People who know me will tell you I hate politics. I have the right to vote and don't use it, normally, and I truely believe the government is out to get us all. People often tell me that I need to shut up because I don't know what I'm talking about in this subject. Gay Marriage is a very touchy subject.
Some people believe that it is wrong in the eyes of god therefore should be illigal. Some people just don't like the idea of same sex marriage. I'm bisexual so of course this affects me. I couldn't care less what those people say about me or my girlfriend. I don't care that they don't want to listen to me. This is actually why I decided to post for the first time. I have never really posted blogs on here before because I'm not a blog person, what can I say, I prefer games over blogging.
Read here and now people because this prediction is almost 90% garenteed to happen. Here is one sinario:
Gay Marriage is banned and half of America becomes angry. There will be a huge strike and angry letters and maybe a riot if we are lucky. The people in government responsible for this outcome will become widely hated for taking away human rights because of sexuallity. Soon the gay community will get their way and Gay Marriage will be legalized and the definition of Gay Marriage will change.
Here is another:
Gay Marriage is legalized, the religious people are angry, maybe riots, claims that the government are going to go to Hell for legalizing it, and people will be talking about it for a year at the most and then they will find something else to hollar about.
America is not really the land of the free. This whole thing about taking away gay marriage is just like when we didn't give women rights or 'african-americans' rights. They were both treated badly and they stood up and got respect. The same thing is going to happen with gay people. The decision to stop gay marriage is going to create a whole new movement and the law will be changed because it is unconstitutional.
Gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as strait people so make a big deal about it now if you want to but it will save alot of trouble if we just let marriage be, not only a union between a man and a woman, but a marriage between two people.
Gay Marriage
By darkeyesclosed - Posted on February 21st, 2008
Tagged: political issues
• Personal freedom
well, everybody has their own preferences about who they want to be with, be it a person of the opposite sex or one of the same. But, in no way you can compare women's rights to a a marriage among people of the same sex. It seems to me that people make a big deal about their rights being affected when the law doesn't allow them to do something, just to get what they want. Christian people won't agree with it if it's nationally approved but trust me, there's so much more to life that just seeking physical pleasure even if it means going against God's commandments. And those are real and exist, and one day we all will have to be judged for what we did with our lives. And for those who think Hell is a myth and doesn't exist, ohh trust me it is real. Want more info? Bible is the best source.
I agree,our actions do have consequences. Typically for a same-sex couple it's some form of HIV. And also,if you want to "love the way you want" why shouldn't people be allowed to have sexual relations with a family member? Why can't we marry and have sex with our pets? Why can't we marry nature?? There's a reason all those things-including same-sex relationships-make people squirm...they're unnatural.
i luved my girlfriend and people in society today are becoming more and more accepting of it. i have one homophobic friend out of many of them and they are perfectly fine with it.
I think you need to educated yourself about HIV. Honestly, it disturbs me that in 2008, there are still people who buy into the rediculous stereotype that HIV is a "gay disease."
Perhaps it is because of the direct elevated risk that such a relationship poses to a third party...namely the potential children that suffer an elevated risk of birth defects due to inbreeding.
Well, you can't marry your pets because animals are incapable of entering into legally binding contracts. And depending on where you live, you may actually be able to have have sex with your pet, though most jurisdictions consider it abuse to engage in a sexual act with an animal due to the animal's incapability to provide the equivalent of informed adult consent.
Except, there is nothing at all "unnatural" about same-sex relationships. The people who find themselves "squirming" over this topic are uncomfortable because they have been taught, usually in a religious context, that being gay is wrong. In fact, the sexual (and in higher order animals, emotional) pair bonding of same-sex individuals has been widely documented throughout the animal kingdom, and especially in those species of primates that are our closest relatives.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
i fear you misunderstand. i did not say it was the same thing it is just the same situation. women were denied rights to vote like gay people are denied rights to marriage. understand also that i am not christian so the bible isnt really my source. i dont think gay ppl are going to hell, the bible was writen by man so it has flaws. its my personal opinion though and am not meaning to change your beliefs or argue it. as far as everything being against rights because of hte law, those ppl are just finding something to complain about. i did enjoy hearing a side to an argument that wasn't ignorance looking for a fight ^^
If I wanted to read a collection of mythological stories, the works of the Ancient Greeks and Romans are far more intersting than the bible. Of course, a story about Zeus is no more relevant to this issue than is the story of your "God," since neither have any standing in the Laws of the United States. Our Constitution forbids religious establishments, and I'll thank you to keep your religion's bloody paws off our public institutions.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Have you ever been to the Library of Congress? In one of the rooms they have several statues set up. One is of Moses (from the Bible). Now why would they have a statue of Moses? Because Moses was given the law. Did you not know that most of our laws were founded on biblical principles?
And as to the Constitution forbiding religious establishments,they were hoping to avoid another "Church of England" wherein that was the only church you could attend. I suggest looking up quotes on what our founding fathers said about religion and America,you might be surprised.
Yes, I have been to the Library of Congress, and your assertion is incorrect. In order to understand why a statue of Moses was included in the Rotunda, we need simply refer to the LoC's own website for the answer...
As you can see, the statue of Moses is not in any way intended to represent the connection you suggest. That honor was given to Chancellor James Kent and Solon.
I know that someone has been feeding you a revisionists version of history. Fortunately, it is again easy enough to turn directly to the words of one of our most prominent founding fathers to see the fallacy in your assertion...
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
Our early leaders were often very direct in their rejection of the notion that "our laws were founded on biblical principles." Probably the most plain example of this was a document known as the Treaty of Tripoli, which was commissioned by George Washington during his second term as President, and signed into Law (after being widely circulated in the press and passed unanimously during the fifth sitting session of our Senate) by our second President, John Adams. This document states very plainly that...
"[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
It is difficult to find an more direct and utter rejection of your argument.
I would propose that I am very well versed in the writings and philosophies of our founding fathers, and the position you espouse is anything but consistent with their clearly stated intents. For example, Jefferson and Madison modeled the First Amendment on the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. When Jefferson spoke of this in his own autobiography, he said...
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
This statement clearly indicates that our founders were fully aware of the need to protect the relgious freedomes of ALL of our citizens, and not just the christian ones. Likewise, we know that Madison greatly feared what he called the "encroachment of Ecclesiastical Bodies" into the body of our government...
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ~ James Madison (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
But even more directly to the point, we have James Madison's own explicit description of what he meant when he began to draft the prohibition against religious establishments that eventually became the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. From the Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731...
"Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to wroship God in any manner contrary to their conscience...He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
In your argument, we see that Madison's fears were justified.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I have been to the Library of Congress and even toured it. But that was a couple of years ago. On that grounds,I stand corrected. Sorry and thank you.
But as to your defense that America was not founded on Christian principles, I still disagree. Especially with your use of Jefferson. Jefferson's translation of the Bible is something I would hardly laud. And I mean that America was founded on biblical principles,but it is NOT a Christian nation. Perhaps I was unclear on that,and I'm sorry if I was. But you can't deny the influence of our founding fathers' faith. Let me take you to the foundation of this nation, the Declaration of Independence:
From the introduction: "and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."*
From the preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."*
(*taken from Wikipedia)
You might say, "That's not alot of evidence." And no it's not. But I'm not saying they ever intended America to be Christian. You're taking what I said too far. By biblical principles I meant, for example, something like "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established." That's repeated constantly in the Bible. In our court of law today,a judge can't rule justly if he only has one witness. It's principles like that that have had influence. But I'm not making an argument that America is or was intended to be a strictly Christian nation.
You might not laud Jefferson's version of the bible, but his views were typical of the and political elite of his time, and many of the most prominent founding fathers shared Jefferson's philosophies.
And I mean that America was founded on biblical principles,but it is NOT a Christian nation. Perhaps I was unclear on that,and I'm sorry if I was.
I don't think that your fall back position is any more supportable. Can you name even ONE uniquely biblical principle that can be found in the official founding of this country, or even just ONE that is strongly presented in the bible, but which did not exist in the Common Law before christianity was introduced to the British Isles?
In many cases, I could deny it and easily so, for example...
