1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Religious Sanctuary Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by _Darth_Brooks_, May 14, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cydonia

    cydonia Jedi Knight star 5

    Jun 6, 2001
    Non religious sanctuary is just that. If one doesn't like what's in there, one shouldn't read it. Why would a good christian want to go there, anyway? Going slumming with all the secular satanic forces? For all the wonderful stuff religion has done for many people, there is always a flip side. Religion scars as much as it saves. Anyway, it's one little thread. Who needs sanctuary from one little thread with only a handful of regular posters? If it bothers you that much, just ignore it. Why torture yourself? Anyway, I said i wouldn't post here and i'm breaking my own promise, so i apologize for that.
  2. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Emperor's Foot,

    Kindly enroll in ethics and morality 101, then you'll have some clue as to where I'm coming from. Assuming you can get through the class, you'll read my comments in a whole different light.

    I'll hand it to Dark-Side that while we may be at diametrical odds, obviously he at least has enough of an education to catch where I'm basing my philosophical presentation. He apparently understands at least rudimentary epistomology, whereas I've every reason to believe at best you think it's the study of urine.

    Dark-Side came at me from a stance of thin logical positivism, because he did recognize what you still do not.

    You sir are not dim, as you call me, no indeed, by comparison you haven't even been lit.

    Try Kant, if the class doesn't offer a sampling, and discuss the necessary supports for a logical morality, one that doesn't self-destruct itself, much as Sarte philosophically did to his life's work when he signed the now infamous treaty.

    But then you probably wouldn't catch the significance of his downfall; one signature on a document protesting inhumanitarian actions was the philosophical undoing of all his atheistic treatise. Do you know why?

    Try reading some of Bertrand Russell's philosophical treatments on atheism, so that you have some real notion what exactly atheism is besides,"God doesn't talk to me so I don't believe."

    Just in case you don't know, Russell is one of atheism's hall of famers.

    What's interesting is that you prove my very words, exhibiting only enough restraint to try and keep yourself from being banned.

    You call me a "coward", while you hurl invective, and between breaths protest how you aren't flaming me. Oh, you're a brave and honest one are you not? Yes, full of integrity.

    I'm not running from you, I'm just not wasting my time on someone who doesn't recognize some of the most basic philosophical constructs dealing with examinations of morality.

    You don't have the faintest clue why you believe what you believe other than dear old mummy and daddy said so. You haven't a hint as to what constitutes rationally supportable ethics. No introspection on your part, only shear visceral unrealized existentialism.

    What you don't grasp is what I've actually said, not what you perceived me to say. That won't make any sense to you either, I know.

    But I'm not in here to teach a course. Get it on your own.

    When I say an atheist cannot be moral, you think I'm saying atheists are 'bad'; You are completely off base and wrong.

    Atheism proper prevents an atheist from being 'bad' or 'good' in it's ramifications.
    Those become arbitrary terms devalued to relativistic subjectivism.

    I did say from the standpoint of the philosophy of the great faiths that atheism is immoral, because that is what the great faiths state in their doctrines. But again, you don't understand the depth, viewing it all very superficially.

    That's why philosophers debate.

    Because it's not as simple as you misconstrue it to be.

    That's why I'm not at all interested in debating you.

  3. cydonia

    cydonia Jedi Knight star 5

    Jun 6, 2001
    I'm a bit confused, is this a sanctuary thread or a debate thread? If it's the former, it's poor form for non religious types to even be here( i guess this includes me). They have given us that respect in the non religious sanctuary thread, let's give 'em this.
  4. The_Emperors_Foot

    The_Emperors_Foot Jedi Youngling star 3

    Jul 16, 2000
    Wait, wait, wait... It's not the study of urine?
    Why didn't you say so earl---
    Great. 'Cause every time someone came up to me on the street and asked me, "Hey, what's rudimentary epistomology?" I've told them, "It's the study of urine, you idiot."
    Just perfect.

