hardline as yours.

Hardly, because Otto thinks all you xians are mushheads. =O

But who are the Sith Lords? And where's Obi Wan Kenobi?

uba makes fun of ottos musings? Just remember his theories- though rather hard to believe- are nevertheless possible. The bible is hard to believe because the things it describes are NOT possible.

who's to say what's truly possible?

For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?

Perhaps. But Pascal's Wager is a worth some consideration.

See: http://en.wikiped...'s_Wager

For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?

no one is disputing whether homosexuality is natural or not, jsut about all of us agree that it is. What we're addressing with you is whether being a Christian homosexual is a logical construct.

No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.

No - the world is not aligned along the boundaries of "logical constructs". And I'm happy about that.

However we are greatly limited by the depth of the illogical ones, to the detriment of the individual as well as the species.

Actually no it isn't. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two options, God or no God.

Not quite right. It ALSO assumes that there is only one god and that god is Jehovah. Which is strange since in Exodus Jehovah clearly thinks that there is more than one god.

Cannot totally agree with that one, SH - have you looked at voting patterns in the major democracies lately?

"WE'RE GOING BROKE! QUICK - GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE RICH."
or perhaps the foreign policies:

"LET'S SHOW THESE PEOPLE WILL LOVE THEM AND BOMB THE SNOT OUT TO THEM."

who's to say what's truly possible?

WE are. The species.

For instance, is it really possible for consciousness to arise out of a mush of neurons? How does that work?

If consciousness is not just the grand illusion I think it is, then we'll find out. No need to jump to the wrong conclusions now, is there? Of course not.

We admit we don't know, then set about finding out. That's how it's done.

I never said the majority of people were logical, if anything, I imply the opposite.

Well, we've often been wrong...

According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?

According to Descartes, consciousness is the only thing you can truly know is real.

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart I drink therefor I am. - Monty Python

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?

Not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that any "being" we've described either in conversation or in the written word does not exist due to the content of the story.

Descartes like most state-sponsored philos was a propagandist, charged with spreading the official state weltanschaaung. Philos research with words- as if that ever could work.

But aren't you arguing that you know there's no God?

Well, you know, we looked for god, because we want to live forever too ya know? And we looked for him in the first place we're told to look, the bible. But all we found there were mistakes, bad editing, political silliness.

So we had to conclude that if god existed he had to be a malevolent liar because he couldn't even write a competent book. Luckily he's also an impotent god because the only ones who kill heretics like us are indignant self-righteous godders.

At any rate we can pretty much discount god and move on to learning about things which can really have an impact in our lives and our futures.

Unfortunately, control freaks who want to be the know-it-alls in front of their congregations, but who aren't capable enough to assume positions where they can actually LEARN about what actually is or CONTRIBUTE to finding out, don't want to surrender the god myth and further, will oppose anything which threatens to discount it, and them.

They love watching people jump through hoops when they tell them they have the secret to eternal youth.

As you've attested, the mere belief in God has a significant impact on our lives and futures

Wouldn't it therefore be wise to learn about it?

Fifty percent deny evolution and most of those actually believe in the Flood Story. There was no such flood in the world we live in.

You need not be religious to notice an astonishing multitude of deluge myths

myths either have (different) real backgrounds or even one common background far back in the past.

hypothesis is that of Ryan-Pitman

Another one - this is speculation only - could be the Toba eruption about 75000 years ago

Yeah? How so?

And not many Flood believing Christians think that was the one in the Bible. It was too long ago and not world wide. However it is real and likely the source of the Sumerian myth which is the source of the Biblical myth.

When the inhabitants of America some centuries ago talked of "white gods" who had arrived we can't dismiss their observations just because their language was that of a mythical culture.

Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

You're being very cryptic here uba but it seems like what you're saying is that 'it' won't work unless everybody believes the same things you do, right? If so then you're faith is consistant with other beliefs. They all need theirs to be the ONLY religion.

You understand this is the main reason why religions are so foul? ALL hide behind the same general moral code, which they think is exclusively theirs. All will use this moral self-assurance to criticize, condemn, vilify and exclude; and NONE will yield because their very souls are at stake. There are no Good religions.

One thing I've been thinking about recently, is the Fall from Grace and it's relationship to religionism. Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and suddenly realize they are naked, and are ashamed.