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." ~ Benjamin Franklin
...but it is not necessary to do so in order to counter your argument.
You're right...that's exactly what I would say. But, I would also point out that you are reading these words with a distinctly modern bias. Aside from the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written before The People demanded and ratified the Bill of Rights, and forbade religious establishments in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is actually a tip of the hat towards Deism, not christianity (and no, they are not even remotely the same thing). These phrases were a common expression in the philosophical rhetoric of the day, heavily influenced by Payne's Age of Reason and other, similar sources from the Enlightenment.
Even the reference to "the Creator" is a reference to Desim, which viewed viewed "the creation" as the last act of a "god" that was otherwise absent from the universe. And, Jefferson even went so far as to couch the term as "their Creator" (not "my Creator" or "our Creator"), in further recognition of the belief that the rights of conscience belonged to each man as an individual.
Even the lesser form of your argument fails, however, since the use of witnesses at trail is a practice that predates introduction of christianity into the Common Law. Thus, it cannot be accurately said that this is derived in the Law from christian principles. Your argument attempts to insert a historical relevance where none actually exists. Jefferson speaks at length of this tactic in the letters I provided for you, above.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
so Ben Franklin says Christianity is false and you attribute that as a whole to all other founding fathers?
And principles that originated from the Bible that have influenced "common law"?
don't murder
don't steal
Don't bear false testimony against a neighbor
and I already mentioned another one
The point is that the Bible is older than the Common Law in Britain. When Moses was given the law,a unique law was given.
Honestly,I don't understand why you're quoting half of the stuff you're quoting. Just take it that the Bible has had an influence on the world...including America.
The point was that many of our most prominent founders were not the devout christians that you seem to think that they were.
Factually incorrect, on all counts.
Taboos against murder, left and lying are sociological constants that appear in almost every culture known to history. On a grand historical scale, these taboos are present in cultures that predate the writing of the bible, and thus did not "originate" in that text. On a more immediate scale, the common law proscribed all of these things before christianity (and the bible) was ever introduced to the British Isles.
Factually incorrect...again. Aside from the historical likelihood that the story of Moses is a myth, there is very little in Moses' laws that are unique. The most unique would probably be the prohibition against "graven images," but as that didn't make it into our Constitution, it hardly seems relevant. Our laws even specifically reject some of Moses' famous 10 commandments. We actually prohibited one of them, i.e. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," which as the "most important" of the commandments (from a common christian perspective) would seem completely incompatible with your proposal.
I already mentioned, "graven images," which isn't found anywhere in our laws, and laws against blasphemy (i.e. taking the name of "god" in vain) were never widely enforced even before the Constitution was passed, and have since been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS). You could I suppose make a case for "keeping the sabbath holy," by referencing the "Sunday's Excepted" clause, except that we know from the founders debates that this was more of a practical matter than a religious one, since it was difficult to achieve a quorum when half of the convention was in church. The other five (i.e., authority of parents over children, no lying, no murder, no stealing, and the respect of property) are in no way unique to the bible, and were all a part of the Common Law before christianity and the bible were introduced to the British Isles.
The bible HAS had an influence on the world (and a bad one in my opinion, but that's another topic entirely). But, it didn't have that much influence on the early Laws of this country (thank goodness), and certainly a great deal less than you seem to think. Most of our founders (and especially the major ones) tended in their writings to quote from Greeks more often than they did the bible, and it is from the Greeks that, primarily, from whom our laws and system of government are primarily derived (hence the Statue of Solon--the Lawmaker of Athens--in the Library of Congress).
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
the first 5 books of the Bible were completed long before even Babylon was a great empire. And here's another thing:God came up with all of our good morals. Undoubtedly you'll say I'm wrong and quote a bunch of stuff and etc etc. But STOP and think it through. Where did humans learn right and wrong? You might say someone taught it to us. who? Where did they get it from? You might then say that it is our "evolutionary" process. Then how can I trust any argument you give?? If you're just an accident,how can I trust one accident to explain another? It doesn't make sense. You may be right about all that stuff you quoted and I won't deny it. But you can't deny God. In the back of your mind,you know He's there. Arguments are nothing more than flimsy walls that we come up with to try and keep God out of our lives.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."-1 Corinthians 1:18 (NIV)
Factually incorrect. The Babylonian Empire first gained eminence over the Mesopotamian region during the 18th Century B.C.E. The Torah, however, has been objectively dated to the early 1st Millenium (around 1000 B.C.E.). Even "traditionalist" religious scholars only date the books of the Torah to between the 13th and 15th Centuries B.C.E. The Code of Hammurabi (the most famous of these ancient systems of law) date to approximately 1760 B.C.E., and even it wasn't the first. The Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin dates from the early 19th Century B.C.E, the Codex of Eshnunna from the late 20th Centure B.C.E., and the Codex of Ur-Nammu to the mid-21st Century B.C.E...at least six hundred years prior to the most generously attributed dates associated with the earliest written books of the bible. And, even these ancient codes are not the oldest examples of law that are known to history. We don't have any of Ancient Egypt's Ma'at, but we do have surviving examples of documents issued from their Courts dating back to roughly 3000 B.C.E.
I won't say that your opinion is wrong, necessarily, but I will say that the extant evidence does not support your assertion, and suggest that you might be confusing the teachings of your religious beliefs with actual history.
Most humans learn "right and wrong" from their parents and immediate families. One need simply look at the often drastic differences in the ways that various cultures define "right and wrong" to see that it is unlikely that there was a single source for all of our social mores and norms.
I don't ask that you trust me. The evidence speaks for itself, and doesn't need me to grant it credibility. The simple fact is that the bible was not the first attempt of humans to create a society, or to enact laws in support of that purpose. If you believe differently, then your beliefs are not very well informed.
Please don't kid yourself into thinking that you know the contents of my mind better than I do. The actual historical evidence supports my position. Your appeal to the mythology of your religion is neither a reasonable nor an effective counter to that evidence.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." ~ Mark Twain
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Most humans learn "right and wrong" from their parents and immediate families. One need simply look at the often drastic differences in the ways that various cultures define "right and wrong" to see that it is unlikely that there was a single source for all of our social mores and norms."
Well where did those cultures learn them? There is a single source. Morals, or even the idea of morals, did not just "pop up" in our minds.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." ~ Mark Twain
So are you saying that I'm just spouting off second-hand faith? I am NOT hanging off of the coattail of my parents. I believe in God because the change that has come in my life could not have come from any other way. I believe that the Bible is correct because it is so different. All the other "world religions" focus on works,but the Bible focuses on mankind trapped in sin and God working to get him out. It is the story of redemption that no human mind could ever conceive. I have,at times,doubted this and have found sufficient evidence. I will admit to you that this conversation probably makes me seem like an idiot (and thus you're probably falsely assuming that all Christians are idiots), but I am a "common sense" thinker. In other words, I appeal to the obvious. I would suggest better sources than I. Read people like Josh McDowell ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict") or C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity"). These men can defend my faith better than I. Am I at fault? Yes. But I don't know all the answers..My mind is still...progressing.
The disciplines of sociology and athropology suggest that cultural mores and norms are a form of adaptation that originated in the ability of humans to grasp, learn and teach abstract concepts. The process is evolutionary only in that in order for this leap to occur, the brain of a species must be developed enough to permit this kind of "higher" consciousness. We can see the origins of "morals" by observing the behaviors of our closest relatives, primates and other "higher order" animals. It isn't difficult to see the beginnings of tribal culture in the interractions of species that form extended family units and teach behaviors to each other. The fact that cultures that are gographically isolated often developed extremely different sets of mores and norms tends to discredit the idea of a single moral "source." There are certain "sociological constants" however, that seem to be found across most (though rarely all) ancient cultures. Usually, these constants reflect some sort of inherent need that is common to all humans, for example, the desire of humans to live and the tendency of humans to live in extended family units easily translates into a common value for human life, and a common taboo against killing other humans (at least, those who are considered a part of the family unit).
Based on your spotty knowledge of the early history surrounding your religion, yes...I am suggesting exactly that.