    "Mummy and Daddy?" What the hell are you talking about? Not my point at all... My point was that I do not at all like the idea that religion is always better than any other option. ALWAYS. My point was that one person may choose to say, "This is how to bring up a child. Read this book, follow each instruction, and do not deviate or improvise. Ever." If people listen to that person, great. But what about those brought up by flesh and blood people, who are not just a table decoration when not bringing up their child. I would actually think it silly to honestly say that a book would surely do a better job in teaching morals than two people. Also, there is no proof, obviously, that God Himself dictated the Bible, and that whole story, so He might've, or He might not've. If the latter is true, then it's completely plausible to say that a rich and famous family of four wrote the Bible at their dinner table sometime in mid-July, and it's just as safe to say a homeless opium-addict wrote it. So this is where I begin to take offense at some things, like telling me that my parents' raising me, and myself as the final product, can and will never come close to the definitive say in all things - a book written by and 2,020 year old homeless opium addict. Perhaps now you may begin to see what I was getting at? Then again, you didn't read it...

    And I was flaming you, but I wasn't trying to hide it. I thought it was painfully obvious, as I had intended...

    And no, I do indeed understand exactly what you're saying, and the depths from which you're saying it from --- I just don't and never have liked the fact that where ever I posted, long before I saw you pop up, there were threads like this, where someone could just get away with all of the comments you made, because it's about atheism, which can be mutualy exclusive at times, granted. What I was upset about - and like I said, this has happened to many before this thread - is that once the word "atheism," which has no defined teachings, specific guidelines, or codes instructing one in what IS and IS NOT right, is exchanged with "Christianity," or any other major world religion for that matter, the whole tone of the debate will change, because such religions do have followers and staunch believers that will inevitably shout, "All right, now you've crossed the line!" when something is said that they just don't like to hear, when all I had done was ask them a similar question to the one I was asked, or made a similar comment. I've only come across one Christian on these boards that was mature and understanding enough that he understood exactly what I was pointing out, and he never got offended, under those circumstances. That is the kind of attitude I respect and look for in someone. But, no; I'll make such a comment, it will immediately be interpreted as bashing on my part, and then the entire thread will proceed to go straight to hell. And guess who gets blamed for the mess? You got it - me! I even posted a giant disclaimer, in all bold, at the very forefront of the message posted in the other thread that said exactly this, but you saw how that ended up, as it always used to, as well. But I am a bit disappointed that even you didn't take the time, Brooks, to read the message in it's entirety, but instead only ASSUME I've got nothing better to do in the SENATE FLOOR (used to DEBATE) than go around starting trouble. It's those attitudes that result in my being reprimanded. If I were to just use the word "atheism" instead of anything else, then nobody would probably hear a thing about it, and that's what my problem was. It was not with you, as you seem to be taking it. It's rather with how things never seem to change around here, even as all of the faces
  5. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    Hi all, I have finally found a thread where I can discuss why my religion is right without expecting any debate!! I can also bash atheism on this thread and anyone who responds will be labelled a subversive!! Wonderful!! But before I discuss my religious sanctuary type stuff, I notice an off-topic bashing of atheism, which I would have thought would be the farthest thing to be discussed in a religious sanctuary.

    The intrinsic intellectual dishonesty in atheism is easy to spot; being that they assume there is no proof for deity so they then proceed to intellectually contridict themselves by asserting their belief in no deity is rational when there is no proof that there isn't deity. It's really a flimsy construct at best. They assert that disavowel of deity has the single greatest merit of "truth", while they cannot positively ascertain that it is the "truth."

    This guy, _Darth_Brooks, although obvously trying to sidetrack the thread from its "Religious Sanctuary" direction, sure did a good job of stating the atheist position and then knocking it down! And in a thread wherein a debate is restricted. Wonderful idea...

    I'm gonna start a thread where no one can debate my position. Yeah! I'm gonna call it "Mr_Bunny is gonna burn down _Darth_Brooks' arguments (in Strawman form) - Sanctuary Thread" and then I'm gonna paraphrase all of his arguments in the first half of a sentence and tear into that paraphrase in the second half of that same sentence, being sure to mention that they are "a flimsy construct at best". At least my thread would be correctly titled.

    Err, wait, that wouldn't be moral.

    Pedophile priests are representatives of their religion... is this situation much different than the indicated immoral atheists whom impacted _Darth_Brooks' life?

    _Darth_Brooks... if the children molested by priests followed your path, they would have to become atheist, wouldn't they? Immoral representatives of a belief system have been identified, so the opposite belief must be right. That is the direction you have taken with your personal encounters with atheists.

    Oh, and a point about your strawman, quoted up above... atheists do not have a belief in "no deity". They have "no belief in diety". Much like you have no belief in the Great Bunny. You don't have a belief that there is no Great Bunny. Because how could you have a whole belief system based on the non-existence of something? That would be silly. Yet you state that as the position of the atheist?