I always considered the 'good and evil' part as creative editing, like victorian fig leaves on Renaissance statues, but consider this: the snake tempts them to eat, and afterward they acquire morals.

Who is the traditional Steward of social mores in society, but the church?

Satan gave the couple a sense of morals in defiance of gods will, and this is why they were banished. Is genesis warning that the false morality of organized religion is the gift of Satan?

In the case of the Bible, for instance, many religious leaders (whether intentional or not) teach hateful dogma that's simply contrary to the content and context of the Bible.

I'm not saying eveyone should believe exactly as I do (if they did, I'd know I was doinig it wrong),

but rather the Bible (like any other literay work) conveys specific information that can generally be stipulated. One of which is to not be a hater.

Morality cannot be "false." It's subjective to individuals and societies.

Up until very recently, and in much of the world now, religions are, which you know full well

So many things religions have done in the name of selective morality can be considered evil, and we can find the source of this in genesis. Our 'Fall from Grace' was away from 'god' and toward the corruption of religion. Yes indeed.

In your opinion. You forgot to say 'in my opinion...' -see? This is how it starts.

oh Please

Maybe you're a hater too but you don't feel it because you're enshrouded in Jesus loving countenance? Your post about unbelievers indicates that there are those whom you wish would accept or... die? It can reach that point so easily, so quickly when eternal salvation (and starving children) are at stake.

'You shall have no other gods before me' is moral, and unequivocal, and false.

Up until very recently, and in much of the world now, religions are, which you know full well

Read my post about religions being the gift of 'satan' again. I really think I'm on to something here. There are natural, intrinsic morals which all normal, healthy individuals feel toward one another (in times where there's enough of everything for everybody) and there is church morality based on exclusion and rejection, which flows from the first and most important commandment. Which cause trouble?

Simply apply the same logic that you would to other religions against your own and tell me what the basis for belief is.

I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Clinicians Attempt to Prenatally Prevent Homosexuality

After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven

Interesting qualifiers you add. What considerations do you have to take into account to see the NT as consistent?

Well I'd like to say I already "get it", but I find it utterly disgusting to feed the inner ape of my mind and allow it to run screaming from each and every shadow it perceives. I see religion as an excuse to not be curious, to not achieve, and to not improve our lives. After all, what's the point of making things better now, when we'll be able to "escape" in Heaven.

It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.

Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement.

are taught to be self-sufficient and generous.

They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.

No, religions are the problem because they exclusively promise salvation and eternal life from a god who DOESN'T EXIST. They use their books to describe him and the process for securing these gifts, but the books were obviously written by LIARS and so their god they describe does not exist.

People are the problem because their reproductive rate inevitably causes collapse. We may be on the verge of conquering that inevitability. The evil of god worship is no longer needed to maintain order by setting people at each others throats in orderly ways.

is the context. Godders brought up what they think are their moral laws, and I'm addressing that.

Of course we won't be able to get there until all the people down here who would prevent it from happening are either CONVERTED or DEAD, as uba graciously points out. Onward Xian/Zion/islam soldiers marching [as] to war.

It's supposed to be perfect because it says so, and the majority of your people believe it is. But it's not, that's been proven

At the expense of others. All religions promise exclusively to make believers better people- better than the heathen and the blasphemer.

With the flock, to the flock.

Waaaa! You ARE naive. More creative interpretation of the Word of God. You WILL burn sir.

Although, they will challenge the status quo when the status quo is perceived to be godless or sufficiently deficient in divine guidance- which they are always eager to provide and insist upon. Because it's only right

I think I am just as on-topic as you,

even more so, because Otto never adds anti-god into a thread until a religionist mentions god.

And as far as 'why do I care', I just like to know the real reasons why things happen.

There are Very Good Reasons why all the state-sponsored religions offer the same things but can be used to polarize people so easily

Perhaps it's perfect in ways you haven't considered.

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches to love everyone, even our enemies.

It's written by various people with varying writing styles and emphases.

Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.

Therefore (and obviously then), you don't get it.

To what "state sponsored religions" do you refer?

Don't matter. It says things happened when they obviously did not. If these are parables it does acknowledge them as such, even when Jesus said people with hard hearts need parables. Therefore the whole schlemiel is bogus.