This sounds to me like a conditioned response, and it is one that is easily found among the members of MOST religions. The extant studies indicate that the most significant factor (by far) in the determination of which (if any) religion a child will eventually adhere is the belief of the family in which that child was raised. There isn't another factor that even comes close. The depth of your conviction is not any more objectively convincing, however, than the deeply held beliefs of a person who adheres to any other religon.
And yet in reality, christianity is not in any way unique in this regard. In fact, most of christian mythology can be traced directly to the myths and stories of earlier religions from the same part of the world. For example, many of the religious concepts of early christianity can be directly traced to the pre-christian, Persian religion of Mithraism. The Vatican itself is built on top of an older set of structures...temples that were dedicated to Mithra. The concept of the eucharist is Mithran in origin, and the ritualistic pronouncement of "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." is acutally found engraved on the remains of one of these ancient temples.
Mithra was referred to by his followers as "the light of the world" that was sent to "redeem mankind." He was said to have been born of a virgin, and that his birth was attended by three magi from a far land. His birthday was celebrated on December 25th (or rather its equivalent in the old pre-Julian Calendars), and he was often pictured as carrying a lamb upon his shoulders (and was referred to as "the good shepherd"). Even the christian ritual of Lent is a direct adaptation of a Mithran practice, a series of celebrations beginnin on December 25th and continuing through to the Spring Equinox. Mithra's followers believed in a final day of judgement, in which the non-believers would perish and the believers would join Mithra in a supernatural "paradise" (a word that originates in the Persian, rather than the Hebrew language). Like the christian figure of Jesus, Mithra was believed to have died to atone for the wrong doings of his followers, and ressurected after three days on the "holy day" of Sunday. There are dozens of other similarities, but this is sufficient, I think, to make my point.
The fact that you read disinclines me to consider you an idiot. But, I do think that like most modern christians, you really aren't all that well informed about the actual history and theological tenets of your christian religion. Personally, I tend to be skeptical of "common sense" when it comes religious issues, but that is probably because I find very little "sense" in the concept of religion to begin with.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
first off,going back to the morals, of course people in isolated cultures will tend to act differently. If a baby was left on a deserted island and had to grow up by himself, would he know the multiplication tables? Of course not. Does that mean that the rules of math don't exist? No. Now who developed the laws of mathematics? You might say people like Euclid and Euler and others made astonishing discoveries and improvements,but did they actually develop math? Weren't the laws of math around before them? No matter when addition came into knowledge,if you take one apple and add it to another,it will still make two apples total,whether a person understands those rules or not. Likewise,you may disbelieve and try to discredit God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist any more than a boy on an island saying that the rules of mathematics don't exist because he never learned them.But I digress,back to the morals. If you will, the "Moral Law" and the rules of mathematics are in the same "class". In other words,you may say all day long that morals came about to be understood as an evolutionary process of higher consciousness,but then wouldn't it be we humans that divised morals? Well that would stink for us now wouldn't it? What if those who first developed this "higher consciousness" decided that their "morals" would be to kill other primates that had blond hair? How did they decide right and wrong? Where in the evolutionary process did they decide right and wrong unless they were first given an example? (and,by the way,I believe evolution is laughable and built largely on false science,thus i don't endorse it..but that's not the issue here)
"But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers...But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different" such as which side of the road to drive on "and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths."-C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity" page 12)
Now to Mithra. I find your argument lacking,since 1)not all Christians celebrate Lent. 2) Christian scholars don't know for sure how many magi there were(the Bible never specifies..the "3" merely came from the fact that 3 gifts were presented). 3)yes, EVERYONE celebrates Christmas on Dec. 25,and yes,that has come from early traditions,but even Christian scholars suggest that Jesus was most likely born in SPRING time because of the shepherds being out in the field. 4) you have to realize that when the Catholic Church started its rise,it placed heavy emphasis on tradition over scriptures;thus,certain things like Lent(which was never instituted by Christ) are merely traditions,they aren't actual doctrines of the Bible. 5) I wouldn't be surprised if there was another religion closely resembling Christianity. Why? Because (and you must permit a spiritual response here) wouldn't it make sense for Satan to produce a "counterfiet picture" to lead others astray? Let me put it this way, around the time of Jesus,many men claiming to be the Jewish messiah were popping up. Why do you think so? Because Satan was trying to lead others astray! You're probably rolling your eyes and thinking "is that it?" And now you'll probably make a smart comment about that. Well go ahead. Trust me,there are certain things you don't understand. Now which number was I on? Oh yes, 6)most biblical prophecies concerning the Messiah came before Mithra. Besides,I doubt Mithra fulfilled all of the biblical prophecies that Jesus did. 7)I find that engraving that resembles the eucharist hard to believe. How do you know that wasn't etched in after the fact? In any case, I would moreso call Mithra a rip off of Christianity than vice versa. Simply because Christianity builds off of the Old Testament which had it's origins long before Mithra.
I may not have the knowledge of the world in my cranium,but I'm certainly not as uninformed as you thought...
"This sounds to me like a conditioned response, and it is one that is easily found among the members of MOST religions."
Including yours. Your response to the question about morals would incline me to think that was a conditioned response.
Comparing mathematics to morals is more than a little shaky, I think. At its most basic level, matematics is an objective enterprise. One apple plus one apple always equals two apples, regardless of who you are and where you decide to pick your apples. The same goes for oranges, watermelons and any other fruit you can find. Time, space and perspective have nothing at all to do with the fact that 1+1=2. Morals on the other hand are purely subjective. Objects exist, and have the properties that they have regardless of what we might think about those objection. But, morals are constructs of the mind...opinions and judgements offered after the fact that evaluate the subjective acceptability of an action to an individual or culture. THAT'S why different cultures have such radically different social mores and norms. Unlike mathematics, perspective is everything when it comes to moral judgements.
This is a logical fallacy. If you assert that "god" exists, then the logical burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that existence. The disbeliever need prove nothing at all. As for your example, the boy on the island might be ignorant of the rules of math, but if he goes out and gathers coconuts, those rules will still invariably and objectively predict what happens when you he adds two coconuts together.
I disagree, obviously. The principles of mathematices can be proved and the effects of its laws can be objectively observed. When one observes a "moral" principle, however, what one sees is always based upon the unique perspective of your own mind. Something is only a "Law" if it always works exactly the same way, every time, without exception. The differing moral systems found around the world demonstrate rather handily that this is not true for "moral laws."
This is also a logical fallacy. Whether it would "suck" for us or not is irrelevant. Things happen the way that they happen regardless of how we might feel about the process. The evidence suggests that humans (or rather our ancestors) began to derive their relative moral systems as their brains became complex enough to grasp the necessary concepts.
In simple terms, I would suggest that the earlies examples of cultural mores and norms were very simple, and developed as responses to the simple needs of primitive people. For example, one of the most basic moral tenets that is common to almost all human cultures is a taboo against killing another human, and especially a family member. Early humans organized themselves along tribal/extended family lines (itself a social evolution from the herd mentality of our even earlier ancestors). Tribal groups are an exercise in group cooperation, and when you kill a productive member of the group, you damage the whole tribe. Thus, it is "wrong" to kill members of the trive. As human consciousness has expanded to (more and more, though we still have a ways to go) view the totality of humanity as a "family," and to understand that our success or failure as a species is ultimately mutual, that early tribal taboo has become a common "moral" norm found in all modern cultures.
If you feel this way, then whomever was responsible for your education has failed you. It saddens me that there are still people who are so desperate to protect their religious beliefs that they will fill the heads of their children with this kind of ignorance.
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
That seems like a disingenuous evasion. There are very few rituals that "all" christians celebrate, but it is true that most christians belong to sects that do instruct their followers to practice lent, and the catholic church in particular has consistently held to this tradition since the fifth century. The point was that this ritual did not originate in christian doctrine, but was adopted from the earlier religion of Mithraism, which was popular in the Roman Empire in the third and fourth centuries.
Again, this is an evasion that fails to address the acutal point, which was that the story of the magi also did not originate as a christian myth, but was adopted into the religious traditions of christianity from an earlier religion.
Indeed...but once again, this doesn't address the fact that the common christian practice was adopted from and earlier relgion. Modern scholarship is challenging the common presumption, but the fact of the practice itself remains.
