 |
|
|
|
June 29th, 2014
08:19 PM ET
Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battleBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] Washington (CNN) – For the Greens, the Christian family behind the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, their battle with the Obama administration was never really about contraception. It was about abortion. After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples. Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA - Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .) “We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.” Evangelicals as a whole may be relative newcomers to that view, but since the 1980s it has become nearly gospel. (The Pew Research Center has a helpful guide to other religious groups' stance.) As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has argued, evangelicals arrived at their current stand on life issues through a combination of factors, including biblical interpretation, moral accounting and political calculus. Others also add the influence of early architects of the religious right and the example of the Catholic Church, which has opposed abortion for centuries. But given the importance of scripture to evangelicals, it's no surprise that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals cite the Bible in the second sentence of their policy stance on abortion:
You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." (You'll also see that verse cited by many Mennonites, so it makes sense that a Mennonite business, Conestoga Wood Specialties, joined a companion challenge to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court.) If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians. In addition to Psalm 139, you'll also hear evangelicals and Mennonites cite several other Bible passages that they believe affirm the sanctity of human life. Genesis 1, for example, says that mankind is made in God's image; the Ten Commandments make murder a crime against God; and Job, the old Testament sufferer, frets about what would happen if he mistreats his servants because:
Again, you see the divine and womb interacting, which is why evangelicals like the Greens so strongly oppose contraception that prevents embryo implantation in the womb. Still, those verses may not be on the Greens' minds after Monday's decision. Instead, Steve Green has said, they'll be thinking about Daniel 3:17-18
« Previous entryHow Muslims flipped the script in Hollywood
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I need to end this madness of spending too much time in these blogs. I have personal projects and more clients to care for now..I bid you all goodbye...God Bless and hopefully you find truth.
Goodbye. I pray you find a better way to communicate than insults.
So long, farewell. You're still full of crap. I'm glad you said you we're born in the 60's. Problem is you're still living in the 60's.
What's getting you mad is gay people want to get married and straight people interest in marriage is waning.
Divorce is like cancer. Everybody knows someone that has had cancer. Everyone knows someone that is divorced.
kermit4jc,
You deserve high marks for your sincerity. Hopefully, you will develop more regard for seeking truth and empathy.
Goodbye.
Kermit,
Even though I cannot disagree more with your opinions regarding religion, politics and other topics, thanks for having the guts to thrash it out. I think these are important arguments to have, and they are not always polite. I can certainly understand though–that you have far more important things to do in your life. Good luck to you.
Ill miss you froggie i do hope you come to understand the truth that your evil god has hidden from you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaK0VPV9NlE
eww, kill it kill it.
disgusting little parasites, dude posting these videos don't help your cause.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=778786392161944&set=vb.102313626475894&type=3&video_source=pages_video_set
Instead of commenting on god or Hobby Lobby. What would YOU suggest to help men and women, young and old in terms of preventing abortions? (Try to limit your answer to the real world, not fantasy)
Teach about all from of birth control and disease protection.
Teach a healthy view of $ex.( this is most likely the most important part.)
Teach responsibility.
If I had a son. I would suggest he have a vasectomy. It can be done so the procedure is reversible when he is ready to raise children.
Absolutely. Education is key in so many situations we find ourselves in. Too many people make sex out to be some nasty thing when they should be approaching it from the realistic side that we're sexual beings and thus those feelings are natural.
I have two daughters. I've told them:
Wait until they're 25 to have children. (give them a chance to mature) and to finish school.
Unglamorize having children (It's hard work)
That being said, If they don't do what I've said. I'll still love them.
On atheism, would you say that a child molester who's feelings were natural (according to he/she) is wrong?
truthfollower01
You constantly say "On atheism". Did you learn English through a correspondence course?
Observer,
As hominems make for weak arguments.
Ad hominems it should have read.
truthfollower01,
In other words, you have no EXCUSE for your poor English.
Can you explain how the statement is linguistically incorrect?
truthfollower01,
Does ANYONE (other than you) say they are "ON Christianity"?
tf: Sorry, the only thing my Atheism speaks to is my disbelief in any god. As for the rest of it, what does it have to do with my comment?
follower
Why do you say "On atheism" like someone else would say He's on heroin?"
There is no "on atheism"...Atheism is simply not believing in any gods. For what someone DOES believe, you'd have to ask them.
As far as a ped0phile...his attraction may be normal or not, that is being studied. Acting on that would be wrong as the child has not reached the age of consent, so it could not be two willing parties.
A pedophile's feelings aren't evil in and of themselves – acting on them is because a child is incapable of giving informed consent. There is no way for someone's whose se/xual attraction is geared to children to act on it without victimizing someone. If you victimize someone – especially someone who cannot defend themselves (like a child) – you will be punished. Even those who believe in God's infinite posthumous wrath for sinners have no problems meting out the harshest of penalties on those who abuse the innocent – as if God's punishment isn't swift or thorough enough.
But think of it this way – there are plenty of people who own guns.
They can sit on their front porch, cleaning and stroking their shotguns; they can name the gun Charlene and talk to it about how many people they're gonna shoot – but until they actually shoot someone, we don't send them to jail or take away their guns. Their violent thoughts and desires aren't evil or punishable in and of themselves – but acting on them certainly is.
Being a Pedophile is on a whole different level. Killing someone is also natural. We don't advocate that either. S3x is natural, we just need to be responsible. We're not cavemen that can kill or reproduce at will.
for once I agree with you! (with exception of abortion as means of birth control) but the best is responsible se x
Real World:
If it has a pulse, DO NOT ABORT!
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/hobby-lobby-the-beliefs-behind-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-3038770
Vic,
So you don't care if your wife, daughter or sister dies from lack of an abortion that would have saved their life.
That's as cold as God killing EVERY fetus.
Don't forget about ra'pe.
You're watching that MTV junk, Vic. That stuff will rot your brain....
The very BEST situation is for someone to only ever be with his wife (which, by the way, is also God's way) ... proper family in place, no worries about disease, no drama, immediate support of the spouse, etc, etc.
noahsdadtopher,
It seems like it would be the best solution. It wasn't completely "God's way". He didn't care much if the couple LOVED each other. He FORCED marriages on some.
noahsdadtopher,
Although h0m0phobes might object, you have good criteria in favor of the marriage of gay couples, too, since they could match those points.
Nice.
I'm sorry but I'm a firm believer of sex before marriage, if you want to marry some one body, mind, and soul your going to have to try learn them all. the last thing you want it to marry some one then find your not physically compatible, this will lead to misery and or divorce.
so if i waited to marriage i would never get laid or married.
marriage is for life you should only get one, i agree with JC on this one issue. so i want to make sure were compatible first.
I'll go a step further, I think you should live together first. I lived with a woman for about 2 1/2 years. You'll learn a lot about yourself as man from the experience. You'll see each other's warts and issues before marriage. (We didn't get married)
you are lazy...seems you wont talk and communiocate with the other..again STATS show that those who live together before marriage ..most of those end in DIZVoRCE! so thus it does NOT work! YOu are leaving out ONE important thing..that is communication..to you..its all about the material....you CAN know someone without having to live with them....you CANM get to know about being se xually compatible by TALKING of it! but no..from what I gather about your posts...you seem you rather b lazy and not talk and "just do it" that's NOT a relationship!
agreed.