HERE is where uba proclaims he is holier than thou.

Besides, that's simply not true. Christianity teaches to love everyone, even our enemies.

Nah, it teaches you to FEEL this if you choose to be martyrs or to slaughter your enemies with holy impunity, or anything in between. It enables you to ACT despite the reservations you would normally have without it.

Ok, but that means that it is not consistent. The text is self contradictory in multiple places and typically one must utilize some sort of contorted logic to assume self-consistency.

Christianity is all about social improvement by means of self-improvement. Christains are taught to be self-sufficient and generous. They're also taught to be curious and challenge the status quo.

Disagreed.

The text uses large amounts of parable and demands acceptance of metaphysical divinity of a mortal man. It is not a purely philosophical text when it hands down unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality and immorality.

And I could say the same of you.

Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?

Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?

I like your introductory analogy to an essay with multiple readers, however, do you not see the difference? When someone, or in this case, something declares authority, and encourages the adherance to that authority while remaining non-distinct and nebulous the only potential use is eventual ethical evil.

Who claimed it was purely philosophical? And, to what "unnecessary declarations as to what constitutes morality" do you refer?

Well go ahead and list the necessary social attributes one must have to be considered saved or Christian as lain out through the different versions of the Bible.

When one pushes codified morality and backs it up with eternal punishment from a loving god, that smacks of not only contradiction but utter lunacy as well.

So are you now stating that you believe it literally as well?

As for references, where are yours?

It's not non-distinct or nebulous.

That's the whole point. We're forgiven.

That's a loaded question. Be more specific.

I asked for yours first.

That's ridiculous. Show, in context, where it says this in the New Testament.

You have to look at history to see what the great religions have enabled their adherents to do in gods name, rather than what their holy books say they do. This enabling process is the most significant result of religionism. Religions promise to save souls but they NEVER have to PROVE that they can or do.

So antagonizing the religious accomplishes this how, exactly?

?

How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.

Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty.

snip

I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, but only in scope. Any form or set of codified morality can be perverted and twisted to allow for travesty.

snip

All codified morality can be twisted if the mind receiving it is able to envision doing so. This is the basis for mob mentality, and bigotry on the whole [b]

John Le Carre has George Smiley say, in one of his books, that even the most harsh of political regimes can be humanistic if applied with kindness, as even the best of systems is cruel if applied with spite.

George is worth listening to.

Communism is - especially in the Western World - regularly (and not by chance) confused with "communism".

superficial, superstitious, and biased narrative of someone who's grown up and traumatized in the immediate vicinity of hardcore creationists or WASPs and without any perspective from beyond that frog pond.

As this is a scientific site I'm not inclined to join you in your raving about biblical themes

superficial, superstitious, and biased narrative

Then there would be no room for interpretation by definition.

So then I should be able to perform any act I wish within this existence, and as long as I say "I'm sorry God" and mean it with the fervor of total belief I'm cleared for eternity? Then why have a hell?

Let me rephrase. Where you state that it isn't purely a philosophical work, that implies that you take parts of the Bible as literal truth, is this accurate? If so, which parts and how do you delineate the philosophy from the historical record?

And you made the first assertion without reference. Where our subject matter is the subjective interpretation of a written work we're speaking more on matters of opinion than scholarship. If you feel otherwise I'd like you to pre-reciprocate and substantiate your assertion of "I [SH] don't get it."

How is that a proclamation that I'm holier than thou? It's simply a statement of fact regarding the teachings of Christianity.

My comment was to your statement quoted above it, wherein you proclaimed that the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post.

Why are you misreading my posts unless its to avoid admitting youre wrongness?

but the truth I would speak of is a very personal and emotional truth.

Is Hell a place? Is it a metaphor? Is it a permanent separation from God? Who knows?

Modern laws, for instance, are written as concisely as modern legislators can right them,

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

[You seem to be saying that] the world would be a better place without those whose views differed from yours (in so many words). That was the sequence of my post.

I was only explaining to you that your problem with "religionists" is misdirected to the religion, rather than to the responsible parties, themselves.

gaydom?

Wass Iss?