In my experience, modern protestants are just as bound up in tradition as the catholics, albeit their list of favorite traditions is somewhat different. Nevertheless, one cannot I think rationally discount the relvance of the catholic church to the development of the modern religion of christianity. And, while the term "lent" isn't found in the bible, the basis for the ritual is easily established in the scriptures: Genesis 7:4, Exodus 24:18, 1 Kings 19:8, Numbers 14:33, Jonah 3:4, Matthew 4:1-2 and 9:15, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-2.
You're right...I'm going to make a smart comment. The "satan did it" defense is really pretty laughable, and it most often seems to come up when you confront a modern christian with a point of fact that they cannot refute through reason or evidence. If your response to difficult questions is to fall back and "punt" with this kind of fallacy, then there really isn't any point in trying to have a reasonable converstation with you.
I will deal with your last two comments together, since they both rely on the same erroneous assumption, that the origins of christianity pre-date the religion of mithraism. This is simply not true. The earliest written texts of the Old Testament date to within the first millenium (one thousand years) B.C.E. Some traditional attributions place them a little earlier (1300-1500 B.C.E.) but the archeological evidence does not really support those dates. Mitharism, however, has primary source evidence (something that the bible lacks, largely due to the religious proscription against graven images) that demonstrates that the religion was widely practiced at least as early as the 15th Century B.C.E., and secondary sources that link the religion to even earlier Sanskrit sounces dating back to the 18th Century B.C.E.
As for the inscription, we know because history shows that there was already a Mithaeum (a cave-temple) on this site when christian forces seized it in 376 A.D. The inscription in question is located in the remains of that temple, and has been dated prior to the temple's conversion to the christian use and eventual building of the Vatican on the site.
Well, you've certainly been studying something, but the information with which you have been provided seems rather questionable, to me.
You would be incorrect. My opinions are wildly divergent from what I was taught as a child. I was raised in a moderately strict christian family (one half of the family is baptists, the other half methodist). I attended a private christian high schools, and studied comparative religion in my subjects at university. Basically, my parents made the "mistake" of actually providing me with a robust religious education, which resulted in my eventual decision to consider myself an atheist.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
morals aren't subjective. If I abuse someone,whether they're a vital part to the "tribe" or not,is wrong. Also consider lying or cheating or plagarism. When has lying ever been good? When I lie to someone,it usually comes back to bite me. In other words, there are morals that transcend cultural norms.
I've noticed that you keep falling back on the same argument that our minds are highly evolved(if you can do that,why can't I keep going back to the Bible?). But if our minds are an accident,since when did accidents decide what is right or wrong? What set the standard for right and wrong in our minds? Please answer me on that.
And this is why I find,without the aid of any "Christian" education, evolution so laughable: If I were an accident,what would be my purpose in life? On top of that, how could everything be so complex in nature? On top of that, where did the first molecules that began evolution come from? You might say that the universe is eternal. But the universe is aging. There are other things too that if you want,I can share,but I'm at school and running out of time,so i'll move on.
Back to Mithra,a couple of things stood out in my mind. One were the Bible verses you cited. If Lent is really derived off of all of those verses, I would say that those verses were taken out of context. For instance,Genesis 7:4 is about the global Flood. Again, Jonah 3:4 has nothing to do with fasting or the like. Yet again, those New Testament passages deal with Jesus going out to the desert to be tempted. But that was for preperation of his ministry. I'm not saying you pulled those verses out of nowhere, but in context they hold no water for Lent. Besides,most Catholic traditions come from the Apocrypha.
As to Christianity's originality, God forbade idol worship completely. Yes,Israel divulged in alot of idol worship,but they didn't change the Law,they just forgot about it completely. Besides,I don't believe the early church would hold so closely to a pagan religion when anyone could easily accuse them of that. Again,i could say more, but time is going fast.Maybe later.
"My opinions are wildly divergent from what I was taught as a child."
You mistook my point. I was merely saying that your arguments are just as typical for an atheist to say just as mine are as typical for a Christian to say. "There is nothing new under the sun."
I actually find that interesting that you came from a religious background (though I guess I shouldn't be surprised). What exactly turned you to atheism?
I disagree.
"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 and 2 make 4'. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, 'That painting is good' may be true for someone who likes it, but it is not necessarily true that it is a good painting pure and simple, and remains so always no matter what people think of it. If the painting could claim this, someone who thought the painting was bad would be completely wrong, in the same way someone who says the sun goes around the earth is wrong. So the reliability of mathematics is an objective truth, whereas the beauty of paintings is probably a subjective one." (LINK)
All moral judgements are just that...judgements. And, judgements happen in the mind of the observer. There is no such thing as a "moral object" which exists outside of the mind.
Your example of lying is actually a perfect example for consideration. Let us say, for example, that you are in your home, and a big man breaks in and threatens to kill you and everyone else he finds in the house. He then asks you, "who else is here?" You know that your little sister is upstairs, probably hiding under her bed. But, you lie to the man and say, "no one else is here." Is your answer a "moral" act, or an "immoral" one? Now, what if a big man breaks in and says, "your house is on fire, and I'm here to save you!" You know that your little sister is upstairs, probably hiding under her bed. You lie to the man and say, "no one else is here." Is your answer a "moral" act, or an "immoral" one? Now, I think its pretty obvious that most people would say that the first answer was moral, and the second one was immoral...but in fact the answer (and the act) itself was in both cases identical...you said exactly the same thing and in both cases you lied. It is the context that determines whether or not the action was moral, not the act itself...and that's why morals are subjective, rather than objective.
The simple answer is that it is a matter of credibility, based on evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a great deal of objective evidence. The bible, however, is a collection of mostly mythological stories for which there is little or no evidence that would give it credibility in a discussion with anyone who does not already share in your religious beliefs. If you want to sit around in Sunday School and discuss this topic with other christians, feel free. But if you want to discuss your ideas with anyone else, you're going to need something more objective to support your arguments.
I don't recall every saying that our minds developed by "accident," and your use of the term tells me that you aren't well educated about how evolution works. Life is a lot like water, rolling down a hill. Water doesn't roll down hill by "accident." It rolls down hill because gravity pulls it that way. The actual flow of the water may seem somewhat chaotic from a certain, narrow point-of-view, but when you pull back a bit the process revealed is actually quite orderly.
Even so, you keep forgetting that different cultures often have very different ideas about what is "right or wrong," which continues to provide evidence to reject your supposition. I would suggest that the most common mores and norms are what they are because there are certain aspects of human experience that are equally common. Most people don't want to be killed, so a taboo against killing is a common more.
On the other hand (and to direct the conversation back to the original topic), taboos against homosexuality are less common (and actually a LOT less common that people seem to think). From the point-of-view of a primitive, warlike tribe with a high mortality rate and a need for as many babies as possible, a taboo against homosexuality makes a certain kind of sense. But in a modern world that is in very real danger of overpopulation, not so much.
Again, your use of the term "accident" is not really applicable. And, as for you "purpose in life," that is something for you to work out for yourself, just like everyone else on our little blue-green marble. As often is the case, I think that Thomas Jefferson said it best...
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law (1814)
Complexity is also a matter of one's point-of-view. To some people, the inner workings of a combustion engine are just too complex to comprehend. But to a trained mechanic, the inner workings of your car's engine seems like old hat. My brother is a good example. When I was in school, I minored in mathematics, and I have a pretty good grasp of most things mathematical. My brother, however, is working on his doctorate in quantum mathematics. Compared to most people, I'm a pretty math-savvy kind of guy...but compared to my brother, I often find myself amazed (and a little confused) when he begins to wax on about his latest projects. Just because something seems to complex for your current understanding doesn't mean that it could only have developed through the "magic" of some supernatural being.
That's a very good question, but the answer for it won't ever come from the Theory of Evolution, which does not in any way seek to answer that particular quandary. That question belongs to those who study Abiogenesis. As a more specific answer to your question, however, I would suggest that you read about the Miller-Urey experiment, which demonstrated that it was possible for organic molecules could be produced naturally from inorganic precursors.
