81 replies to this topic

[brvheart]

I didn't know where to post this, and wanted to get your thoughts. It's long:http://www.slate.com...n_culture_.html

[speedz99]

I tried reading it, I really did. I made it through about four pages, two from each.It helped me make up my mind. I can now officially say that talking about religion is sooper boring.Edit: But really, is there any one point that you'd like to discuss? They ramble a ton.

[Balloon guy]

Going to hear Dinesh D'Souza tomorrow speak at a private event in Palm Springs.I was hired to do some lighting and did the pre-light tonight for levels and found out he was the speaker, so I will stay to 'run' the lights.Looking forward to it.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Monday, April 23rd, 2012, 3:35 AM, said:

I didn't know where to post this, and wanted to get your thoughts. It's long:http://www.slate.com...n_culture_.html

First, it's a pretty annoying format. There's really no discussion in it; half the time RD barely responds to the substance of the issue, and when he makes really horrible arguments they just move on to the next subject instead of holding each other to task. I find this Douthat guy to be super arrogant and dense. He's dousing his dogma with the scent of intellectualism by pretty language, but at the core all he seems to want is that you not pry christian ideology from his cold, dead hands. As to the message of his book, surely christianity is off the rails, but going back to orthodoxy is thankfully no longer an option now that we know what we know. The solution is to embrace a secular morality, which is hindered at this point by both "bad religion" and "good religion".

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012, 11:55 PM, said:

First, it's a pretty annoying format. There's really no discussion in it; half the time RD barely responds to the substance of the issue, and when he makes really horrible arguments they just move on to the next subject instead of holding each other to task. I find this Douthat guy to be super arrogant and dense. He's dousing his dogma with the scent of intellectualism by pretty language, but at the core all he seems to want is that you not pry christian ideology from his cold, dead hands. As to the message of his book, surely christianity is off the rails, but going back to orthodoxy is thankfully no longer an option now that we know what we know. The solution is to embrace a secular morality, which is hindered at this point by both "bad religion" and "good religion".

What do you mean? What do we know?

[speedz99]

brvheart, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012, 10:58 PM, said:

What do you mean? What do we know?

That to consider the books of the bible to be literally true is ridiculous. Although, he does argue that an orthodox reading allows for allegory, so I guess I'm not sure what VB means either.

[Balloon guy]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012, 9:02 PM, said:

Going to hear Dinesh D'Souza tomorrow speak at a private event in Palm Springs.I was hired to do some lighting and did the pre-light tonight for levels and found out he was the speaker, so I will stay to 'run' the lights.Looking forward to it.

He was pushing his new movie coming out in August. I am luke warm to the speech and the movie.But it will be fun to see the left go nuts calling him a racist for it.

[fighter]

http://www.newscient...ief-in-god.html

[Balloon guy]

Richard Dawkins has some skeletons...

Quote

He has railed against the evils of religion, and lectured the world on the virtues of atheism.Now Richard Dawkins, the secularist campaigner against "intolerance and suffering", must face an awkward revelation: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.One of his direct ancestors, Henry Dawkins, amassed such wealth that his family owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744.The Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership.

Poor Dickie Dawkins...no wonder he is so angry all the time

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on 19 May 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Richard Dawkins has some skeletons...

Uh, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and all of those guys? Except they actually owned the slaves personally.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on 19 May 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Richard Dawkins has some skeletons...

Was Henry Dawkins an atheist?

[fighter]

Balloon guy, on 19 May 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Richard Dawkins has some skeletons...Poor Dickie Dawkins...no wonder he is so angry all the time

Quote

Numbers 14:18The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation

"Henry Dawkins was my great great great great great grandfather, so approximately one in 128 of my genes are inherited from him."http://richarddawkin...-also-in-polishThe bible says to let it go. It was 7 generations ago.However the bible also says that owning slaves is fine. So if you choose not to use the bible for moral guidance, It's understandable.

[brvheart]

fighter, on 20 May 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

However the bible also says that owning slaves is fine.

I'll wait with bated-breath until you provide the reference that tells Christians that slavery is fine. I can hardly wait.

[fighter]

brvheart, on 20 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I'll wait with bated-breath until you provide the reference that tells Christians that slavery is fine. I can hardly wait.