Very William Lane Craig-ish of you. Not that I'm drawing a parallel between your statements and his, jsut the style in this phrase. Personal and emotional truths are philosophy, not subjective truth, so again you're sidestepping.

Religion holds rather flatly that it is a place, akin to heaven. The attributes of one must be generally similar to the other.

Are you insisting that modern laws are never nebulous or non-distinct? Many are intentionally written to be non-distinct. This isn't a strong point in your favor in this discussion.

gaydom?

Wass Iss?

Gay LaFleur

I don't see the concept of God as evil. I see a codified god that is shared and has personal interaction as greatly evil.

I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me.

Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

@uba
-You made a statement which you havent owned up to and have yet to explain. You said:

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

-To which I responded:

To which you replied:

-which does not address your original comment at all. Explain to me please how your original statement is not an expression of exclusivism, meaning to exclude all those whose beliefs which are different from yours?

And just who are the 'certain people' you wish to exclude, and from what?

it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

And if you keep spouting heresy such as the following,

Save for the Ten Commandments, Old Testament law isn't applicable to Christians.

-as I've pointed out before, you WILL burn. And no. it doesnt take another starry-eyed god-lover who sees it, to make it true.

Anyway, answer my previous post addressed to you sir. Admit that religions are meant to divide and not consolidate, which you yourself hold to be true by your own pronouncement.

That was quick.

it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

These people- what about them? Convert or what??

We've already been over this. The NT is quite clear. Have you forgotten already?

How so?

Yes we have, and its clear you interpret to fit your own individual needs and not according to how it was written. Self-righteous heresy. Burn you will.

Feigned misunderstanding is another form of lie. Typical from any religionist who thinks they are above discussing religion with unbelievers.

You might enjoy playing pattycake here but you will never be honest in how you really feel or what you really think; because its not a sin to sin against the godless. Is it?

You can see why its easy to conclude why one can never trust a religionist.

If you had an objection, why didn't you raise it then? Furthmore, for your argument to have any merit, you're going to need to provide references to counter mine.

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

Maybe that's how it works in your religion, but not in mine.

These people- what about them? Convert or what??

certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem

That's for them to decide, for themselves.

Again you lie. Myself and SH both provided references such as the following:

Sure it is, here and elsewhere:

" 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Matthew ?

Satan hides behind your puppet god and enables you to sin, demands that you sin in order to serve him. It does not take an inquisition or a crusade to expose the evil that is your religion sir. It only takes the smallest truth in defiance of it, to prove what xians are.

And in your passing mention you reveal another of the concepts derived from Greek Zeus worship. The time limited punishments of Hades, followed by isolation from the glory of the Mountain. Glory of the Mountain, yet another phrase used often.

It is rather interesting how you do not see the parallels to what you would surely describe as legend and myth.

So, uba wants to rewrite the NT also? In response to my post:

Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

-in which I was refering to the well-known passage in james2:

"17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

I'm saved, so Hell is largely irrelevant to me.

Are you now? Remember, your spiritual standing is not based upon how you feel, but what you do. Faith in works, so to speak.

Your liberties in blasphemy WILL condemn you, even if your lies to heathens do not.

Ubas response to my comment:

These people- what about them? Convert or what??

-in which I was referring to his original dismissal of:

certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem

-uba responds:

That's for them to decide, for themselves.

No it obviously is not.

Uba deems anyone whose beliefs differ from his a 'problem' just because they might threaten to 'lead others away'.

And here we have an essential evil of religion, from the mouth of a believer nonetheless. He may tolerate heathens, but they will always be the enemy; and as their numbers grow, so does his ire. When they prosper, his jealous god will demand action.

For although retribution is the lords, he is powerless to exact it and can only avenge through adherents.

Enjoy church tomorrow uba; your god will be staring you right_in_the_face.

That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.

As for faith in works, it's not for me to judge my works. Christians are expected to have good works to show for themselves

When did I ever deny any such parallels?

That's out of context. We were specifically referring to leaders who commit evil acts against society.

uba lies yet again. Your response was to comments by SH on other belief systems, which you thought were consistant with yours.

What's important is your condemnation of others who would lead people away from YOUR particular faith.

(uba): I've done this, and I've found the Bible (particularly the New Testament) to be remarkably consistent (all things considered).