I would suggest that the universe is infinite, but bounded, which is not quite the same thing as saying that it is "eternal." Space-time is infinite, but it does have boundaries, and things which may (and probably do) exist outside of space-time do not necessarily conform to our understanding of time as it occures within the bounds of the universe.
Lent is 40 days of ritual of fasting intended to evoke a rememberance of the myth of the forty days that Jesus spent in the desert enduring the temptations of Satan. The number forty has a particular significance to christian theology...Moses received the Ten Commandments after spending 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:18), Elijah spent the forty days and nights traveling to Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:8), the rains of the flood lasted forty days and nights (Genesis 7:4), the Hebrew people spent 40 years in the desert looking for the "promised land" (Numbers 14:33), Jonah's gave Nineveh forty days and nights to repent their sins, etc. Specifically, though, the story of Jesus' forty day fast in the desert while being tempted by Satan is found in several verses...Matthew 4:1-2, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-2.
Ah, but your forget...the "god" of the old testament didn't tell christians to do anything at all...that commandment was given to the followers of judaism, also a precursor of christianity.
Believe it or not as you wish, but the evidence is relatively incontroverible. It is more difficult to pull the wool over people's eyes these days, thanks ready availability of education and information, but fooling the ancients was much easier, especially when disagreeing with one's rulers could easily get one put to the swrod. The Cult of Mithra was a very popular Roman religion, and several Emporers (such as Aurelian, Diocletion and Constantine) were known members of the cult. Surely you were taught in church about the conversion of the Emporer Constantine to christianity. Did you ever think to ask what religion he convered from? The answer, of course, is Mithraism.
Like any shrewd leader, however, Constantine did not want to loose the support of his followers, and so he merged the practices of his old religion with his new beliefs, thereby gaining new followers while keeping his connection to his established power base. Constantine's title, "Pntifus Maximus" was the traditional title afforded to a High Priest of Mithra. Even after his conversion, he had his coins inscribed with "Sol Invicto Comiti," which means "commited to the invincible sun" (and Mithra was a sun god). Prior to Constantine's rule, the Cult of Mitra was a popular religion throuout the Empire, and was very distinct from christianity. But after Constantine, it becomes almost impossible to distinguish the two, due to his intentional mingling of the sects under his rule.
LOL...touche'.
I will have to give you two answers, since the reasons I left christianity and the reasons I became an atheist represent two distinct periods in my life, and are largely unrelated to each other. I left christianity because I could not reconcile the aggressive brutality and violence that the "god" with MY moral judgments of "right and wrong." I have blogged extensively on that subject, and you are welcome to read more about it, here. After I left christianity, I remained "religious" for many years, and tried several different faiths (primarily wicca, which I practiced for over 15 years). But eventually, I realized that ALL of the religions I had experienced relied on the same, irrational presumption that required believers to accept the existence of supernatural entities and forces. And yet, there was not a single shred of actual, objective evidence that would compel a rational mind to accept such a belief. Thus, I became an atheist.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First about lying, yes if someone broke into the house to kill me,i would do anything to protect anyone else. However,most people don't like being lied to. Let's take the murderer's point of view. Is he wrong for wanting to kill me? YES! But if i lied to him and he found out,how would that make him feel? He may not cry himself to sleep that night,but i'm sure he wouldn't be happy. The point of the morals is that there is a law within us that we just know right and wrong. For instance,just today I walked into one of my classes and there was food set up in the back of the room for a special lunch they had earlier for visiting missionaries. When we (my classmates and I) walked in, we obviously wanted some food(ironically even though we just had lunch). I didn't take any,but my classmates slowly indulged themselves. I found it funny whenever someone would draw near to the door and they would freak out and wonder if the teacher was coming. Now we didn't know for sure if we shoulda been eating the food or not,but we still acted as if already guilty. Their argument though was simply, "Well, the lunch is over so we can have it." See how they made it innocent but still had that guiltiness in the back of their mind? It turned out we weren't supposed to be touching the food. Now that is,very roughly,a sketch of morality. It's in our brain, but we numb it down to fit us.
For instance,you said "But in a modern world that is in very real danger of overpopulation, not so much," in defense of homosexuality. Is the world in danger of overpopulation? I doubt it. There's enough room for humanity to spread out (mainly in Canada...lol). In other words,there are certain desires we make excuses for just to indulge them. I do it myself. It's wrong,I know it,but I push it out. It's like in C.S. Lewis' book "The Magician's Nephew" when the uncle meets the talking animals of Narnia. He's so scared of them he forces himself to believe that they are going to eat him, when they really aren't.
This leads to another reason I can't trust evolution. It's merely an excuse to do whatever we want. Evolution has also led to deadly avenues such as Communism and Nazism.
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."-Romans 1:18-20 (NIV)
"Ah, but your forget...the "god" of the old testament didn't tell christians to do anything at all"
Ah but you don't realize that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT.
"Prior to Constantine's rule, the Cult of Mitra was a popular religion throuout the Empire, and was very distinct from christianity."
You really just threw that in my favor. The new testament writings all predated Constantine. The last book, Revelation, was completed around 100 A.D. Now you're probably going off the false notion that Constantine rigged the new testament and the creed and all that. That's totally untrue. The Council of Nicea in 325 wasn't the only council to discuss the faith.There were scores of other councils. Besides that, as early as 140 church leaders were discussing which letters were true and inspired and which weren't. Did Constantine do alot to affect the church? Yes. But remember the Protestant Reformation? During that time,reformers returned to the roots:the Bible.
"And yet, there was not a single shred of actual, objective evidence that would compel a rational mind to accept such a belief. Thus, I became an atheist."
Odd that you should say that,since there have been others,such as Josh McDowell, who started with atheism and came to the conclusion that God can appeal to the rational mind. I suggest checking out some of his work in "Evidence that demands a verdict."
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land..." Isaiah 1:18-19 (NIV)
Your last point also leads to a sad conclusion, we could debate this allllll day long. And we,in a sense,have been. But let's face it,we're shooting brick walls with be-be guns. If you want to keep up this exchange,fine. I'm still "game" for it. But let me say this: yes,God can be proved and defended. Again, I think with common sense. If you want better factual evidence, look into CS Lewis,McDowell,Michael Brown,Ken Ham, Lee Strobel,and others. They have given logical,scientifical proof for God. But I must add also,that perhaps the reason you were not satisfied with God was because you had no faith. Faith makes the world of a difference.
"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."-John 20:29
Woo! So who's up for round 2?!
In this case, one of two things must be true...either A) a lie to protect your life is immoral, OR B) the act of lying is not "objectively" wrong.
And yet, is that not precisely the definition of subjective? If you have to turn "within" to discover whether something is "moral" or not, then your criteria is not in any way objective.
The problem is that, generally speaking, humans to like to spread out. We prefer to form societies that live close together. Yes, you could evenly space out the people in the world across its surface, but there is more to overpopulation than just a concern about space. Overpopulation occurs when a population's demand for resources outstrips the ability of its environment to provide them. My own home city of Atlanta is currently in the midst of a major resource crisis. The city has grown too large for the local water sources to support. People aren't drying up from dehydration (yet), but we are already having to sharply restrict water useage, and the major lakes in th area are at roughly 20 feet below their normal levels, and dropping. That's a sign of overpopulation.
This is a logical fallacy, known as an appeal to negative consequences. How people react to a fact doesn't make that fact any less true. And, your premise that evolution gives people an "excuse" to be inhumane to one another is just plain silly. Social mores and norms are imposed on society by society, regardless of where those mores and norms originated.
Ah (again), but christianity did not exist during the period of the OT, thus any statement issued at that time could not have been issued to a christian audience. Christianity borrowed many of its doctrines from judaism just as it borrowed from mithraism. And, lets not forget that they idea that these statements were actually issued by a supernatural being (i.e. "god") is highly speculative; there is no acutal proof that these stories are any more than just that...stories.
Acutally, that's only partially true. Yes, most of the books referred to as the new testament were likely written prior to the second century, the fact is that we don't have any original copies that date back that for for us to say definitively what they may or may not have contained. There is actually one fragment from the book of Mark that dates back to 125 C.E., but it is only a little bit larger than a postage stamp. Here is a picture of it...