@Kermit4junk........................How is that lazy? You can't say we didn't try. It worked for us because we DIDN'T get married. Marriage is a cr'apshoot no matter how it's done. You say talk things out. But things happen that you don't expect or you don't have experience with. So how can you talk about it? You can't possibly cover EVERY situation that may come up before marriage!
Ididnot sayit totally makes it problem fre...ALL marriages have problems..and again...as I said..studies show it DOES NOT WORK! The majority STILL end in dovorce! Thus thatidea is debunked!! and youhave them made each other into a material impersonal thing! yes..THINGS happen..and people have to start ACCEPTING it..there is NO such thing as a perfect spouse!
And without marriage too.
@Kermit...............I went on several websites. As you'd expect, some say it increases divorces. Some say it doesn't increase divorces. Bottom line, it boils down to the couple for the same reasons as it does for people that DON'T choose to live together. It's a crap shoot.
MY position still stands...you people are acting like youre buying cars.....THINGS...rather than people I have done more of searching in years...not a cursory one like you just did..and studies show MORE that it DOEs increase likelihood of divorce! I mean LOOK at the stats TODAY! more than HALf of marriages ending in divorce! That should give SOME idea that "hey, this is NOT working as we thought!" People seem to simplify things too much...as like those who favor living together before marriage.
It boils down to what is best for the couple involved.
And those personal choices are none of anyone else's business.
Your position doesn't have an leg to stand on. Your "research" is questionable at best. How many couples have you talked to? Everybody looks for the "perfect" spouse. You think people get married to people they have doubts about? C'mon. Marriage really is more a business decision. There's nothing you can do married, you can't do single. I'm living proof.
Child before marriage, child after marriage
House before marriage, new house after marriage
Lived together before marriage, still living together after marriage.
Fell in love before marriage, still in love today.
sir..youre living in fantasy world....and as far as myresearch is..I got it through online and books..PLUS I see it in reality! MY family and many fmailies Iveknown over the years (I was born in the 60s) have shown that THEY did NOT have to live with someone before marriage.....why try to "fix something that wasn't broke?" the living together is silely an excuse for people who don't want to make real commitments. FACT is...with exception of two couples in my familu (have a HUGE family on both sides) The older generation has celebrated OVER 50 years of marriage and NOT ONE of them had to live together to get there. I myself had recently celebrated 10 years, cousins of mine celebrated over 20 years...parents of friends of mine from the 70s, all celebrating over 50 years (with excpetion of a few who's spouses had passed away) and NONE of them had to love together. THE FATC is...divorce rate is STILl going up...and thus anyone with a half a brain should figure out that living together is not the way to go...plus the fatc youcalled this a "business deal" shwos your shallow view of what real marriage is...no wonder divorce rates are so high...people have pipe dreams ..oh.and BTW people do get into marriage in this manner –>You think people get married to people they have doubts about? YES! Look at couples with domestic violence...FACTS show that most domestic violence in marriage started LONG before the marriage itself! People need to wake upto reality and stopliving in pipe dreams...the mariages of long ago were great and no one had to "experiment" (granted not all marriages areperfect..but the divorce rate was lower as well)
BTW merely living together does NOT provide stability in the home...especially for children..it is irresponsible of people to do this to kids....
there is know way talking well help you find if your physically compatible its something you have to dive into. what if your to girthy for her and or him, or your to tight.
know i understand if one i disgusted by the thought of oral and the other only gets off on it, that's talk-able, but thing are not that simple. what if their moon disgust you, i personally cannot stand screamers but i love the princess, and that's something we all do subconsciously you have to be their, and if you wait until marriage chances are you want know until your in the moment, i could not stand to be stuck with a screamer for the rest of my life, or some one who is vulgar in bed, "Oh yay fuck my boi pussy" or "eat my Cunt it in my daddy." i need sweet romance in bed, that BDSM shit will always ruin my relationship. the only time i ever walk out on someone was when the person came out in a plushie animal suit.
i don't believe in divorce but those thing well make me wont too
don't get the wrong idea talking is good its the keystone of every healthy relationship, but other stones are needed for the archway, their come a time when you need to get physical and if that stone is week the arch come down just as quick
or the arch is a metaphor for marriage.
sobasically what youre saying is shallow love that does not accept the person wholly...sounds more like youre more interested in the outside.......and as I saidin previous post...people who were married 50 years plus did not need to do this or live together first......REAL love
Where in the Bible is living together specifically prohibited?
does it have to be in the Bible? do you need it spelled out to you? The Bible makes it claer about those who love together are married....are youone f those people who cant figure itout unless it is spelled out to you?
If one is going to use the Bible as the highest authority of mankind, yes, it helps if it were "spelled out."
in other words, you are incapable of figuring it out for yourself? That God did not give you a brain to use?
kermit –
" merely living together does NOT provide stability in the home"
And marriage does not seem to particularly improve the stability. You're aware of the divorce rate, I presume?
"people who were married 50 years plus did not need to do this or live together first"
Do you know any statistics that might support that claim?
I figured youd understand...in TODAYS view of marriage..yes....IM not doing a one thing fix all...I addressed both concerns..please read my posts more thouroughly ok?
kermit – "STATS show that those who live together before marriage ..most of those end in DIZVoRCE!"
In my reply I was considering your comments such as that above. Maybe most of those who live together first get divorced, but I think that same trend also holds true for those who don't live together first.
Frankly, I don't see the increase in the divorce rate as a particular problem. What's wrong with two people recognizing that staying together for the rest of their lives is a bad idea and taking appropriate action? People used to stay together, despite recognizing they shouldn't, based on various societal pressures, and were miserable as a result.
kermie: "are youone f those people who cant figure itout unless it is spelled out to you?"
LOL. You might have an argument if you didn't write like such a dufus.
"kermit4jc
in other words, you are incapable of figuring it out for yourself? That God did not give you a brain to use?"
It is not Biblically supported, therefore all of your ideas are merely personal opinion and not based in Scripture.
I find you to be inbearably rude and THAT is not Biblically-based either.
Pharisee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
just saying 4/5 evangelicals that peach froggies nonsense are divorced.
you want a one hit fix froggy how about a little pride, oh no prides a sin
My suggestion would be to obey God and abstain until marriage. If you must yield to the flesh protect your partner and yourself.
More than half of all marriages fail.
People have wed for Money, citizenship, healthcare.
People wed multiple times. (obviously marriage didn't work all the other times)
Spouses have killed and abused each other.
Marriage DOES NOT mean happiness! (or success)
ALMOST got it right...except GOOD marriage does provide happiness..the problem is...too many people have a deluded sense of what marriage is....they are not as serious as they should be...they all have too high of expectations and a "perfect marriage" means you love the person every single moment and you never argue...HOGWASH! we are humans and love, like any other emotion has its ups and downs...and if one never argues..then they are not letting out their feelings....arguments happen...we can get thru them
PLUS..the majority of marriage where abuse is present had the abuse happening BEFORE the marriage! thus people made wrong decisions to marry the abuser in the first place
Correction/clarification:
"If they weren't happy being single"
RB
"obey God and abstain until marriage"
Abstaining is NOT obeying "god".