    You tell other posters to do more research before chiming in on your thread, yet you got atheism wrong. Go [link=]here[/link] if you want to actually learn something about the atheist position. You've already shown that you don't know even the basics. Or did you just mis-state the atheist philosophy for some reason? Usually it is the classic straw man argument. Are you up to the moral level to look into this and address it?

    The first article on the above link is a discussion on the definition of atheism, throughout the recent century, which you have mis-represented.

    You seem to have quite an interest in the subject, and to continue on in your lectures without correctly representing the atheist philosophy would be a waste, and immoral.
  6. Appan_Parsu

    Appan_Parsu Jedi Youngling star 2

    Aug 11, 2001
    Religion is something to beleive in, even a athist has beliefs, something to abide by, a rule of life.

    It is when different beliefs and rules clash that there is major problems, (for example) some may call me completly 'Wacko'. As I don't believe in a god or gods, but the 'living force', not totally in the sence of star wars.
  7. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Emperor's Foot,

    Obviously you are not going to respect the basis for which this forum was initiated. You obviously don't respect a persons right to the freedom to have different ideas and opinions from yourself, or their own space to express and explore those opinions.

    Reread the very first post in this thread, starting with;

    "Equal space, equal expression.

    I've observed that there was a perceived interest and need for some forum members to open and inhabit a forum thread called a "Non Religious Sanctuary," so it only seems logical that there must likewise be a need for those who are religious to have a sanctuary, a counterpart and counterpoint to much of the commentary directed against religious thoughts and perspectives."

    That being the case, allow me to ignore logic and history and foolishly ask you to extend enough respect to refrain from posting until I can address some of your comments. It appears you will force yourself upon me until you get your way.

    Just out of curiosity are you an only child?

    All you have to do is wait until I respond. When will that be? When I am able. I have obligations in the real world that only afford me limited time in this forum.
  8. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000

    May I call you by your first name, Easter?

    Thank you for joining the discussion, now we can put to rest the fallacy that you are only a faery tale, and some of the weaker uses atheists have put your good name to in their attempts in some defences.

    Now, if we could only get The Almighty to stop by and put the concerns of the atheists to rest once and for all.

    What do all your posts in this thread say about your personality and social skills? Really. Well, you won't concede a word I have to say so what's the point.

    Here's how it goes. Were I to attempt to "debate" I would be inundated with more posts than I could possible reply to, and continuously sidetracked in my defence for that very reason. Mob mentality.

    It's not that I cannot put up a reasonable defence, it's that I'd never actually be respected enough to be given that opportunity.

    Perhaps, you could appreciate the truth of my statement. It's precision has already been proven twice now in the last couple of days.

    As it stands, many of your comments indicate that you don't have a firm grasp on what Christianity actually is and is not. How could I possibly make my points when you aren't familiar with even some of the most basic tenets and concepts?

    How do we even cross that hurdle?

    Now, who do I respond to? You or Emperor's Foot?

    Already, you both have intruded into an area you've been asked to stay out of by a mod, what does that logically imply about I could expect in a discussion/debate with you?

    I took the time to make a somewhat lengthy reply to your first post in this thread, but didn't post it for a couple of reasons. But, it was my time and energy. For the sake of attempting to stay true to my purposes here, and OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOU, I refrained from posting. RESPECT? Yes, because I thought it would have very unfair to post those comments where you couldn't reply to them.

    I could have posted the "last word" in a response while insisting you stay out of this thread. "Having the last word" isn't that important to me. And, it's certianly not because you've somehow intellectually overwhelmed me with your razor sharp repartee.

    If you would like, I can post it later. Your call.

  9. The_Emperors_Foot

    The_Emperors_Foot Jedi Youngling star 3

    Jul 16, 2000
    Just a few things:

    "You obviously don't respect a persons right to the freedom to have different ideas and opinions from yourself, or their own space to express and explore those opinions."

    And you show your respect in this area by trying to keep atheists from even defending themselves? How could you not see the utter DISrespect in this? I seem to remember that at one time in American history, blacks were turned away, hated, abused physically and mentaly, a so many more terrible things were done that it would be impossible to list them. I'm sure you won't deny this, correct? Blacks then were not aloud to stand up for themselves, because they were looked at as scum, incapable of any intelligent thought. Are you going to tell me that this was the right thing to do? You've demonstrated that you have no qualms in doing just the same thing, and it appears that you don't even realize that sad fact! When blacks were finally given the arena to defend themselves and have their opinions at least considered as valid, and as coming from a human brain, we finally saw that they were just the same as anyone else, and again, will you agree? In fact, aren't there blacks that are smarter than whites, or other minorities? OF COURSE, because race has nothing to do with ANYTHING! Can't you see that you were the first person here to wrong someone else by not letting even one person defend a whole people?