It's not quite so impresive when you actually see it, is it?
Totally untrue? I think that evidence suggests otherwise. The oldest relatively complete copies of the new testament date to after the Council of Nicea, namely the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 330 C.E. to 350 C.E.) and the Codex Vaticanus (of uncertain dating, but generally attributed to the same time period, and widely believed to be one of the 50 bibles comissioned by the Emporer Constantine following the Nicaean Council). Let's not forget that following the Council of Nicaea--which was in fact the Council at which the common cannon was officially established--Constantine ordered the books not chosen for the cannon to be burned. In fact, due to the active burning of "heretical" works, we have almost no credible records of what christianity actually looked like prior to the Council of Nicaea. Even among christian scholars, Constantine is attributed with establishing a uniformity of doctrine from the then existing sects. He actively prosecuted and executed those who opposed his directed interpretation of the scriptures, and consigned both the men and their books to the fire to ensure that only his version of events would be passed on to history.
Indeed...but "the bible" that they returned to traces back to the same sources, mentioned above. And for the new testament, that return was by necessity to the books which survived Constantine's (and the early church's) very active campaign to eliminate the competition.
The easy answer would be for me to say that I think that I am smarter than Josh McDowell (which I am convinced of, after having read and studied many of his arguments). But, I have to note that in fact, Mr. McDowell does not claim to have ever really been an atheist. Per his own website, Josh McDowell says that he "once considered himself an agnostic believing Christianity was worthless." While both philosophies are considered "skeptical," agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing.
And I will say that if you can actually provide this proof, you will be the first person in the history of the world to do so. I will also suggest that unless your "proof" is based upon empircal, objective evidence, then your presentation will ultimately fail. It isn't "proof" if your opponent has to take just your word for it.
"If you wish to continue, maybe you should start a new blog (its a good way to get points). I will be happy to participate if you do."
Good idea, I might do that. But not anytime soon. Life is upping in the busy factor so for now I will stick to this thread.
that said,I'll give a more indepth response in a couple of days.
Sorry it's taken a week to reply,but this past week has been crazy busy. Besides I needed a break.
"And yet, is that not precisely the definition of subjective? If you have to turn "within" to discover whether something is "moral" or not, then your criteria is not in any way objective."
Subjective is more like preference. So a subjective statement is simply what one prefers,it derives from my mind and emotions. An objective statement is something one ought to do. In other words, it exists whether I exist or not.It exists outside of me. For instance, if I said, I prefer Monet over Van Gogh,that's a subjective statement. It's not the same for the whole world. You may find people who prefer Van Gogh over Monet. But if I say something like, everyone wants to be shown love,that's an objective statement. I'm sure everyone,including Bin Laden,wants to be loved. Which brings me back to lying. That situation you gave is a tough issue for anyone to tackle. I also find it very unlikely to happen. If it's some random murderer busting into my house,he's going to kill first and ask questions later. So I think the situation doesn't really do the issue justice.
You misconstrued my point. Morals are like a law written on our hearts. They exist outside of us,but they're embedded within us. For instance,loving others,or showing love to others, is something we want to do. It's a good,objective moral. Besides, if morals were subjective, I could simply go out and steal and murder whoever I want because I prefer to. Is that wrong? PLUS, I noticed that you admit yourself that something like murder is looked down upon in all cultures. Do you realize you're contradicting yourself?? Either all morals are subjective or all morals are objective! Choose one.
"That's a sign of overpopulation."
Or that's a sign of drought from the past summer..lol. I think,at this point,you're just looking for an excuse to be gay.
And while hitting on overpopulation,why don't we just turn to euthanasia? Ah,but that's different! you might say. How so? responds I. That's wrong,and you shouldn't do it, you might reply. Hmm,was that an objective statement? go I (by the way,I believe euthanasia is horrible and sinful,though I'm sure it fits the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" excuse).
"Christianity borrowed many of its doctrines from judaism just as it borrowed from mithraism."
About Mithra's "influence": http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
I would highly recommend reading all of the stuff on that page.
"the fact is that we don't have any original copies that date back that for for us to say definitively what they may or may not have contained."
Perhaps true,I haven't really looked into that yet. But I will say this: There are more old copies of the Bible than there are of original Homer's Odessy,or some other famous old book. The point though is that what books from the first centuries are still in one piece today? So how can we trust the Bible or even historians like Josephus? Simply put,people passed them on. Just because originals don't exist doesn't mean we can't trust 'em. By the way,when Christians in the early Church received a letter from an apostle,they would recopy it and then send it on to the next church. The early church was a tight-knit community that didn't depend on the ruler. For instance, in 303, 10 years before Constantine, Diocletian tried to burn all the Bibles in existence. Didn't succeed.
Besides this,other evidence is amassed for the reliability of the Bible. Countless archeological digs have proven that the Bible's accounts are true in the sense the places it talks about actually exist. Then there's the scientific accuracy of the Bible. One example, of many, is that before scientists ever declared the earth to be round, the Bible suggests it in Isaiah 40:22.While hitting on science, many early scientists confirmed the Bible as central to their lives. People like Newton,Faraday,Morse, Herschel,Kepler,and others. By the way,science CAN'T prove God any more than it can prove love.
This leads me to Constantine..I don't think Constantine had much say as to which books would make it into the Bible. Why? If he was a fake,why would he care? If he really "converted", then still,what difference would it make? The letters were done being written by 100 AD,which predates ol' Const a little. On top of this,the famous Council of Nicea was called to resolve the Arian Controversy which was over a guy named Arius who was having difficulties accepting the Trinitarian Godhead. That's why the famous Nicean creed came from that council. It focuses heavily on the Trinity. On top of THAT,there was a certain guideline for which books made it into the NT canon, including inspiration(by God),apostolic authority,church usage,and whether or not the morals and doctrines lined up with the rest of the Bible. Besides all this, the NT conencts perfectly with the OT. That can only be done by God. But since you'll just disregard this last argument,I've given you ample proof before that.
"The easy answer would be for me to say that I think that I am smarter than Josh McDowell"
If that's not prideful and smug,i don't know what is.
"I'm not familiar with Ken Ham..."
look into him,he specializes in science. He's the co-founder of Answers in Genesis.
"'There's a sucker born every minute' ~ David Hannum"
'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."'- Psalm 14:1
...and so I will reply to you in a new thread, below.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Nice work, percivale. You remain my hero.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
considering he's in his 40's and out of college,and i'm in my teens and still in high school, that's like lauding a burly heavy weight boxing champ as a hero after he beat up a skinny little kid...
...that one should never "take it easy" on a debater, simply because of their age. The best way to learn the fine art of debate, IMHO is to engage in the highest level of debate that you can. Whether you win or loose, a good debate is always an opportunity to learn. I also sometimes think that there is too much emphasis placed on the competitive nature of debate. The point of a debate, again IMHO, is to get at the truth of a matter. If I am defeated in a debate, I actually consider it a "win" for me. To be proved wrong is an wonderful thing, since it means that you have been given the opportunity to replace something false with something that is true.
Honestly, you've done a pretty good job of making your case, so far, despite the unfortunate inaccuracies that poisoned your orignal premise. And I have enjoyed our exchange.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
i never said you should take it easy. Turn up the heat if you want. It challenges me and toughens my skin. I have learned quite a bit from this exchange,especially with the history of America side (and area i'm not too strong in). But even if you should "prove me wrong" it only challenges me all the more to learn. The thing is though,if i were your age and had the same experience from college,I could probably make a better case.
"Honestly, you've done a pretty good job of making your case, so far, despite the unfortunate inaccuracies that poisoned your orignal premise. And I have enjoyed our exchange."
thank you. I've enjoyed this too.
That's interesting...but your use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" are definitionally incorrect.
ob·jec·tive - "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."
sub·jec·tive - "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."
I am sorry, but I don't think that your assumption that "everyone wants to be shown love" is true, and I am certain that you lack any sort of actual, objective evidence that would support such a wild assumption. And, whether you like the example I provided or not, it is perfectly valid. If your morals don't work the same way every time, for every person and in every situation...then they are not, by defintion "objective." If you have to make a decision in your mind whether or not to apply a moral judgment to any given situation, then by defintion your morals are "subjective."