The mating instinct is the strongest driving force there is. "God" is constantly screaming at you to have $ex, from the point of puberty.
What you claim is "obeying god" is actually obeying men who claim to speak for god, but in this instance, "god" speaks far louder than the men. Just another instance where your book is clearly wrong.
This is what I think Kenmargo meant by "fantasy". Robert, face it–people are se-xual beings. Those among our ancestors who weren't interested in se-x quickly went extinct, and those who enjoyed it the most had lots of babies–who grew up to be just like mom and dad in that regard.
Now, you can live with your prudish Christian fantasy, and focus more on DIRTY FILTHY NASTY SE-X (which is what I think the abortion battle is REALLY about)–or, if you truly care about human life, you can focus on what works in terms of reducing abortions, and here's a hint–it's NOT abstinence!!! Bill Maher makes this point so eloquently and with great hilarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRqgt-vYUSg
If Christians are truly interested in saving lives, and truly believe that a fetus without any consciousness is the full moral equivalent of a human outside the body, then you would set aside your prudishness and fantasies and go with what is proven to work–and that means birth control and se-x education.
One of the brutal ironies of the Hobby Lobby case is that some women employees of HL may wind up getting abortions because HL didn't want their health plan to offer a form of birth control that worked best for her.
You can also add that Hobby Lobby is now paying full price for birth control because what's the difference between Hobby Lobby giving money to the insurance co. and the insurance co. providing birth control or Hobby Lobby paying it's employees and the employee taking her/his pay and buying the contraceptive. Hobby Lobby is still contributing either way.
your god aborts millions of unborn children a year through miscarriages. He is the master abortionist.
so? He has that right..we dont
One BIG difference between God and women who have abortions:
The women kill unwanted and unloved fetuses
God KILLED THEM ALL.
and there we go again..unwanted and unloved...MyGod you make me sick! you base worth of a human on THAT? Lets go and kill about half the people in this world since they are UNWANTED and UNLOVED! YOu make me sick! such a SHALLOW view of humanity and its worth
and again..GOD has the right to take them all..and take them to be with Him.....why are you so upset of that?
kermit4jc
"and there we go again..unwanted and unloved...MyGod you make me sick!"
Speaking of making people sick:
God KILLED EVERY unwanted fetus.
God KILLED EVERY unloved fetus.
God KILLED EVERY wanted fetus.
God KILLED EVERY loved fetus.
Where is your SYMPATHY for them?
"you make me sick!"
God did it for ANOTHER reason..he TOOK them to heaven..the women couldn't give f**** sorry..comparing apples to oranges
kermit4jc,
We've been through this before.
Great argument in SUPPORT of abortion. Give your fetus a FAST PASS to heaven. That's every Christians dream.
NOT a great argument..its an ILOGICAL argument...again WE are NOT the ones to judge WHEN they should go! WE are nOT the judge of life....that arfuemnt of yours IGNORES that! and thus it is irrelevent
kermit4jc,
Is EVERY Christian's dream to make it to heaven?
Would nearly every Christian like to have an offspring that made it to heaven?
Does God send aborted fetuses to hell?
THINK!
and you STYILL ignore the obvious! WE are NOT the ones to determine when someone dies! WE are nOT God.... only GOD reserves that right...your argument is weak and ignoring other factors....and cause you ignore that its dishonest
Its not MY dream to MAKE it to heaven..I AM going to heaven...and I will go when GOD says its time..NOT when I say..cause I am NOT judge of mY life...nor am I judge of ANYONE elses life in that matter!
kermit4jc
"WE are NOT the ones to determine when someone dies!'
The fetuses don't DETERMINE that. Another bad argument.
WHAT? I didn't say the fetus did
kermit4jc,
Didn't say you did. Your objection to the FAST PASS to heaven was that man could not decide it. That should be IRRELEVENT because it is the fate of the FETUS that is at stake, not how it died.
well YOU implied it was about us as ell...the argument is this...WE are not ones to determine WHEn it is time to go...GOD is the one...thus your argument is not working..
kermit4jc,
lol. PAY ATTENTION. I am discussing what happens to an aborted fetus. How they died should be IRREVELENT since the fetus had NOTHING to do with it. Understand English?
Or does God PUNISH the fetus and send it to Hell because of the mother?
then whats this heaven stuff? I am ALSo referring to the fetus...the woman does NOT have the right to decide when the fetus should die....yyes..the fetus would end up in heaven..but that does not justify the woman killing it
kermit4jc
Since you appear stumped on how God treats fetuses, I'll check back later today.
God takes the babies (fetus) to be with Him in heaven
@Kermit4junk..........Why would you worship a god that aborts fetuses? What if the woman WANTED the baby to be born? You tell women not to have an abortion yet, you give a imaginary man you've never met, seen or heard the authority.
How would you feel if the Devil was responsible for aborting those fetuses?
so we are too muchi nterested in THIS life and screw thehereafter and SCREW the baby who is inheaven now for eternity? come on man....we doNOT get everything we wantin THIS life!! God is NOT a magical genie that gives us every desire! I worship a God who KNOWS whatHe is doing...everything with a purpose...just cause we dpontknow thatpurpose doesn't mmean we cant accept it. Look at parents withkids...they don't give everything to their kids (in general) theygive whatthey NEED..but not EVERY want is granted..and the kids usuallyhave hard time understanding WHY...
Good afternoon, everyone!
God is good!
Indeed He is!
"Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the Lord God is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation."
May he bless you with his Noodly Appendage!
Yes I agree! Thor is awesome!
How can you take Thor over Zeus? Zeus is the only god!
Let's start with the basic. Can you at least show that Thor or Zeus existed historically?
truthfollower01
Let's start with the basic. Can you at least show that God existed historically?
Thor and Zeus together could not hold up a candle to Almighty Lugh
God is good for what exactly, promoting wars?
God is good for imperfect human beings.
How exactly is dementia or Alzheimer's good?
Dementia or Alzheimer's are not good by my standards. We live in an imperfect world. For some reason bad things do happen. Good can come from such things if we accept them for what they are. For me I can see this when I ask God for help.
Sorry, but I don't buy the 'bad things happen' BS. A truly loving and caring god simply would not allow many of the horrible and debilitating illnesses to happen. People do need to eventually perish, but to torture them on their way out seems ridiculously over the top. I would never worship a horrible god such as that
I didn't know you could dictate what a loving God can and can't do. I've suffered from horrible and debilitating illnesses. And have found a loving God present even in my trials.
Dala...of course you can! Any idiot should know that torturing people with illness such as dementia is just plain cruel. Any idiot.
Dala
Quite right, so are crutches good for imperfect humans, obviously you need that crutch, others not so much.
"For some reason bad things do happen"
No, for some reason things happen, and it's up to you to label them bad or good for that is a very personal opinion and depending on the viewpoint can be seen very differently. Good and bad are completely subjective.