And when I use your terms like Satan and god, it's only to show the contradictions which you express in your own belief system

which you have obviously custom-tailored for yourself. Ubas god does exactly what uba tells him to, leaving uba free to do what he feels is appropriate.

One intersting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like

Faith involves surrendering your will to a higher power, not the other way around.

But you seem to be content that your works are sufficient to get you saved. Your judgment or gods? Is there a difference?

Ever see the movie 'the Ruling Class'?

Peter otooles character says he realized he was god when, one day he was praying and he realized he was talking to himself. Uba makes up his own faith with it's own selective rules and then declares himself saved. This is because uba doesn't want to do the work necessary to ascribe to a real belief system. Sloth- a sin. Vanity- a sin. Better expunge those too.

So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?

-This would be all well and good, and harmless; but uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like,

which any religion, after all, is only too willing to offer. Besides giving him peace of mind, perhaps uba also has gained smugness in feeling holier than thou. Again, cause or effect? Did uba shop around for a belief system which would condone his troubling animosity?

Xians enjoy walking around with their noses in the air- it gets them just that much closer to their Holy Enabler.

Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.

So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division.

Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies.

One interesting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

-This original statement of yours can stand on it's own.

As does mine:

uba has cut-and-pasted himself a religion which excludes people whose views he doesn't like

I notice you keep avoiding addressing the implications of it.

Religions are the embodiment of bigotry. Your statment is evidence to the fact. Sure, you embrace every race, creed, and culture, so long as they believe the same things you do.

So now you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for you to use religion to intimidate and manipulate others? Isn't that the basis of your general complaint to begin with?

Well, sure, when I can use it to show someone the idiocy of their own beliefs and what a danger they are to others.

Indeed, but it's not to a worldly authority.

There IS no other world but this one, and the one which religionists believe exists make up inside their heads; with a little help and a bunch of lies from their Holy Shepherds.

Maybe if you pray [wish] real hard, with your eyes closed tight and your fists squeezing your thumbs, it will be true! I mean, it's just gotta be, right?

Again uba knows the truth but pretends like he doesn't [lies]:

Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies.

I offer as evidence the caveat to John 3:16:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

-Unless you believe you are CONDEMNED. The only reason xians tolerate unbelievers is the hope that they may be converted.

You keep insisting that my religion is exclusionary, yet you consistently fail to back this assertion up. Why is that?

True or not, it's worth believing in (unlike your obviously failed sense of morality).

Again uba fails to address the obvious. he asks for:

You keep insisting that my religion is exclusionary, yet you consistently fail to back this assertion up. Why is that?

-To which I offer:

"18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." -John 3

And refrain from including a hundred others, nt plus ot 'chosen people' etc. Uba ignores proof of Xian exclusionism.

What's a good Xian to do? "Yes, we still love you, but you're condemned and thus a threat to our way of life. And your kids certainly can't play with ours. But we WILL pray for you, maybe that'll work."

True or not, it's worth believing in (unlike your obviously failed sense of morality).

Ha! As if the only option to xianism was an immoral lifestyle. AGAIN you betray your true beliefs.

I don't see the word "exclude" (or any of its synonyms) here. Rather, this is obviously a plea for EVERYONE to join.

I am not immoral nor do I act that way here.

Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.

Uba would rather believe in convenient and comfortable lies [his bible, or parts of it] than the truth.

But we don't WANT to join your stupid bankrupt religion, do you UNDERSTAND godder? We know we are every bit as good as you (better, we can tell truth from lies) and we are TIRED of bigoted, self-righteous belief systems such as yours!

Do you get it? Of course not. That's why you're a danger to the world. That's why your car bombs are going off everywhere. That's why you threaten all life with nuclear weapons. That's why you think you own Jerusalem. That's why you're killing and destroying throughout Africa.

You god-lovers are all alike.

When did I say that? You did notice that I agreed with SH that a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian, didn't you?

So you feel hypocrisy, virulent anger, and obvious deviations from the truth are moral acts?

Why would you think you have some kind of authority to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't believe in?

You god-lovers are all alike.

Hardly.

Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.

When did I say that?

Chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives) are quite murderous. Would you argue it's because of their religious proclivities?

But you couldn't trust him if he didn't believe in your god- false prophet, anitchrist and all that.