    "Just out of curiosity are you an only child?"

    I don't see what that would change...? Do I sound like an only child? No, actually I have a younger brother. How does that influence anything, though?

    "Now, if we could only get The Almighty to stop by and put the concerns of the atheists to rest once and for all."

    I know, isn't that odd? You'd think it'd be easy and not a burden for the Lord to come back to earth. Just think of all the events that He could've easily saved, solved, fixed, put to rest, and prevented throughout history, that would've made the world a better place and one without such frivolous disputes! But no, He let those easily-remedied or preventable events happen, despite the consequences they have had on generations and generation of innocent people, who weren't even around at the time of those events.

    I mean, it's almost as it He doesn't even exist, doesn't it...? But that's not an arguable topic anyways, because all the righteous and knowledgable people KNOW He exists, and questioning them would just be nutty!

    "It's not that I cannot put up a reasonable defence, it's that I'd never actually be respected enough to be given that opportunity."

    And who are you to say that that is not the very problem atheists have? You can't defend yourself because you wouldn't be considered, while the atheists can't because your just sick of hearin' 'em yap. That's certainly dignified.

    "...I thought it would have very unfair to post those comments where you couldn't reply to them."

    Well, I for one would be quite interested in reading those thoughts, and would like to see them posted. Because had you, perhaps you would've shown the atheists that they were in err, if your comments were of such stature as you say they were. But no, you'd rather just let the arguments, which I thought you wanted to end, continue to come pouring in...

    It's quite convenient that such damaging points, as you've insinuated they are, are the ones you don't post... You'd rather keep posting weaker arguments? Perhaps you could explain the logic in that one, as well...?
  10. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Emperor's Foot,

    You are now repeating yourself, having come to the end of new thought? forcing me to endlessly reiterate myself. This is old already.

    You said,"And you show your respect in this area by trying to keep atheists from even defending themselves?"

    Do you realize how absurdly fascist are the undertones and implications of that statement in the proper context of this thread's purpose?

    The atheists have the entirety of the NON RELIGIOUS SANCTUARY TO AIR A DEFENSE IF THEY WISH.

    (I show my respect by allowing them that space without harrassing incursions or attempts to invade it, according to the inplications of the thread's title[emphasis on word sanctuary]. In this way I have shown far greater respect than I have received.)

    Will you now demand that all Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues be forced by Federal
    Law to allow you equal time in their respective Sanctuaries to cram your views down their respective members throats?

    Here is true unfairness and bias: I respect that atheists have a "sanctuary", which according to Webster's means a place set aside for them, where I do not post comments. Never once.

    In that thread is virtually unabated Christian bashing. Now, when a theist tries to present a view from their perspective,defending their faith, in their own dedicated thread it just eats you alive. There's a word for that, you know the one.

    You have every ability to post in that thread undisturbed and uninterrupted, or to initiate a new thread dealing with this or virtually any other subject.

    What part of this do you not comprehend?

    You expess doggedly that you believe in notions of fairness and equal rights, yet you refuse to give me equal treatment.

    If you can't get through this much how do you realistically expect me to take you seriously on your challenge for a philosophical debate?

    Ask agent provocateur Dark-Side to give you a crash course on where I'm coming from philosophically in regards to morality and ethics.

    If inclined to engage in debate it will be with Dark-Side, as he has exhibited a familiarity with the ramifications of this subject.

    I don't owe you an explanation. I don't have to justify my beliefs or opinions to you. I don't have to debate you. You don't have the right to force yourself on other people, which is exactly what you are doing. Call it intellectual rape, because that's what it is tantamount to, yet you don't recognize that as a moral evil?

    Well, of course not, atheism has no moral guidelines. Which has been my contention all along. Atheism is not moral.

    I've already asked for a handbook outlining atheism's definitive set of ethics. No one has presented the title.

    I on the other hand, do have a set of ethics that I can give title to, it's called The Holy Bible.

    All things in reality are not equal, are they?