There is no shame in needing a crutch when you are imperfect. You have your crutches that must work for you, too?
neverbeenhappieratheist
Those labels are opinions. Not reality.
Dala
Sorry, no crutches needed. BTW I was trying to pin you down on your personal concept of god, care to share?
"Those labels are opinions. Not reality."
Yes, anything labeled "Good" or "Bad" is merely the opinion of the one making the claim. There is no objective good and bad. You would first have to prove your deity exists, then prove you know exactly how that deity feels about everything and everyone to claim you know what is "good" or "bad" objectively.
It is easy to say you have no crutches. How do you manage your imperfect nature?
neverbeenhappieratheist – You're sounding very Taoist today. Reminds me of a Taoist story I heard long ago:
There was a farmer whose horse ran away. His neighbor commiserated only to be told, "Who knows what's good or bad?" It was true. The next day the horse returned, bringing with it a drove of wild horses it had befriended in its wanderings. The neighbor came over again, this time to congratulate the farmer on his windfall. He was met with the same observation: "Who knows what is good or bad?" True this time too; the next day the farmer's son tried to mount one of the wild horses and fell off, breaking his leg. Back came the neighbor, this time with more commiserations, only to encounter for the third time the same response, "Who knows what is good or bad?" And once again the farmer's point was well taken, for the following day soldiers came by commandeering for the army and because of his injury, the son was not drafted.
neverbeenhappieratheist
God has revealed Himself to me. And a set of standards and principles that are above your human labeling system.
Dala....how extremely unfair that god has revealed himself to you but casually ignores the rest of us. Some deity you have there.
I asked, He answered. Have you asked?
Dala...nope. You have to believe first. That's like me asking for Zeus's help. That is exactly how you guys all get sucked into any religion, including satanism. I think us non believers that have no use for a worthless deity should get a free pass on any eternal punishment, especially since we have no need for his services.
Nope. That is not exactly how us guys got sucked into a religion. Nice guess, though.
Yep, that is exactly how guys like you get sucked into any religion. Or drugs. Or alcohol. You are just filling some sort of need in your life. I don't have that need.
Why don't you have that need?
And how do you know I'm filling that need? That need you don't have, so you can't really know what it is. You just are imagining I have a need?
I've seen people get sucked into defending atheism as if it were a religion. Or they get sucked into arguing online about their opinions as if they were facts. The righteousness of some internet posters produces a warmth that acts like a high.
There are many people that confuse belief with proof, but seldom do I see that confusion in the atheist community.
I don't have the need for any deity in my life. I have no spiritual void or any other such nonsense. Instead of you being happy that I am free from such a stranglehold, you want to convince me there is something more. All religions are cults, by definition. I have no use for a cult, but I'm happy for you that you found a cult you like.
I see that confusion in the atheist community. You are the one speculating others have questionable needs. And suggesting that belief in God is the same as dependence on drugs and alcohol. It is fair to suggest you have such needs within yourself.
Dala...,you can suggest all you want, but you would be wrong. Based on your posts, I would suggest you were a condescending p-rick, but I could be wrong.
You can suggest that, too.
You could be wrong. But I would be wrong? Is that a typo?
Nope....no typo. You suggested from my posts that I needed something spiritually. I'm saying, you would be wrong in your suggestion. I have zero need for any of the thousands of gods that have been imagined by man.
I never said you needed something spiritually.
People who have zero need for any of the thousands of gods that have been imagined by man get hooked on things like religion, alcohol, drugs and message boards.
If you are implying I am hooked on information boards you are quite wrong. Just bored at work
In the same way you appear to be wrong about what you imply about others.
I did not say I was right on my a-ssumption of everyone. But I have been right about it on every single Christian I have ever personally spoke with. Or scientologist. Or Mormon. They all have had some void to fill. I have no such void. And if I did, my crutch of choice would probably be alcohol. It's much less destructive than religion.
Atheists also have such voids to fill. That is why they also join religions. And cults. And get addicted to alcohol and drugs. And some do grab crutches to that help them. Not all crutches are bad or destructive.
Your assumption is wrong if applied to me. But if it helps you kill boredom to imagine it does, go for it.
You always say that about atheists, but it is such an insignificantly small amount that join anything of the sort that I fail to understand why you consistently bring it up.
It really doesn't matter to me what your reasons are as to why you have an invisible friend, but whatever the purpose is behind it seems very strange to me.
Why do you raise so much objection if it really doesn't matter to you? Your evidence you provide suggests it does matter to you.
Nope. Doesn't matter to me at all. Just try not to incorporate your beliefs into my secular law and I'll be happy.
But it really does seem to matter to you. It seems too late to deny that.
What is your secular law? And what happens if I try something you don't like? You'll get sad?
Dala....Nope.....really doesn't matter to me at all. Sorry to burst your psycho-bubble, but I really, truly do not care.
Actually, after this rather stupid decision by our Supreme Court that now invokes religion into the basics of secular law, yes....I am sad. Religion is the root of all evil, not money.
Oh...and I do think my original a-ssment of you was correct. You are a pompous p-rick.
Dala
Why do you assume I or anyone else, that does not believe in your bible has an imperfect nature? That is strictly a religious belief that so many now reject. You are judging me by your book of silly, I reject that.
I assumed we all can admit we are imperfect. I've never met a perfect person. Are you perfect?
I'm not perfect, but I know I have no use for an almighty deity that couldn't even strike Hitler with a lightning bolt when he had the chance.
I don't have a use for such a deity, either.
And yet, that is exactly the deity you are worshipping. Go figure.
No it is not.
Dala....I'm sorry. I made the a-ssumption you followed the god of the bible. My apologies.
That is ok. A lot of people assume such things. All I can do is agree, I don't follow that god either you describe.
Dala
You won't mind if I pull one of your favorite tricks. Why does it matter to you if I am perfect, you don't know me? Isn't that the kind of out you usually use?
You haven't provided me any evidence that proves you are perfect. In fact I feel safe to assume you are not perfect. And there are implications to that imperfection I see you possessing.
Dala
Of all the apologist posters on this blog, I admire you most. The others like Topher, Vic and Theo are Christian cowards that when made to look silly simply run away, while you at least hold your own without really revealing anything. Why would you assume I am not perfect in the eyes of my Deity that could be far less picky about human behaviour than your mythical god? How presumptuous of you. May his noodly appendage touch you, RAmen.
dala
You haven't provided me any evidence that your god exists. In fact I feel safe to assume your god does not exist.
I'm not an apologist.
Topher, Vic and Theo are admirable to me because they share in a reasonable manner. And there are some others that disagree with them, but do so in a reasonable manner, too. What they demonstrate is evidence I look at.
I never assumed you are not perfect in the eyes of your Deity. I tried to state in my experience human beings are imperfect creatures. Just because we are imperfect doesn't mean we are not good. The Genesis origin story said God declared the creation was imperfect, but good. In my experience that is true. Human beings have an imperfect, but good nature. Don't take it personal. You asked what I believe.
Dala
You are judging me by your faith/belief standards that I reject, stop please, you do not have that right.
I actually do have that right. Especially considering you ASKED me to express that belief so you can "pin me down" or whatever.