I can show you all the passages where they condemn slavery "..... ".Since Exodus could basically be renamed "how to morally beat your slaves", The next step should be obvious.How can you list rules on how to own a slave if owning a slave is bad?Apparently, I was allowed to beat my slaves with a rod and if they don't die until 2-3 days after the event, I shouldn't be punished. Exodus 21:20-21How is that not implied consent?

[brvheart]

fighter, on 20 May 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

I can show you all the passages where they condemn slavery "..... ".Since Exodus could basically be renamed "how to morally beat your slaves", The next step should be obvious.How can you list rules on how to own a slave if owning a slave is bad?Apparently, I was allowed to beat my slaves with a rod and if they don't die until 2-3 days after the event, I shouldn't be punished. Exodus 21:20-21How is that not implied consent?

The OT has pretty clear rules on treatment of slaves and a whole bunch of other things that were going on when it was written in like 1500 BC. What's even crazier is that people still bought and sold humans like 150 years ago, which is more than 3000 years after Exodus was written.However, the NEW testament is very specific on slavery, and has many sections, including the entire book of Philemon, written on how to treat slaves with gentleness, love, and forgiveness.

[fighter]

brvheart, on 20 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

However, the NEW testament is very specific on slavery, and has many sections, including the entire book of Philemon, written on how to treat slaves with gentleness, love, and forgiveness.

Fantastic news.. Show me the passage where they say it is wrong to own a person. Also It still doesn't change the fact that for a period in history, the all loving and merciful god decided that beating a slave to death was an acceptable activity. Provided that it took the slave 3 days for the slave to succumb to the injuries.

[brvheart]

fighter, on 20 May 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Fantastic news..Show me the passage where they say it is wrong to own a person.Also It still doesn't change the fact that for a period in history, the all loving and merciful god decided that beating a slave to death was an acceptable activity. Provided that it took the slave 3 days for the slave to succumb to the injuries.

The Bible doesn't say anything about a ton of stuff that is against the law or morally wrong. It's not exhaustive. It's meant to teach you how to fish, not provide the fish.As for the beating of the slaves, God makes the rules. Who am I to question the creator of the universe on some of his minor policies and ordinances? It's not like everyone wanted to kill their slaves, since then they wouldn't have a slave anymore. This happened like twice, and I'm in no position to comment on the state of the Jewish culture from 2000 BC to 1500 BC.

[fighter]

brvheart, on 20 May 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

The Bible doesn't say anything about a ton of stuff that is against the law or morally wrong. It's not exhaustive. It's meant to teach you how to fish, not provide the fish.

That is fantastic deflection when talking about dinosaurs or other subjects that are completely void in the bible. However this subject is discussed in at least two different book in both new and old testament. Lets use your analogy of teaching a man to fish. If I tell you what sort of fishing rod you should use, the type of bait, where you should fish and what sort of fish you should catch. How would you be able to argue that I am anti fishing? If you asked me what sort of bait you should use , I would answer "you shouldn't fish". As to the second part, If god thought it fit for us to own slaves as long as you treated them with gentleness, love, and forgiveness, why are you questioning it?

[brvheart]

fighter, on 20 May 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

That is fantastic deflection when talking about dinosaurs or other subjects that are completely void in the bible.

What the hell are you talking about?I didn't say anything about dinosaurs and I'm doing the exact opposite of "questioning it". You should probably want me to start questioning it, since that's what most of "your kind" would say in that spot.

[fighter]

brvheart, on 20 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

What the hell are you talking about?I didn't say anything about dinosaurs and I'm doing the exact opposite of "questioning it". You should probably want me to start questioning it, since that's what most of "your kind" would say in that spot.

Your right, you never mentioned T-rex, I was noting the technique of saying something along the line of "Just because the bible doesn't mention the dinosaurs, doesn't mean that the bible isn't accurate". Specifically the 'It's not exhaustive' mention.

brvheart, on 20 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I'll wait with bated-breath until you provide the reference that tells Christians that slavery is fine. I can hardly wait.

So you object to me saying that slavery is fine.However you don't object to me saying 'god thought it fit for us to own slaves as long as you treated them with gentleness, love, and forgiveness'.So the problem with my first post is that it brushed too wide of a stroke? That only certain types of slavery are moral?