With all due respect...bullshit. I've see human hearts, and no where on them is there a list of moral do's and don'ts. In fact, morals re the pure creation of the mind. It is their that the idea is conceived, contained, and from there communicated. All of this crap about morals existing "outside of us" is just religious mumbo jumbo for which there exists not one single shred of actual, objective evidence.
The concept of "good" isn't objective, either.
This is a very shallow line of reasoning. The reason you can't go out and murder whomever you want is because most people don't want to be murdered themselves, and thus they resist. And somewhere down the line, people began to realize that it was easier to resist being murdered when you "team up" against the killers (its a pretty basic characteristics of herd animals). In other words, if you want to murder me, I have a better chance to survive if I get someone else to agree to help protect me. Hence, the social taboo against murder. As for murder being looked down upon in "all cultures," that's not what I said. I said that sociological constants like the taboos against murder, theft and lying have appeared in "almost every culture known to history." A very common subjective perspective is still subjective, and the few cultures that are exceptions to these common constants are proof of that the concepts are not inherently objective.
Your comment is without objective basis, especially since I don't actually need an "excuse" to be gay. Regardless of the question of choice (though frankly, it is only a question today to the remarkably uninformed) our Supreme Court has ruled that Constitution protects my right to "be gay." But, the reality is that the currently prevailing scientific opinion on the matter is that sexuality is a complex trait that is rooted in a combination of biological and environmental factors.
You are proving to be a poor predictor of my responses. I can think of a number of cases where euthanasia would be (in my subjective opinion) "the right thing to do." We do it to animals all the time, and I see no reason to exempt humans from the mercy that the practice at times can entail. In general, however, most humans don't seem to want to be euthanized, and so they band together to ensure that this practice is not done to them. This is no different than any other subjectively arrived at cultural taboo.
I have read J.P. Holding's (or should I say, Robert Turkel's) apologetics quite thoroughly. And, I would suggest that if you want to obtain objective information about the relevant history, that a website dedicated to christian apologetics isn't the best place to turn.
Here are a few sites debunking the writings of this non-credentialed crack-pot...
Dr. Hector Avalos Responds to JP Holding/Robert Turkel
A Response to Tektonics 'Refutation'
James Patrick Holding, the Want-to-Be Apologist
A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus (2000)
Let me know when you do.
A couple of points:
1 - There are exactly as many original copies of "the bible" as there are original copies of Homer's Odyssey... ZERO.
2 - No one (that I am aware of, at least) believes the supernatural claims found in the text of the Odyssey to be actually true.
By applying the same standards of consideration to both books (and beyond)...why would we believe the supernatural claims of YOUR religion's book, but categorically dismiss the supernatural claims of all other sources? When viewed objectively, the supernatural claims of the bible are just as silly as Homer's talk of "gods" and their spooooky powers.
Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered
The world's oldest multiple-page book
You can't, and especially Josephus, whose work has almost certainly been corrupted by the alterations of later authors.
Actually, yes...it pretty much means exactly that. It doesn't mean that we have to automatically dismiss everything that is written, but it does mean that we have to apply a strict level of scrutiny to ancient claims, especially when there are conflicting contemporary sources, or when the source in question contains obvious falsehoods, contradictions and flaws (and let's be honest...the bible is full of those).
Here is an experiment for you to try...and a game which you have probably played before. Get ten to twenty of your friends together, and sit in a circle. You start the game by whispering to the person to your left and telling them a "secret" (a short story of 3 to 5 sentences). Then, that person whispers the same story to the person to his left, and so on, and so on. Then, when the story comes all the way around to the person to your right...have them stand up and tell their version of the secret to the group.
You're right...Constantine didn't burn everything that he went after, but he's had a lot of help since then. There is a fine tradition of book burning in christian history, though we do still occasionally find copies of books that were thought to be lost (which is where a lot of the information I've been giving you originated).
Well, the bible certainly deals with real places and in many cases, people. But then, does that mean that every book ever written and set in a location is automatically true? Have you ever read any historical fiction? An historical fiction is a novel written about a fictional character, set against a backdrop of real events. Can you cite any actual, peer-credible archaeological dig that demonstrated the accuracy of any supernatural claim?
Actually, the idea of a spherical earth first appears in the writings of the Ancient World the 6th Century B.C.E. Pythagoras was the first Greek known to have espoused the idea, and by the 5th Century B.C.E. the concept of a spherical earth was common among most ancient scientists ranging as far as Ancient India, at least (as demonstrated by the Shatapatha Brahmana).
Also, your interpretation of the suggestion in this verse is not consistent with the original Hebrew. Your use of the Hebrew chuwg which you mistranslate as "round" and imply to mean "spherical," actually means "circular" or like a "compass." In fact, we know that the Ancient Hebrew people viewed the world, as a flat, circular plain, bounded on all sides by oceans and sitting beneath a great dome.
In response, let me offer you a quote from Mark Twain...
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I would be glad to respond to any particular argument you care to harvest from any of these scientists regarding their religious beliefs. Rarely will you find such men attempting to suggest a scientifically support for their more irrational religious beliefs.
This leads me to Constantine..I don't think Constantine had much say as to which books would make it into the Bible. Why? If he was a fake,why would he care? If he really "converted", then still,what difference would it make?
I am sorry, but your "belief" is not well-informed. Constantine's involvement in the Council of Nicaea and its canonization of the bible is a well-documented historical fact.
The letters that survived may or may not actually date back that far. Without any surviving originals, that date becomes highly speculative.
I would suggest that you need to study the actual history of the Council of Nicaea in a little more depth. In fact, the process of canonization was a lot more political that the candy-coated, non-historical version of events that you may have heard about in Sunday School.
I never claimed not to be prideful or smug...
Okay...NOW I know who you're talking about. LOL...this is the "Creationist Museum" guy. I am sorry, but your hero's claim to specializing in "science" is really something of a joke. Please...please...please...pick ANYTHING written by this guy supposedly about the "science" found in the bible. It should be quite a hoot to deconstruct.
“He dares to be a fool, and that is the first step in the direction of wisdom.” ~ James Gibbons Huneker
I love quote games. 0:)
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
okay,it's been about a week. Sorry,but not too much time anymore is allowed to do this. Seeing it as such,this will be my last response on this. Could I carry this on? Oh yeah,but time is strained and as such I need to cut something and this is what will be cut. Why? I think we're only beating each other up without getting anywhere. Something beyond mere intellect can only win this debate. That said,let me begin:
"your use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" are definitionally incorrect."
Interesting,since the terms you gave me agree with my terms. For instance about objective you said, "having reality independent of the mind." As for me, I said, "An objective statement...exists whether I exist or not.It exists outside of me." Doesn't that sound like reality independent of the mind if it exists outside of me? You can't prove everything I say wrong.
Now just to sum up my whole argument on morals here and now,I will say this: Your argument for the originality of morals is ludicrous. How did our "evolutionary forefathers" decide what was right and wrong? Murder doesn't have to be simply killing everyone. Jesus said murder begins in the heart when you hate someone without cause. So what if they decided that all the annoying useless people were just killed off? Would that make it right? How did they decide that treating others with kindness was right? What if they took Hitler's stance on life? Wait,what makes Hitler's stance so wrong? Surely he can segregate against Jews,homosexuals,handicap people and others, and have them killed,right? I mean,if morals are subjective...
Simply put,C.S. Lewis once wrote something like, "I would not know what crooked was unless I knew what straight was." Who set the standard for right and wrong? The Bible answers that: God. Our morals derive from the unchanging objective character of God.
"our Supreme Court has ruled that Constitution protects my right to "be gay."
True,but I didn't say you needed a LEGAL excuse, you're just looking for some excuse. People have the right to do alot of things in this country,but that's not what I was pointing out. I was pointing out that gay people are morally looking for an excuse.
Now to back to Mithra! okay,check out these sites:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.htm...
http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/jesus-is-not-a-mithras...