Dala
Enough word smithing for the day. You are doing the twist again. I really didn't ask you what you believe, but what was your personal CONCEPT of god because of an earlier comment you made, oh well. The stock market is about to close and I have some accounts to reconcile, good day.
@ dala: "I asked, He answered. Have you asked?"
sure i did, everytime my southern baptist grandparents decided to put the "fear of god" into my 10 year old body.....trust me my screaming and crying should have moved any "loving god" to make the abuse stop. hint he never did.
i'm not talking about a few wacks on the bum, i mean full on rage induced whatever they laid their hands on beatings.
so where was your god? hope he enjoyed the show sick "blankity blank blank blank".
and you can't tell me god doesn't enjoy watching us humans suffer. he allowed job one of his most devout followers to be tortured to death by lucifer.
"Perfect" is an ideal and as such has no existence in real life. It's concept, not a reality. So any argument started from the premise of "perfect" or "imperfect" is a flawed one in my opinion.
Which war would that be?
start from the year 300 and move forward. religion wasn't spread by peacefully asking whomever meet the invading army to convert; it was done at the cost of billions of lives throughout history.
Topher
All of them, if as you say he is a god of love for his creations there would be war no more. The fact is your evil vengeful god or any of the others do not exist.
ausphor
"All of them, if as you say he is a god of love for his creations there would be war no more. The fact is your evil vengeful god or any of the others do not exist."
God is love. And part of that love is to not make us robots. We have a free will. So wars are on us.
So is there a God or not? You are contradicting yourself. Either there is a God and you find Him "evil" or there isn't ... which is it?
"And part of that love is to not make us robots"
Which would you rather be, a robot or someone tormented for all eternity? I would choose the former, so I wouldn't exactly call the situation as you describe it as "loving".
Topher
I usually don't bother playing your silly word games. Of course there are gods they exist in their religious tomes as do all fictional characters. The god in your book of silly has promoted war and murder from the beginning (read the book). God exists just as any myth but has only power over the believers, so what good is your god to the 5 billion people that believe the stories are BS?
"So is there a God or not? You are contradicting yourself. Either there is a God and you find Him "evil" or there isn't ... which is it?"
He is not contradicting himself at all. What he is saying is that the supposed "God" you present and represent would absolutely be considered evil if all the things you claim your God has done and continues to do were true.
I think it is far better to believe there is no God then to believe that there is one but one that can't seem to do anything for itself or fix things the way an all powerful loving God as described would.
Topher....the answer is....there is no god, but the god if the bible (as well as many of the Greek gods) are cruel and evil.
CHRIS-topher: this loving god that wanted us to have "free will" wouldn't happen to be the same god that didn't want humans to have knowledge of right and wrong?
the same loving god that gives us "free will" to love him..................or burn forever? seriously.
sounds more like he wants ignorant hostages, not free thinking, free willed, educated beings.
"God is love".................. god is imaginary, but I hope you enjoy your fantasy...
Yes, we all know the word "God" is the word "Good" with an "o" removed...
The word "good" comes from the old Norse word "Godr" along with several other relative spellings from around Europe like the Dutch "Goed" and the old German "Guot".
So really, the whole concept of "God" comes from a meaning we have derived to mean "having the right or desirable quality". It would be like calling something that is special "Exclusive" and then assigning that name to your invisible deity you claim personifies that something special, so now you worship a being you call "Exclusive" and then later in history that word gets shortened for ease of use to "Exclu" which gets printed on money and shoved into our Pledge "One nation, under Exclu, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I don't believe in God as just a word. That whole concept of God you describe you have is not my concept. Sorry.
Yes, i'm sure you have applied many more meanings to a mundane word much like millions of music fans in the past assigned new meaning to the word "Madonna" which previously had been reserved for the virgin Mary, but now is synonymous with pointy bras...
Dala
Trying to pin you down here but I do not think it will work. So please state your personal concept of god and why that should matter to anyone else?
ausphor
Can you please state your personal concept of "pinning me down" and why that should matter to you or anyone else?
Dala
It doesn't really matter to me at all but you keep on stating your concept of god, seems to be different from others. If you wish to keep it to yourself why spend all your time on this blog not telling anyone?
I'm not sure what you are talking about. How about you share your personal concept of God and focus on that?
Dala
I have many times stated that I am a modern day Deist and have posted the definition on this blog enough time that you should know it by now. Look it up on the Deism web sight if you care to under definitions. You have a personal concept of god/ra/zeus/FSM that you are unwilling to share, why?
site not sight
I don't have a website that explains my beliefs as a nice packaged answer for you. Nor can I just spit out a reply on demand of what my personal concept of God entails. It is not that simple.
I also know some Deists that do not agree with what that website you reference says. It appears it is not a perfect explanation.
Dal is a classic "not me" christian. You'll never know what he actually believes, just that what you believe he believes is wrong...
I have finished evaluating a sampling of "kermit4jc"'s recent replies:
"because merley letting you die loses the dignity yo uhave a a free"
"USING that in the CONTEXTY of USING the word in certain way..HOW frigging"
"I did OT call you arrogant for not knowing..RED my post again…"
"But she isgoing to TREAT them as if her ownc hild.ever thoughtof that?"
"so OBZVSIOUSLY...you donrt believe in EVER using figurew of speech?"
"YOU STILL are nOT addressing the issue of USGEAGE of the word..IS it being literal or nOT? "
"I di dnOT say it WAS an aqnswer! I said it is STIILL same thing as for with God! yo uare doing hypocricy here",
and have assigned them a value based on reason and logic. This value, using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module, equates to "Comedy Gold".
Sounds about right.
I often imagine him to be a rather short, heavy set male that is foaming at the mouth like a rabbid frog...
I DON'T LIKE SPAM
One of the things that I see evident in nature is the inescapable intense sexual attraction between male and female, a basic instinct; I believe that is by design to secure procreation, hence propagation of life until the end of time. I also believe that we are also equipped with the basic instinct to preserve life, again by design. So, given procreation and life preservation by design, abortion is not what's intended by design, hence unnatural.
There is absolutely nothing indicating any such "design".
life could simply be a natural occurance...no "design" required.
yes.."nature" did this all on her own..with no help....uh huh....such a fanasy....how did it all begin..with no help?
We don't know exactly how it began yet. But, that does not mean that you can run around proclaiming 'some god did it', because you have no absolute proof either.
NO..YOU may not have proof..I DO....and LOGIC also says that all things did not come by itself on its own..and even scientists agree that its not eternal either.....there IS a beginning and it did not magically come about by itself....
Kermit....why do you religious nuts have such a problem with the words 'believe' and 'proof'? You do not have proof. Proof is absolute and verifiable. You simply don't have that. You thinking you do is a delusion. You have a strong belief, but no actual proof. That is such a simple concept to understand, I have no idea why you are having such a difficult time understanding this.
I have no problem with it..it is you who has problem...you claim (or at least imply) proof is only empirical, yet you don't seem to know anything about philosophy..not everything in this universe has been proven with empirical evidence
" YOU may not have proof..I DO..."
No, you do not. You have certain evidence that you have deemed sufficient for YOU. That is not proof. Words have meaning.