  11. Ariana Lang

    Ariana Lang Jedi Youngling star 5

    Oct 10, 1999
    :[face_sigh]: So much for it being a sanctuary.
  12. The_Emperors_Foot

    The_Emperors_Foot Jedi Youngling star 3

    Jul 16, 2000
    If I am repeating myself, it is because some of your answers, whether intentionally or otherwise, sidestep the question or isn't answered at all.

    "Will you now demand that all Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues be forced by Federal
    Law to allow you equal time in their respective Sanctuaries to cram your views down their respective members throats?"

    I think you already know the answer to that - OF COURSE not! That is completely absurd and not even possible, and there is no way I could possibly accomplish that if I wanted to. And besides, Federal Law would probably enforce those religious groups' rights to their freedom of speech and freedom to practice their religion of choice, and because atheism is NOT a religion but rather the LACK of it, then they win by default, basically.

    "In that thread is virtually unabated Christian bashing."

    This clearly shows that you have NOT been to that thread, or read many of the posts, and surely not each score of pages. If you had any knowledge of what goes on in that thread then you would realize that CHRISTIANS AND ALL OTHERS ARE WELCOME, AND THEIR POSTS ARE READ. However, the members of that thread ask them not to just show up to preach about how they are going to heaven, and we to hell. What we want is SUBSTANCE and an answer outside of what they merely found in a book; we want to know why we are such bad people, what makes atheism evil and the followers themselves anti-Christs, even though apparently can't grasp that last one IMMEDIATELY CANCELS ITSELF OUT. We don't go about hating a god which we do not think exists!

    We look for deeper answers with more understanding than the typical, "Everything I say is true, because it's in the Bible." Most offer nothing further than that. That is what we tell them not to post. Again, perhaps you should look into the various topics you're trying to debate; that's always a good way to start.

    "You expess doggedly that you believe in notions of fairness and equal rights, yet you refuse to give me equal treatment."

    I think you've perhaps overdone it a little that time. How have I "refused you equal treatment" in a way that you have not thrown back onto me?

    "Call it intellectual rape, because that's what it is tantamount to, yet you don't recognize that as a moral evil?"

    That's funny, 'cause I think I've been hearing some stuff about real rapes occuring somewhere in the Catholic churches...

    "I've already asked for a handbook outlining atheism's definitive set of ethics."

    Again, you already know that there is not such a "handbook." Basically, I and other atheists can grasp and follow the idea of "_____ = Good, ______ = BAD," without needing a book to scare it into us with stories of hell, and other such tactics... I know what will hurt someone physically as well as emotionally, so therefore won't do things of that nature. I understand what will impact a person or a group of people financially, and therefore I do not steal... These things are not as hard to grasp as you seem to think, and atheists do not lack human emotions that will help everyone make better decisions, either. We also subscribe to common human decency, which does not tell us that we are better than others, it is perfectly alright and justifiable to discriminate, such as the case of homosexuals, and we do not take literally the obvious parables that the Bible consists of. Understand?

    "All things in reality are not equal, are they?"

    No, not in reality. To step outside of that and hold yourself as superior and above all other people or ideas on the sole basis of a book which contains countless "facts" that have been disproven on the basis of ACCURATE SCIENCES AND PHYSICS of this planet is completely shameful. You can become so arrogant and ignorant of others, and commit disgusting acts such as discrimination, and then feel justified? That is so twisted and blind, it's tragic.
  13. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    If brevity is the hallmark of genius, you're the resident Einstein. ;)

    You summed up in a handful of words what I've been trying to say in multiple posts.

    Btw, like your signature. I hadn't noticed it before. Pretty cool.
  14. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Emperor's Foot,

    What you consider "substance" and what a Christian considers "substance" are two different things.

    You want something substantial.

    There is a Hell.

    If true, there's not much of anything else more substantial wouldn't you say?

    I mean if there is an eternal destiny as the vast majority of people on planet Earth believe, then your choices in regard to it will be the most important decisions of your life.

    What does Christianity affirm? Exactly that, such that every time a Christian has warned of a Hell, you've ridiculed. Because to you it has no "substance."

    From a Christian's stance you are your own worst enemy.

    Let me tell you, I know for a fact God is real.

    I was an agnostic until the age of 27.

    I believe in the Holy Bible not because I read it and decided it was true just for the heck of it and for no particular reason.

    Nope, I didn't have someone take me to a Church and run to the alter out of fear. Not at all.