I also recall you saying that when Constantine converted,it was from Mithraism. Well, it may have been ONE of the religions he was a part of,but considering the Romans had a plethora of gods,that's not an impressive statement.
Besides all this,I still believe that Christianity is unique no matter what you dig up about mithra. Why? Because people generally have no idea who Mithra is. But nearly everyone has heard of Christianity. Question: If Christianity and Mithra are cut from the same cloth,why has one faded and died,but the other preserved and still growing? Logically it doesn't make sense and proves mithraism false. For even in the Bible it says:
'Then he[Gamaliel,a prominent Pharisee]addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men[Christ's apostles]alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."-Acts 5:35-39 (NIV)
Ironic,isn't it? His words have proven true.
Let's see,what next? Ah yes,Constantine.I can't remember if i mentioned this before, but I still don't believe Constantine had a huge influence. Again,why? Well, consider how meticulous Jews were in copying the OT. Anytime they messed up they would burn the papers and restart all over. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a full copy of Isaiah and showed amazing accuracy between the original and the modern text. The phone game you mentioned is a bad illustration since when you play you generally don't care and it's usually something stupid like "Green monkeys enjoy eating green eggs and ham." But the early church fathers viewed their faith as something important and worth dying for. They wouldn't let it be corrupted by anyone. Besides this,finding an original copy of any of the original NT books would be impossible since the letters were widely circulated among the churchs and would be recopied word-for-word from the original text.
But now for something more concrete. The uniformity of the Bible is too perfect to be corrupted. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies from the OT recorded in the NT. The connection between the Old and New Testaments is amazing. There's a uniformity there that cannot be done or created by anyone but God.
“He dares to be a fool, and that is the first step in the direction of wisdom.” ~ James Gibbons Huneker
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."- Jim Eliot
"Thinking if I could see I would believe.Then somebody said 'believe and you will see.'"-Petra
In closing,this has been an interesting exchange and I do not regret taking part in it. We could continue,but again,you can only shoot stone walls with b.b. guns for so long. I mentioned it before,and I will come back to it now: winning this argument on either side is next to impossible. What it all comes down to is this:faith. I'm not asking you to "convert" or "get saved." Just re-examine Christianity. Not the shallow religion that many have made it out to be. But the relationship that God longs for with you. You say you need proof? My life. I was insulted when you accused me of relying on a second-hand religion, mainly because i'm not a shallow "poser" like some. If I did follow a hand-me-down faith,i wouldn't even bother defending it like i have on this thread. That said,thank you for the exchange. Perhaps we can carry it on some other day.
"What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"-Romans 7:24-25
Oh,by the way,I trust you weren't affected too much by the recent storms,were you?
Well...I for one don't feel that I have been "beat up" by this discussion, though by all means you may feel free to quit the field whenever you wish, and I hope you won't mind if I respond to your "last word," even if you won't be around to answer back.
It might sound like that...IF your explanations actually matched the described application of "morality" that you gave to us. Unfortunately, those explanations demontrated a fundamental (pardon the pun) disconnect between the definitions you ascribe to your beliefs, and the judgement-based (i.e. in the mind) response to the "morality" of lying.
Then I guess the entire science of sociology is also "luducrous." Or more likely, I would suggest that my position only seems ludicrous to you because you lack the education in the subjects needed to comprehend the answer.
How did our "evolutionary forefathers" decide what was right and wrong?
Since you are bailing on the conversation, I will refrain from the complex answer and suggest simply that trial and error over more than two million years of human evolution has given mankind sufficient experience and opportunity to make such decisions on a psychosociological level.
It is a common canard of theism to suggest that only religion (and usually that only a particular religion) is capable of giving people a moral compass that compels them to respect the lives of their fellow humans. This is rediculous. In fact, your example of Hitler is actually demonstrative of the fallacy behind your suggesting, due to the fact that Hitler was a christian...specifically a roman catholic.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who - God's truth! - was greatest, not as a sufferer, but as a fighter." ~ Adolph Hitler
The problem with this comment is that it relies (as ALL theistic argument do) upon a logical fallacy. The proposition begs the question of "god'" existence, and then sets a circular premise that renders the argument unsound, and the conclusion invalid. Unless you can prove that "god" acutally exists (and if you could, you would be the first to ever do so), then your argument is both speculative and subjective.
You are presuming in error that gay people need to make an excuse for living their lives. If your religion had any acutal authority over me, then I would in fact "need" an excuse. But since it does not, your evaluation of the situation is poorly reasoned.
Okay...I read your sites. Unfortunately, you have chosen to respond to the historical data I have provided with theology-based apologetics, rather than attempting to address the issue with sources that are consistent with any legitimate historical scholarship. Both of these sources are quite open about the fact that their motivation is to defend the christian faith, rather than to seek historical truth and accuracy. For example, the mission statement of http://www.gotquestions.org/ states the following...
I am saddened by the fact that you seem willing to base your beliefs on such unreliable sources. In the future, if you would like to be taken seriously in discussion of historical events you might want to refer to actual historical sources, rather than religious contrivances of this sort.
I am sorry, but the historical record is relatively clear on this point. Your refusal to accept the evidence bespeaks nothing more than a lack of adequate education regarding Constantine as an historical figure.
In other words, you are choosing to stick with your beliefs regardless of what the evidence suggests about those beliefs. Ah well...I can't force you to think critically.
I do not disagree that mithraism (like all religions) is "false" on a very basic level. It is, however, a logical fallacy to suggest that because an idea is more popular, that it is more correct. Many people believe things that are untrue because they are poorly informed, and your error in this case is a perfect example of that unfortunate state.
Proved true? How so? I see men fighting men, and often men fighting men in the name of "god," but I have yet to see any evidence at all that "god" is anything more than a figment of your (and many other misguided folks) imagination. It is easy to look back over thousands of years of history and attempt to retrofit a vague "prophetic" statement to match one's interpretation of modern events, but in reality all it takes to make this kind of prediction is a half-way decent understaning of political and social theories.
While the Book of Isaiah is one of the better preserved texts of the ancient books that eventually became know as the modern bible, it is grossly inaccurate to suggest that the modern bible has been accurately preserved from its earliest origins. Textual criticism of the bible provides us with numerous (some very significant, some relatively minor) examples of changes to the the texts that have crept in over the centuries. It is interesting that you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, since they have been the source of our knowledge regarding many of these very changes. The various fragments recovered provide us with very different accounts of Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel and Jeremiah, for example.
Here is a series of blogs hosted here at ProU that look at one book of the bible (Daniel) in great detail, and demonstrates the questionability of the text: Skeptical Bible Study -- Daniel is a Forgery: Introduction, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, ConclusionBut now for something more concrete. The uniformity of the Bible is too perfect to be corrupted. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies from the OT recorded in the NT.
Can you name even ONE such "prophecy" that can be objectively verified through valid historical scholarship to have been "fulfilled" in the manner you suggest?
I would suggest that a creative editor is quite capable of producing the kind of "uniformity" that you suggest, and in Constantine we have a historically verifiable source that is known to have actively destroyed material that contradicted the version of events which he (and the then-dominant faction within the early church) preferred. However, it is frankly laughable that you think that the modern bible is "uniform" in any conventional sense of the word. The mere fact that the various biblical cannons of the different christian (and jewish) sects are so vastly different renders such an assertion meaningless.
"Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed." ~ Mark Twain
"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken." ~ Mark Twain
Agreed.
It only comes down to "faith" if you are unwilling to approach the question objectively, and to base your opinion on the evidence, rather than on what you WANT the evidence to be.
I'm only guessing at your age, but I suspect that I have probably spent more years of my life examining the religion of christianity than you have even been alive. In other words, thanks for your concern, but I am comfortable with my decsions and confident that they are intellectually defensible.
I am sorry to have offended you, but your insistent reliance on apologetics in favor of objective historical scholarship does not incline me to accept your assurance. The arguments you have presented are rather obviously the product of an intentionally limited exposure to the relevant facts. Nothing in your presentation leads me to believe that you have approached your study of this information in a critical manner.
You are welcome, and I hope so.
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. ~ Oscar Wilde
Personally, no. My parents' house was damaged a bit, but no one was hurt. Thanks for asking, though.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.