"there IS a beginning and it did not magically come about by itself...."
Only the religious claim magic.
We do not know what initiated the Big Bang. Nothing indicates any "creator" or "gods" or any other thing you imagine.
Why have you made an irrational leap from "we do not know" to goddidit?
YOu are the ones who claim magic..something fromnothing..ALL by itself....the Big Bang came about magically....again scientists agree its not all eternal.....it had a beginning...youre the one using magic..not us....God creating things is not magic....
God creating things is not magic? Wow....Kermit, you have officially jumped the shark...
define magic then for us..by all means...what do YOU mean by magic?
and nothing irrational about having a Creator....
God creating things is supernatural – which is semantically equivalent to "magic".
comparing apples to oranges....God doing it (something from something) as opposed to yours (something from nothing)....that's magic..thats fantasy
Kermit....even if your goddidit, he would have had to create something from nothing.
wrong..GOD is something..He brought it out...sheesh....YOU however have something come from absolutely nothing..NOTHING existed and POW...something exists....GOD exists and BAM...something comes into existence...thus we have something from something
No kermit.
We do not know. That does not mean magic. That means we do not know. No one speculates magic. Magic is a term used by the religious, not by science. You are the one that thinks some "god" magically made everything.
It IS irrational to leap to unjustified conclusions like a "creator" since there is no evidence of any such thing.
You then not only imagine this "creator" but then you imagine all of these other things about "him"...you even imagine it is a male, when gender would be ridiciulous if there is only one. (even though even your god says there are other gods)
Men have imagined thousands of gods, and you cannot show any of them are anything more than imaginary.
I NEVER said God is male you fool....You are imagining it....sure..I call God a HE...but that does NOT mean He is aliteral he ...muy Gosh you are so ignorant...I made no leaps..I made good reasoning and all in determining God is real....don't trey to imagine stupid crap about me
You also posit "something from nothing".
What created the Creator?
To deal with the loop of infinite regression, you put an arbitrary cap on the problem by saying that God has always been there – but that God would be "something" existing from nothing.
NOPE....that's to assume God had a beginning...I am referring to things that have a beginning...I don't "put a cap on it" as you say....its logic...God made space and time..He is not from our realm..your argument assumes God is from our real...but if he CRAETED it (to create must mean it did ont exist until it was creatred-duh) then he is NOT from our real,! think about it
Hey kermit the facts eh ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=0
"YOU may not have proof..I DO...."
Such a lying, arrogant statement to make!! Now back it with evidence that can be verified!
You have no more proof than someone believing in Zeus or Odin or any of the other numerous gods does.
I already back it up a number of times...yo ujust too intolerant to see it...sorry..not mY problem...its yours
Ah, the age old strawman of "The Big Bang = something from nothing". Is anybody here actually making that claim?
Lunch....Kermit is...
kermi: Since you seem to have it figured out and all this so-called evidence, why is it you haven't presented your research and studies to be peer-reviewed yet??? The fact is that NO you have not provided anything more than your personal stories and bibical crap...neither of which point to actual evidence supporting your god.
I don't have to..people can od it themselves...this is about having a relationship with God..if people want it..they can go for it themselves..its ALREADY been reviewed by MILLIONS who are Christians themselves! It does NOT need to be written down, though many are in books ..our reviews are done thru personal testimonies done orally...by word of mouth....
@Kermit
A creator god would indeed exist outside the realm in which we inhabit – but it would still be an enti/ty that exists in its own reality/dimension/universe/whatever.
What created the reality in which the Creator fashioned ours?
We still fall onto your arbitrary cap – your God, which is something, exists from nothing – a self created Creator.
It is not created..it existed for eternity...God is not created,...it assumes a beginning...which there is none for the Creator
@Kermit
"It is not created..it existed for eternity...God is not created,...it assumes a beginning...which there is none for the Creator"
And there you just proved my original point –
To deal with the loop of infinite regression, you put an arbitrary cap on the problem by saying that God has always been there.
NOT at all...that's your silly notion and unmerited
@Kermit
Your argument is thus:
Something cannot come from nothing – except God.
Everything has a beginning – except God.
Why? Because God.
The Biblical creation myth is not unique, even as some argue it handily explains the creation of matter, time and energy – so does Orphic mythology.
lol..weak try at correlation....of course there are other creation stories..that doesn't mean NONE are true....as for God being eternal...so what? does that make it false in the way yOU put it? your getting desperate here....youre depending way too much on the scientific method to prove everything (it does not)
@Kermit
Just because your postulate is undisprovable, that doesn't mean it is therefore correct by default.
I again refer you to Russell's Teapot.
I'm not grasping at straws here –
You say that something cannot come from nothing.
But God is something – ergo, God cannot have come from nothing.
You have put a mental block on any further considerations of the loop of infinite regression that comes with the Creator hypothesis by stating, ex cathedra, that God is the only thing that is uncreated.
1)kermie: "YOu are the ones who claim magic..something fromnothing..ALL by itself....
answer: 1st law of thermal dynamics states "that energy CAN NOT be created NOR destroyed" thus energy is eternal.
2)kermie" NOPE....that's to assume God had a beginning...I am referring to things that have a beginning."
postulate: why is it your god doesn't have a beginning, yet the universe had to? hmmmmm
3) "I NEVER said God is male you fool...."
answer: "the father, the son and the holy ghost" 2 are male in name, 1 is well a ghost. lol
4) "empirical: (sounds closer to what religious folks do than a scientist.)
-originating in or based on observation or experience
-relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
-capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4a) proof:
-the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
-the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
-something that induces certainty or establishes validity
-the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
4b) belief:
-a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
-something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
-conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
kermie: your BELIEF in a god is simply just your wanting of something to be true that isn't.
-humans are free creatures just like all animals.
-we have minds to explore and better protect ourselves as a species.
-the universe didn't "start" and it won't "stop"; only our percieved reality, what we see as our universe will come to an end because the universe is a constantly changing and dangerous place. i.e. one stray gamma ray burst and bye bye world.
-as an anti-theist i truly feel deep sadness for those that require a "father figure" in the sky to make them feel safe.
3) “I NEVER said God is male you fool….”
answer: “the father, the son and the holy ghost” 2 are male in name, 1 is well a ghost. lol
first of all...Father and HS are NOT makle in NATURE! Father and HS are SPIRITS>.they dio NOT have physical bodies...they are nOT beign identified in such a way!! Your argument is out of ignorance
second of all...youre talking of EnERGY..not matter......next....empriocal evidence does NOT prove everything.....and why do you feel said for me to have a God to make me feel safe? what that to you?
kermie: your BELIEF in a god is simply just your wanting of something to be true that isn’t.
<–an arrogant statement..YOU do NOT know what I want ok? so stop right there and dont assume that...second..i have KNOWLEGDE of Gods existance...just cause You dont does not mean I cant...u do NOT speak for me ok? Just simply agree to disagree...but do not tell me my wants
kermit4jc
"u do NOT speak for me ok?"
Nope, but you speak for MILLIONS of gays and say they aren't telling the truth about always being that way.
Nope, but you speak for the MILLIONS of women who had abortions and say it was JUST because they were convenient.