    I believe in the Holy Bible because I met Christ Jesus. Once I met Him, there was't much of a rational way for me to disbelieve in his existence.

    So, while I can engage in endless debates, and were I not knowledgeable enough to defend myself, even if I were mentally retarded, and lost every intellectual debate I engaged in, that would only be my intellectual handicap, not disproof of God.

    Would you consider it patently absurd of me to argue against the very existence of your loving parents? What if we did, and I intellectually did a rope-a-dope on you, and soundly defeated you by every standardized requirement applied to an academic debate...
    would your parents then not exist?

    Would it be proof to you if I won such a debate that that they aren't real? Would you nolonger believe in them?

    Would I then be justified in proclaiming that you aren't intellectual because you believe they exist?

    Can I state rationally that because I've never met your parents that they aren't real?

    Why do you believe your parents exist?

    Really and truly, answer that one question: Why do you believe your parents exist?

  15. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    For some people there can be no proof.

    If they see Christ, then they'll assume they had a bout with temporary insanity.

    If they hear of someone else who's met Christ, they'll say the person is insane or a liar.

    If a group of people see Christ, then someone will claim it's mass hypnosis(btw, there is no such actual phenomenon).

    If someone comes back from the dead, then someone will dismiss the words as illusory, from oxygen deprivation to the brain.

    Christ said before the Crucifixion, If one were to return from the grave, still people wouldn't believe. Then, He returned from the grave. The most significant event in human history, bar none.

    Here I am, someone who has encountered Christ both singly and with a large group. The media covered the large group. Did the voice of tens of 1,000's of eye witnesses in 1992 get taken seriously? No.

    There is Biblical prophecy in our news media headlines, but it goes unrecognized.

    If you want to know if Christ is who He said it's so simple it's hard for most people.

    Or, you may just want to destroy a truth others know and that you do not want to know.

  16. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    Agreed, I read the title to the thread expecting to see a Religious Sanctuary, but instead it became "a mis-stating of atheist philosophy and discussion of atheism' thread in the first post. Then it became a debate about the merits of having a mis-labelled atheism bashing thread which disallows debate in the Senate Floor. The author should just put up a web-page rather than expect to place some poorly thought out diatribe on a discussion forum and expect not to engage in a discussion.

    Instead of following that path, let's talk morality...

    _Darth_Brooks, you state that the Holy Bible is your only guide to morality... I am interested in the exact date that you assume the first moral person came about, using that logic. Did the Apostles have morality, even though the Bible as you read it was not compiled until long after they wrote their parts? Was the King James Version of the bible enough for creating a moral person? What if there were just a couple translation errors? Does that mean no moral person resulted from reading the KJV?

    How about someone who is illiterate? No chance for them to be moral. How about someone that reads every word of the bible except for one psalm? Is he still a moral person? How bout they skip two psalms?

  17. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    No, it was aprecise stating of atheist 'philosophy', although 'Dark-Side(you, isn't it?) earlier said the atheists have no philosophy.

    If God is real, then my words are precisely true.

    God is real.

  18. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Mr. Bunny,

    The purpose of the Bible is to bring people into a personal relationship with Christ. God has relationship with illiterate people.

    The morality existed from the earliest pages of the Torah, and before that the Biblical account assures us God was involved at all times.

    The earliest date for man. I don't know precisely. I am not interested in getting into evolutionary apologetics at this time.

    The plate is full enough as things are at the moment.

    As for the historicity of the Bible, that is also a broad subject. I can certainly recommend some books if you are truly interested.

    There is no problem with the compilation of the standard Bible, nor has there ever been, excepting with those who take history and try to put their own spin on it. I debated the events of the council's of Nicea and Trent with someone not too long ago. I really don't care to get into that right now.

    My topic of interest is atheism, not Christian apologetics proper, or dispelling many of the more prevalent modern folklore surrounding the Holy Bible itself.
    The only controversy is manufactured controversy by those whose agenda it is to attempt to overturn the legitimacy of scripture. They haven't succeeded in over 2,000 years, and I find it unlikely someone in this forum will be able to do so.

    Did the apostles have morality? Were the apostles with Christ? Did the apostles have copies of the books now referred to as the Old Testament? Yes to all.

    Did the morality of the Old testament change with the New? Not at all.

    As Christ said, I came not to take away the commandments, but to fulfill them.

    Btw, Mr. Bunny, your sarcasm was very weak. But it once again reveals the limited knowledge and grasp you have of The Holy Bible and Christianity.