So you feel hypocrisy, virulent anger, and obvious deviations from the truth are moral acts?

You do realize these are antitheses to human society and civilized behavior, right? So, explain to me again why you think this makes you a better person than a typical Christian.

Never been to a revival meeting, have you? Otto is very passionate in his beliefs.

All of history proves that religions can only offer conflict, misery, destruction in this world. They gave us the dark ages, pogroms, witch burnings, endless atrocity committed against religions JUST LIKE THEIRS. Condone one, you've got to accept them all. So- all have to go- including your pleasant little hobby.

Again uba exposes his 'predispositions' [bigotry]:
Otto posted

You god-lovers are all alike.

To which uba responded

Hardly.

-Now I know, ottos post might appear at first glance to be such a sentiment; but he believes that all religions offer the propensity for misery and ruin, as he stated.

Ubas response shows that he firmly believes his Religion, and therefore all who practice it, are better than anybody else.

Otto posted:

Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.

To which uba responded:

When did I say that?

You're right, you didn't, but I assumed that being a Xian meant believing in the 1st commandment? Or have you discarded that one too?

Ubas first moral edict is 'no other gods before god' which he thinks is essential to be able to follow the others.

When did I say that? You did notice that I agreed with SH that a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian, didn't you?

No, chimps are violent for pretty obvious reasons.

It is hard to figure out why phalangists murder refugees, Irish Catholics murder Protestants, Shiites murder Sunnis, etc etc etc etc (well, not for Otto because he believes these religions were designed for the express purpose of dividing homogenous peoples up and setting them against one another).

One more point; when I say that adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others, again I am speaking to what I know is in the bible and what all xians are expected to believe in. Do I really need to look up the quotes? Don't you think otto knows the bible well enough by now to know he understands this?

Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.

Otto:

Any sufficiently vaguely defined god can be neither proven nor disproven. Uvavontuba has pretty vague and flexible definition. You cannot disprove his belief even if he was willing to accept your disproof. All you are doing is attempting to browbeat him.

Behave yourself.

Ethelred

So youhold that your faith is a myth or do you seperate your faith and the hellenic faith by arbitrary division.

Neither. You're implying a conflict, where none exists.

That parrallels exist is not surprising. The Bible's truths aren't exclusionary to all other religions and philosophies. You expressed this yourself when you stated a person can be Christ-like, without being a Christian.

"Ubavontuba has (a) pretty vague and flexible definition." I feel my definition is quite well defined, in the Bible.

Any sufficiently vaguely defined god can be neither proven nor disproven. Uvavontuba has pretty vague and flexible definition. You cannot disprove his belief even if he was willing to accept your disproof. All you are doing is attempting to browbeat him.

Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.

But you couldn't trust him if he didn't believe in your god- false prophet, anitchrist and all that.
The sheer audacity of that statement is beyond reason.

Your religion states that you can't be moral without accepting jesuschristhisonlysonourlord whowasconceivedbytheholyspirit... Et cetera.

You are plain wrong.
I know that Catholics are taught that it does not suffice just to be a member of the curch if one wants "to go to heaven"

and that they are taught that no human being who leads a life devoted to the wellbeing of humankind is excluded from that goal.

Obviously, the First Commandment is important to Christians, but it needn't be important to everyone that would follow other Biblical laws (for their own purposes).

NOT TRUE. I'm not trying to disprove anything.

You all would try to talk these people out of their beliefs intellectually, which never works

Uba has said some miserable, bigoted things here

I don't expect to change ubas beliefs- I'm no addiction councilor.

Nonsense. I have even managed to change the mind of a Jehovah's Witness. A bit anyway

Not half as much as you have done in your misguided attempts to beat something into his head.

Then quit wasting bits.

I am willing to flounder around a bit but this is ridiculous.

Sometime in the future, should you find yourself in a more tranquil and rational frame of mind, we might take up this conversation again.

Until then, may you find within yourself, the peace you so fervently desire.

Frajo, you do not understand religion.

There's nothing in there about "adherence to the first commandment is essential in being able to follow the others."

Obviously, the First Commandment is important to Christians, but it needn't be important to everyone that would follow other Biblical laws (for their own purposes).