Your WORLD-CLASS HYPOCRISY is amazing. Keep it up for the laughs.
Nope, but you speak for MILLIONS of gays and say they aren’t telling the truth about always being that way.
yuoare totally misrepresenting me..i NEvEr said they are lying.... as for the women..i did not speak for them either..i get it from the stats and what THEY TEHEMSELVES say..i said this several times! YUO should try ASKING first before yuo speak..makes yuo look very foolish
kermit4jc, I'm afraid that your attempts to communicate reveal that you must have a terrible force with you. You must either possess some item with enormous evil influence, or, more likely, your brain function is deteriorating. Based on the obvious downward spiral of your ability to rationalize and communicate effectively, I predict you will soon reach what I like to call the "Gollum" stage, where, as Lewis Black has described, you will effectively be just a "mass of meat with eyes".
"its ALREADY been reviewed by MILLIONS who are Christians themselves!"
>>That fails right there. It is considered Confirmation bias/Argumentum_ad_populum.
"It does NOT need to be written down, though many are in books ..our reviews are done thru personal testimonies done orally...by word of mouth"
>>Right and thus there is no evidence. Word of mouth is extremely unreliable.
So what it comes down to is you really have nothing but demand people accept your stories and the stories of others who believe in your god....that is not the way evidence is accepted and as an educated person, you should comprehend this.
youre so desperate youre making logical fallacies..I guess everyone up till peer reviews existed could NOT trust in anything scientific! peer reviews did not always exist..and when people experienced things themselves...they knew it worked! (they did NOT need peer review to know how to start a fire, to know how to cook to know, that certain things happened..I mean my goodness! youre argument is getting sinesless. >>That fails right there. It is considered Confirmation bias/Argumentum_ad_populum. <-I guess we should throw all science out as well...again they didn't have peer reviews for all time!...talk about being "educated" lololol
Oh kermi, you and your ignorance...pure comedy. You can't show the evidence for a god and so you try to look smart by making false claims and taking things out of context, spinning them to fit your delusions...when the fact is you obviously have lied about being educated yourself.
kermit,
There's a fallacy in your thinking–well, many actually, but I want to focus on just one here.
"they did NOT need peer review to know how to start a fire..." Let's focus on this for a minute. Peer Review is in essence, other people checking out something and confirming what you are claiming. My contention is that people have been doing this since the beginning, we just had not formulated the full scientific method yet nor appreciated its value. Let's imagine the first time a particular tribe of proto-humand developed the ability to make fire.
A human antecedent, let's call him "Moonwatcher", OBSERVED during a recent fire, that it was caused by lightening. He noticed that the fire burned better on the dry wood of a nearby forest. He noticed that a soft breeze actually made the fire grow. He also noticed during a rock slide that a certain stone (flint) struck against another (iron ore), a shower of sparks was emitted. He wonders–does that spark have similar characteristics to the lightening–like maybe it will cause a fire if the sparks hit dry wood? He has formed a HYPOTHESIS, but that word did not yet exist.
He picks up the right rocks and hits them together. Sparks fly, and one hits him on the foot, causing pain. He performs an EXPERIMENT. He gathers a bunch of dry wood together, and sends sparks flying into it. It takes some work, but eventually he figures out how to do it. He works out a THEORY to explain the facts that he has observed to his tribe. The lightening and the spark through their heat, will both cause fire when applied to dry wood.
Moonwatcher runs to the cave and tells one of his fellow proto-humans, in their primitive language he tries to explain what he has done. His fellow tribe members are skeptical of course, and one of them says–"I don't believe you!"
Moonwatcher says–"Come, I'll show you," and he shows the other fellow the small fire. His mate is still unconvinced. "Lightening must have caused that," he responds.
Moonwatcher tells him: "Do the same thing and see for yourself!" Moonwatcher is submitting his findings to PEER REVIEW. His fellow tribe member comes to know Moonwatcher is on to something when he tries it, and it works. Over and over, Moonwatcher's ideas about how to create a fire are TESTED and validated. Moonwatcher's tribe rightly has confidence on how to make a fire. It works! Their survival quickly becomes enhanced.
So kermit, sure, there was a time before the scientific method had been fully worked out, but just the same, when men have followed the basic principles of trying what works, and testing what they know, and having others take a look and try it for themselves, they are basically doing the scientific method, and this is when we make the big advancements. I promise you, the proto-humans who worked out how to make fire did not learn from praying.
uhhh...your argument di dnothing.....first of all..the pOINT was this....truth seems to be truth ONLY if it had been peer reviewed through journals...according to a blogger in here...MY point is..truth is truth NO matter if it is written in journals or not.....the FATC of matter is....things in past, where there were no peer reviewed journals..things still were FACTS...
I'm sure k4jc will find that a terrible analogy and compare you apple to his orange.
Vic....ever take synthetic drugs to cure any sickness you have? Ever wear poly blend synthetic clothes? Lots of things are 'unnatural'. That does not mean they should be discounted.
Vic
Quite a stretch you have made in your comment. A few other basic instincts you seem to have missed, dominance and the food chain and of course humans are top of the chain we eat practically anything we want that isn't poison. Most mammals will protect their young if threatened, but the elderly are often sacrificed for the good of the group. Many mammals often change the number of offspring they produce according to the resources available; good times large litters, poor times small litters and only the strongest may be provided sustenance. Humans however have screwed up that equation because of religion. Often the poorest countries have the highest birth rates and infant mortality, while the more advanced have population control including abortion. Reality awaits you if you chose to look beyond your 2000 year old bible Vic, try.
Genital mutilation is not "designed" either, and yet God demanded it of His chosen people.
Vasectomies and tubal ligation aren't "by design" either and are contra-reproduction. Should those procedures be made illegal?
Vic,
How do you explain why ho mo se xuality is observed as a behavior in mammals in nature? Would that make it natural? Would that be "designed" as well?
While I really don't know if homosexuality is natural or not, I observe that the rule in nature is in fact heterosexuality, hence, the exception is not the rule.
Meanwhile, I believe God is Omnipotent and Omniscient with Sovereign Divine Will, Wisdom & Command that He can make rules and exceptions as He sees fit, hence, I trust in God.
Vic
Your statement that life preservation is by design, how did you come up with that conclusion?
why do you have to resort to studying the OTHER animals? seems like youre desperate and don't have enough info on humans..so yo uhave to resort to other animals......shows a weak argument and desperation
Right!!! Cause if we use the kermi-decoder ring, we get god is perfect because kermi is delusional and hears what HE BELIEVES is god speaking to him!!
Animgals are studied because they're part of the giant circle of (wait for it.....) EVOLUTION and we have ties to animals along the path. We're not that special, we're merely a drop in the evolutionary bucket of species that have existed and at some point will go extinct.
Doesn't Genesis 1:26 state that mankind has dominion over the animals?
As the divinely mandated ruler of all other life on Earth, man is free to eat, hunt, wear, domesticate, exploit for labour, and test on all the critters of the sea, air, and whatever moveth on the ground.
why does that matter? it is not relevant to the argument
Cheese
"As an example they monetarily support laws and amendments that would support and help the gay community."