    If you want me to respond, then you need to give some respect to get some respect. I won't again respond to such thin ridicule that it obfuscates it's own attempted point.

    You want to talk civilly, cool. If not, then don't bother posting.

  19. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    alias "Mr. Bunny,"

    Do you understand the philosophical ramifications and importance of the First Commandment in it's relationship to all the subsequent Commandments( not suggestions)?

    To discuss morality from the Christian perspective( which I deduce is your purpose going by your 'questions' regarding the Bible), you have to have a grasp of What the Commandments are and how they were outlined.

    It's a perfect moral outline. (Even if you don't believe they were condescended from divinity to humanity, then the human author was one sharp cookie that no one in all the rest of humanity has yet been able to philosophically defeat. That's how strong it is. And not simply,"Because I say so". There's a reason.)

    All of these debates are based on the strength of that reason involving the 1st Commandment.

    But do you know why?
  20. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Adjuncted Comments;

    If newspaper states an atheist is a pedophile, it will shock no one on the grounds the perpetrator was an atheist, but only that such a crime occured.

    If you say a priest is a pedophile, it's a double shock. Why? Because of the public realization and perception of what priesthood represents.
    Because in the overwhelming concious of society everyone implicitly understands that a preist represents morality, MORALITY BY ASSOCIATION WITH DEITY. Whereas that attribute in connotation is not widely recognized in its application to atheists.

    The word atheist basically means 'against God.'

    God is generally representative in the majority of most peoples minds with morality and ethics. Even in the minds of many atheists, hence, is the problem with such concepts as eternal punishment in the minds of many atheists.

    The flimsy construct is that because there is a warning regarding eternal damnation, the whole Christian system is flawed and steeped in fear.

    That's certainly a misapplication of a principal.

    Everyone's parents warned them of punishment for certain behavior. This was a prevalent lesson. Damnation is punishment.

    All of society's laws are based on Intolerance firstly, not tolerance.
    There are not lengthy penal codes describing every action a person is allowed to make. The Penal Codes are based on the intolerance society has, in the form of laws, for certain actions, and the warning of the punishment received for infractions breaking those laws. damnation is punishment.

    In the work place we are given conduct code books. If the the conduct codes are violated the violator's employment is terminated. That is the punishment.

    "Discipline is not the enemy of enthusiasm."

    A garden loses it's beauty if the weeds are not pulled and the plants not cultivatively pruned.

    Wisdom is it's own reward.

  21. The_Emperors_Foot

    The_Emperors_Foot Jedi Youngling star 3

    Jul 16, 2000
    "What if we... defeated you by every standardized requirement applied to an academic debate...
    would your parents then not exist?"

    First let me say that I find that to be a most excellent point, Brooks. I had not thought of it in exactly that way, and I'm not above admiting such.

    However, the existence of my parents can be proven. As of now, they are alive and can be seen, touched, and confirmed as fact, if only for those few reasons. If they were to die, then there would still always be some sort of physical remains. DNA from a single strand of hair could be used, as well as things such as fingerprints. Unfortunately this is not so for any god. If He could be proven to exist, He most likely would've been long ago, and we wouldn't be having these sorts of debates today. As we evolve our technological and scientific abilities, we only discover things that would actually disprove His existence. Any religion, of the past, present, and future is admitedly based on faith, and almost exclusively on faith. Faith is the belief in something of which we have no proof.

    Also, when you "met God," there is no possible way for you to show that you had not slipped in the bathtub and hit your head. Ever used drugs? Because many will also produce voices in your head, or feelings of "awakening." I'm not saying that you did either of these things, but I'm only pointing out that in order to believe your story, one could only have faith that you are telling the truth.

    My parents, as the animals that they and we all are, produced me in order to further the human species, just as all animals do. There is simply no other way, and we all understand this, and recognize it as fact. What the Bible does for us is explain the origin of human life itself. People will always fear, or at least wonder about things they they cannot understand, and would very much like to. If the civilized and advanced thinkers that we are today still cannot prove how people came into being, what the hell chance do you think people 2,000 years had when trying the same thing? They wanted an answer, and one was given to them: "There is a big guy sitting way up high, who has special powers. That's the guy that made us, and here's how..."

    The Bible, just as the other religious scripts do, gives answers to the most complex questions about the world, human potential and our powerful emotions, and the meaning of life itself, as well as how to achieve a valuable and enjoyable life. These types of books serve to calm our natural fears of the unknown, and just concentrate on what is going on here, and now.