He understands that the statement made by religious dogma and doctrine are most often wrong

I know that Catholics are taught that... no human being who leads a life devoted to the wellbeing of humankind is excluded from that goal.

I think youll agree that catholics, especially, are taught to uphold the word of god; and that no one can get into heaven unless they accept christ, as the bible says.

What sect members are taught and how they choose to interpret individual passages, or which passages they might tend to invoke, can change over time.

Yeah, but they never accept unbelievers in their ranks, and rarely in their communities. You'll note ubas use of the word 'tolerate', with the hope of conversion.

My frustration with uba is the same as yours with margin or alizee. For the same reasons.

Again, not true. Read the entire discussion.

You certainly dont expect to change their minds with pleasant logic do you?

No, youre not willing to go the distance.

Again, read the thread and try to picture otto as your favorite trial lawyer.

Or is it that you all are simply afraid of a little emotion?

Garbage like that, from both of you, is only fit to skim. You were worse.

More like gross incompetence. Emotion is for those that can't reason. Fight cold.

The one that DOESN'T go to jail for contempt of court? Unlike you.

If you see the religion as valueless then debating the trappings of the religion is pointless.

willful ignorance of fact in reality.

Now, ive often seen you quote the bible to expose its 'inconsistancies'. If uba says that xians dont need to follow the law and we can show where it specifically says they do, as you and I both did, then we are using their trappings against them.

Certainly, but you're avoiding the question. Do you hold that your faith is a philosophical myth or that it holds some greater truth than current observation about reality? To be more direct, do you adhere to the belief that there is eternal life, a soul, the metaphysical trappings consistently teases from the text, though never explicitly stated or do you think that's a big load of bullshit and the religion is simply an effective way to convey a message, like Aesop's Fables?

It seems occasionally at variance with what the Bible says.

Of course ALL Christians are inherently at variance since the Bible has contradictions. I suppose you just consider those unimportant.

For instance, has anyone seen the face of god?

If your answer isn't twofold and including contradictions then you are missing out on the fun.

I simply don't understand why people believe at all when they don't believe in so many parts of the Bible.

This is one area where I actually understand the Fundamentalists.

If it is just the writing of men why believe? If it isn't just the writing of men why are there so many errors.

Myself, I noticed that anthropologists archeologists and others were willing to look at other religions objectively yet evaded that with their own religions. So I looked at Christianity objectively and found it wanting.

Yeah, but they never accept unbelievers in their ranks, and rarely in their communities. You'll note ubas use of the word 'tolerate', with the hope of conversion.

Of course, but would you say that tolerance is anything other than silent hatred?

How so?

Yes.

Example?

To which "errors" do you refer?

How so?

tolerance: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

tolerate: 2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).

You have to understand that answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical, than not.

So, what is consciousness?

True. EXCEPT the Bible itself says otherwise.

Of what contradictions do you speak?

What Bible are you reading? In mine, we're generally taught to be tolerant - even of our enemies (though many Christians do struggle with this). We also do hope everyone else will see the light for themselves (be converted). But our toleration of others is not dependent on this hope.

One interesting thing that happens when you truly begin to get it is you find that it's not the religion that's the problem with "religious society," but rather it's certain people who lead others away from it that are the problem.

Me and Richard (author of 'the god delusion') feel that no religion is benign, that all harbor the propensity for bigotry and violence.

And Richard certainly does not advocate violence, only righteous indignation. And he is no bigot.

Those are fine. I think Otto has a strange idea of what tolerance means.

And Richard certainly does not advocate violence, only righteous indignation. And he is no bigot.

So you're woefully ignorant of Dawkins past. Don't you recall when he insisted that we call all atheists by the term "brights" as we're , according to him, brighter than other people?

See your answer to Has anyone seen the face of god?

True. EXCEPT the Bible itself says otherwise.

Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

1 John 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

That depends on the person. Fundamentalists believe the world is only around 6,000 years old and the ages and lifespans in the Bible back them up on that. You either believe that or you don't believe in all the Bible even beyond the face of Jehovah problem.

Age of the Earth. Order of Creation. The murder of the first born in Egypt. The Flood. The Tower of Babel. All those things never happened. Those count as errors. Of course the Face of God is an error of some kind. Then there are the last words of Jesus on the cross. Many more if you want them. But deal with these first.

