Ah, thank you for not being another Persocom01, shrill and self-righteous. I apologize to you for assuming you were of
his ilk. However, it would be nice if you could space your text out a little.
Now, down to brass tacks.
Quote by samu02Why must what was
right centuries ago be right today? Probably because the right ones are the ones survived until today. Probably because
the right ones hasn't been disproven or said to be wrong. Here, your probably gonna point out something that was
considered right then and wrong now to disprove what I say. Tsk. Like that particular wrong was the one I'm talking
about.
You must admit that certain behaviours that were considered normal at the time are not so today: slavery is one example,
another is mine of the two cloths. Therefore, we see that some human traits evolve (and some christians hate that word,
I know) and become something else. Slavery is no longer permitted or condoned, nor is a stoning for wearing a certain
T-shirt. But, an attitude that survives until today may not be right. It may be perpetuated out of ignorance, tradition,
etc - like the veil in islamic countries. That is one facet of islamic cultures I despise. This proves, whether you like
it or not, that some things considered perfectly right ages ago is not today. I have established the existence of these
outdated attitudes, and now I apply them to tenets of your religion.
You say the Jews established these tenets and christians are therefore not responsible for them? You could simply not
follow them. But as they are written in the bible, and there are also senseless interdictions in the new testament, you
follow them. You are responsible for following them, not their existence.
As for atheists being arrogant and ignorant when speaking about god, that may be true - just as some christians are
supercilious and holier-than-thou. You are not being supercilious and holier-than-thou when speaking to me, I can see it
in your posts. I will therefore not be arrogant and self-righteous in mine.
Quote by samu02MY faith
doesn't tell me to kill people. You say that people were killed for trivial things. I see that you are indeed
ignorant. Have they done so because of faith. No. They have done so because that was the law of their land. That was
their custom. The mistake you keep repeating to make is that you associate everything written in the bible as the will
of God. Did God tell Cain to kill Abel? Did God tell the pagans to sacrifice their false gods? And Christ did help one
of the soldiers who's ear was cut off, though that soldier was to take him before the Pharisees to be executed. He
didn't hit him, or ran away. Now, that is a scene worthy of praise don't you think. Not the "killer"
faith that fanatics follow.
I'll thank you not to call me ignorant. I have not yet lapsed into name calling you, and I would like to keep this
particular discussion civil. People killed people for trivial reasons. These trivial reasons are written in the bible.
Is it not natural to assert that these killings were for religious reasons? If it is inscribed in the bible, can you
explain why it's not "the will of god"? I'll also ignore the cheap and childish jab at islam as a
"killer faith". There is much more to it than jihad and the veil, and you should try to understand the sources
of this problem, ie, the misrepresentation of jihad in the moslem faith.
Quote by samu02Why the great
need of defending the persecution of gays? And who persecutes them anyways, they could always use the law of their land
and sue.
Because this is a major point in all religions. Also, I am bisexual. I would like to know
why christians are so hostile to homosexuality when it does nothing to bother them. Also, "the law of their
land" is usually woefully inadequate because of religious traces in the judicial system. In America for example,
the last anti-sodomy law was struck down in 2003. In France, 1982. In Britain, 2000. In Germany, 1994. There are few
cases that actually succeed because of anti-gay religion-induced prejudice.
Quote by samu02And so their ARE
men of great knowledge and great morals, and most of them are great christians as well. You prove nothing too. As I
never said that a person could not be of great knowledge and of great morals at the same time is impossible to exist.
While men of great knowledge and little morals is common sight these days that they disgrace the others that do have
morals. Knowledge IS a prerequisite to morality, you say. Have you heard the one about the lawyers and their "moral
vacuum" when handling a case, or the one about a brilliant politician who has amassed great wealth through
corruption, or about the highly intelligent biochemist who created a new strain of virus to plague the world. Since by
your argument that knowledge is prerequisite to morality, then these people are... what exactly?
They are men of intelligence, but no morals, as you said. A prerequisite to moralty does not necessarily mean that
morality will, in every case, ensue.
Quote by samu02Oh and about the
Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. You'd be glad to know that the victims weren't witches. Duh. And the
neighbor that said they were, knew it too. But it's just convenient for them to point the finger at their enemy and
have someone else take care of the dirty work. And the witch hunters are just sooo happy to have a job during the dark
ages, and one which gives them great power. I imagine the fear of the young local girl should she refuse the advances of
a witch hunter. People didn't do those horrible things because of "belief", they did those things because
it was convenient.
But it certainly was convenient, since sanctioned by religion. And you
can't tell me some of them truly did not believe it. Many believed it completely, since it was written in the
bible.
By the way, how old do you think the earth is? Do you believe in evolution?
DarkestMage, I do not believe in your religion. You saying "the bible says we'll all resurrect" or
"there are flying pigs on Mars" has the same effect on me. In essence, you are saying that god is ignoring us
because he needs to prove a point, to something he created, but when it'll all be over, all the nice people will
rule the earth and they'll all live happily ever after. This, to me, sounds ridiculous. If this is true, god is a
stubborn, uncaring, idiot. He could save us, but he wants to prove a point. If he were so omnipotent, couldn't he
find a way to do both? Or is he powerless in that domain? A powerless god? Do you see how ridiculous this gets?