    I do not denounce the purpose of any religion, nor do I find those purposes anything to scoff at or hate. I understand that many people need to be comforted and feel as though they are part of something bigger, for all different reasons, just as I understand that other individuals do not. My only complaint about religion comes when one of them is used to ridicule or invalidate others. I do not like that faith-based ideas are used to justify questionable ends, or serve to alienate not another belief, but the believers themselves.

    I do not appreciate when a good and helpful concept such as religion is considered the only way things should be looked upon or done to be done correctly. It insults me as a person, it allows for any of my ideas to be ignored or denounced, and it underminds the original intent of any and all religions.

    Well, I'm happy to see that we may finally have made some progress. At least I hope so.
  22. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    Ah, I thought that having made the statement that morality is only thru the Holy Bible, that you could easily see you overlooked some things... which you showed in your follow-up. I hadn't thought of every human being on the face of the planet now, or in the past, as being autmatically immoral for not accepting Christ as their savior. You seem to have a weird concept of morality which you aren't up tp defending.

    Anywho... Are you familiar with the forums in the link which I posted previously? If atheism is your topic of interest, you will find lots of interesting stuff there. There are a few threads of over 40,000 posts which pretty closely stay on topic and thoroughly discuss atheism's position. Here it is if you want to check it out... [link=]Ag/Ath Forum Guest Link[/link]

  23. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000

    By most of the standards you gave for the existence of your parents I have experienced with the Lord.

    People still debate whether or not Neil Armstrong landed on the moon.

    The fact that people debate God doesn't necessarily imply legitimacy, or that there is no proof for God.

    Keep in mind who and what God would be; Transcendent. If mere empiricism could prove God, then that god would be flawed, and certainly couldn't match the criterion we've been given within the pages for God. In other words he couldn't be God. I have more to say on this by way of explanation, but some is already written in the response to Dark-Side which I haven't posted.

    This is the God, who when asked His name by Moses replied,"I AM that I AM." Think into the vast implications of the tremedously philosophical abstraction. The depth is absolutely and uniquely astounding. It is superlative.

    For God to put himself under the microscope certinly begins to contridict the rational concept of omniscience and transcendence, and even morality. It places God implicitly subjective to man. And that is also a strike in all that is good. For God to prove that He is real is to acknowledge the possility of a lie within the presence of absolute truth and Holiness. For God to be Holy he cannot condescend to the possibility of a lie within Himself, for there is no such possibility and that in itself would be taking place in a falsehood.

    Let me try to illustrate part of what I'm saying with one of the devil's attempts at tempting Christ;"If though art the son of God turn these stones to bread."

    Do you begin to see the significance and depth of that temptation? Firstly, it was to reduce to subservience God, innately an evil action. That is to strike what is holy and defile it, philosophically speaking.

    ***I got some place with my very first post, you just haven't seen it yet. I intend to begin a reiteration, and to explain why Dark-Side lost the debate he demanded with his very first post, by his own words. Later on that. First, I want things cooled down.

    ***Also, give me this much credit. I didn't want to debate, so this is definitely for you, not me. This is expressly against my intention with this thread.

    Had to leave off without completing any of the above.
    Sorry, wanted to go into greater depth to make this as clear as possible for. Gotta go for now. Try to answer after a little while.
  24. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Mr. Bunny, I'm more than up to defending it.

    The truth is that;

    1.)I'm responding to more than you alone.

    2.)You didn't say as much as you thought you did.

    3.)This is really about atheism, but has been subverted from my intentions.( Do I follow your path or mine?)I intend to make some points supporting my initial statements' and showing where( assuming you are secret agent Dark-Side, you lost the very debate you wanted right from the get go logically.)

    4.) You seem more interested in being insulting than in holding a legitimate dialogue.

    5.) The breadth of this subject is vast, and fills countless volumes in every area. I'm not here to write a book, and still there's a lot of length necessary in responding.

    Anyway, gotta go, be back later.

    Mr. Bunny, you still haven't shown me atheism's handbook on moral conduct. So, you really have me at somewhat of a disadvantage. You have an opponent to box, I'm somewhat shadow boxing, eh?
  25. Darth was Mauled

    Darth was Mauled Jedi Master star 4

    Jun 22, 2000
    I thought this was supposed to be a sanctuary thread?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.