The world is old. The story of Exodus is a horror story that fortunately never happened.

The whole concept of original sin makes no sense at all.

Those are fine. I think Otto has a strange idea of what tolerance means. He should watch the South Park episode dealing with alleged bizarre sex practices amongst some gays.

Tolerate is not the same as accept much less encourage.

Which means you can apply logic to your behavior under such circumstance and deem the ideology to be of merit or not.

Do you seperate your actions from your faith or does your faith guide your actions?

So, what is consciousness?

The sum total of trillions of concurrent chemical reactions.

Would you consider, for instance, the moral story of the grasshopper and the ant to be an error (as ants and grasshoppers obviously can't converse)?

I disagree. That a sentient observer affects quantum reality, indicates (to me) there's more to it than that.

No, a sentient observer only affects observation of quantum phenomina through interacting.

What you're saying is that the presence of an electron proves theology,

and that is jsut rubbish.

That a sentient observer affects quantum reality, indicates (to me) there's more to it than that.

I don't see the word "prove" (or any of its synonyms) in there. Do you?

"If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found."

SH called uba ignorant- it's a start-

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.

Auf jeden Fall!

http://en.wikiped..._Antioch

uba,

Your above post only shows me that you are ignorant of the fundamental concepts of QED and wave particle duality. Most people are ignorant of these findings and implications, however, it is jsut bad form to repeat the statements of people like Kent Hovind on his discourse of Quantum Mechanics as it shows that you don't consider your source when you do your investigations.

Insults now?

If you frame all of your conclusions around a central tenet that you cannot prove then you aren't actually performing science.

Look. You asked me if I "adhere to the BELIEF that there is eternal life, a soul..."

I responded with: "...answers to questions like these are deeply personal and generally non-falsifiable. Essentially, the answers are more philosophical..."

Which implicity means my answers are no more than opinions, and in my last statement I wrote: "..indicates (to me)..." which clearly implies it's, once again, a personal opinion.

Your above post only shows me that you are ignorant of the fundamental concepts of QED and wave particle duality. Most people are ignorant of these findings and implications, however, it is jsut bad form to repeat the statements of people like Kent Hovind on his discourse of Quantum Mechanics as it shows that you don't consider your source when you do your investigations.

If you frame all of your conclusions around a central tenet that you cannot prove then you aren't actually performing science.

Perhaps you should frame your statements more carefully if you wish to be interpreted properly. Making shadowed insinuations will require a rebuttal of interpretation, if such an interpretation is incorrect, then your insinuation is equally as incorrect.

As for an observer, no conciousness required, simple interactive presence is all that is required.

This conversation has taught me something I didn't know about atheists (but often suspected). It seems your interpretations are so extremely biased by your own dispositions that you not only misinterpret simple phrases and miss pertinent points, but you actually (and apparently regularly) see words and phrases that aren't even there at all!

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.

Auf jeden Fall!

Bitte

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.

Auf jeden Fall!

The correct German answer would be "niemals" (I'd never mind).

1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

-which was at the top of the list, and which ethelred would have seen if he had looked for himself in an unbiased manner.

This is referred to as the collapse of the waveform Jesus. You would have determined his state by 'measuring' Jesus, but you would have inevitably changed others.

This is referred to as the collapse of the waveform Jesus. You would have determined his state by 'measuring' Jesus, but you would have inevitably changed others.

OK now that is an effective way to state it. Possibly inflammatory but effective.

I have copied it to a text file in my Forum folder with appellation to Otto.

Always give credit to someone.

Someone said that. No, not me, someone else. Throw rock at him.

Instead of "brights," it seems "dims" might be more apt...

It seems your interpretations are so extremely biased by your own dispositions that you not only misinterpret simple phrases and miss pertinent points, but you actually (and apparently regularly) see words and phrases that aren't even there at all!

Your latter analogy was rather apt, I may use that in the future if you don't mind.

Auf jeden Fall!

The correct German answer would be "niemals" (I'd never mind).

Bitte

The correct German reply would be "danke" (Thanks for your permission).

Gebe gerne Nachhilfe. :)

it doesn't disprove anything. In fact, as I've shown above, it clearly supports my point ...which once again shows us that atheists simply don't get it.