Not really sure how that marginalizes gays?
As for the sacraments, and again I am no Catholic apologist, I would think that any practice deemed sinful in which the individual practicing it refuses to acknowledge or confess it as sin would be grounds for withholding the sacraments. Of course, this would be enforcing church doctrine and theology, not marginalization.
Meant for previous post.
ddeevviinn,
It's all HYPOCRISY. Christians have helped collect MILLIONS of dollars to fight gay marriage and yet apparently haven't collected A PENNY to fight ALL 50 states allowing divorce and remarriage for ADULTERY.
devin,
So working against gay marriage is not marginalization? Umm..ok. I think if a group (the Catholic Church) works to keep gay relationships on unequal ground is by definition "marginalization". The Catholic church is actively working to make gay people and their relationships less equal, have less power and influence. Now the Church can view ho.mose.xuality any way it wants. But to expect a secular gov't to share its views is an attempt to marginalize that group in society as a whole.
I know of no Catholic definition or theology that says that supporting a group, even if that group acts or has a position against church teaching, is itself a "sin". For instance it is not a "sin" to support a pro-choice position, it is only a "sin" to be involved directly. Now I am not an expert on Catholic theology.
I still fail to see how they are " working against" anything. They have moral beliefs that they have held for centuries and there are ramifications for those who embrace Catholicism and yet choose to reject these moral beliefs.
devin,
I don't have a problem with their Catholic moral theology within Catholcism. When that framwork is promoted for the larger society it is no longer just about Catholics. It is an attempt to impose its morality and view on everyone. And singeling out certain Catholics for having pro-gay views is absolutely an attempt to marginalize a specific group. The Catholic leadership knows 85% of American Catholic women use some form of birth control they are theologically against and yet they do not single that group out. Why not? In the end they know it would not be in their self interest. They don't have that concern about gays so they don't mind marginalizing them.
Once again, according to the opening commentary, Hobby Lobby supports 16 of the 20 contraceptives available to women. I don't know if their health coverage includes contraceptives for men. The ACA does NOT include these which is very discriminatory.
Coming soon to the Belief Blog: "Pope Defends the Rain Forest"
The pope called for "respect and protection of the entire creation which God has entrusted to man, not so that it be indiscriminately exploited but rather made into a garden."
That is a lot better way to define man's dominion.
Pope talks a good game....and that is about it...
Yup! Nothing liberal, or revolutionary about Francis. He's just good PR aimed at trying to lure North American and European Catholics back into the fold after all the scandals, it seems.
He's the head of the freakin Catholic Church for goodness sake. What do you expect him to do, become a spokespeson for Planned Parenthood, convert to atheism, and ride on a float in a gay pride parade?
I would expect him to implement actual changes in the church, until he does it is just lip service and PR.
Why would you expect him to implement changes that would be to your satisfaction? " You're an atheist, he's all about God, you could not have more diametrically opposed perspectives on what change is needed.
ddeevviinn,
The best we can hope for is that the Pope make an effort to get many believers to START following the Golden Rule.
devin,
I would expect him to make changes that coincides with the things he espouses. For instance he talkes about how important justice is...and yet works to keep those in the church responsible for injustice insultated to the benefit of the church, over victims of crimes. I am not asking that he implement changes I think he should....I am just pointing out how he is not consistent with his words and his actions. As someone who has a lot of experience with the Catholic Church that is par for the course. This pope has a lot of people bamboozled with a lot of nice quotes, but what has he done? Not much of anything...
Obs
Here's where the rub lies between you and I. We both agree that the Golden Rule is a motto we should attempt to exemplify. We also agree that there are individuals claiming to be Christians who seem to go the opposite route of the Godlen Rule. Where the problem arises is when the accusation against Christians of " not following the Golden Rule" is made, when in reality they simply hold a difffernet moral view. And while many of these Christians have compassion and kindness for those with whom they differ, they are chastised and labeled as "anti-Golden Rule."
ddeevviinn,
When the Golden Rule is defined as treating others as you want them to treat you, it gets fairly easy to see who follows it and who doesn't.
Someone like Rainer can spout about the Bible all he wants and yet doesn't have a clue in the world about what following it means. Certainly, many Christians try to follow the Golden Rule. It's the ones who don't that I am talking to.
Cheese
I guess you would need to take these issues on case by case. I'm very familiar with Catholic Theology, but other than that I would defer to you on the comings and goings of the Catholic church, I'm just not that famililar with them. So in the case of priests molesting children, which is what I'm assuming you were referencing, I would whole heartedly agree with you if in fact the pope is not being " consistent in his words."
I guess where we would part company is in those cases where you would perhaps make the pope culpable for not making changes on moral issues the church has long held.
devin,
I really don't expect him to make changes that are inconsistent with CHurch theology, but he should be honest. As an example he said... "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized."
But the RCC does work to marginalize gay people...and he has done nothing to change that. He would not have to change anything theologically to stop it. He is the head of the church. If he truly belives gay people should not be maginalized he has the power to do more than just make a nice sound bite. And every nice quote and personal expression that he has been lauded for has gone no further...he is all talk. My point is he is getting credit for things he should not get credit for...he hasn't done anything to actually change the culture.
Apart from the belief that h o m o se xuality is morally worng, how does the RCC actively marginalize gays? I ask in all seriousness, I realy don't know.
ddeevviinn
"Apart from the belief that h o m o se xuality is morally wrong"
Isn't that enough? That basically marginalizes gays as sinners as much as saying that being left-handed is wrong. Of course, you can be celibate or just force yourself to use your right hand, but why should people have to go against their nature?
devin,
As an example they monetarily support laws and amendments that would support and help the gay community. They also have refused to allow Catholics to take part in sacriments like communion if the person shows public support for the community. In other words they work to marginalize the community. If you will notice in the quote from the pope he uses the word "lobby" in an effort to differentiate the gay community from the gay individual. He wants to play word games to make it seem like he is on the side with gay people...but he really isn't. It's a ruse.
Hey Dev it was on CNN –
“This is not just a war against women, this is a war against science, Carly,” the radio host explained.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/06/stephanie-miller-eviscerates-goper-your-medieval-history-degree-is-handy-defending-republicans/
kudlak
" Isn't that enough?"
No , not really. The RCC views h o mo s e xuality as sin, much in the same way they do adultery, lying, stealing etc... Seems to me the marginalization of individuals and the belief in moral right and wrong are two different ent ities.
" but why should people go against their nature ?"
I could spend a week typing a response to this question. My "nature" tells me that I am really fond of young women. Especially college age girls who are very thin, and yet "gifted" up top ( by up top I'm not referring to their cranium). My nature further tells me that I should attempt to know ( in the biblical sense) as many of these fair maidens as possible ( a feat that is fairly unrealistic at the age of 51). That same nature also often tells me to carry out innumerable tasks which are morally wrong: lying, stealing, gossip, etc. Nope, not a big proponent of "nature" being my guide.
Science
Well, if it "was on CNN" it must be true, and that settles it for me.
ddeevviinn,
All of the other "natures" you mentioned usually have a victim. Being gay does not.
Obs
Two things, and I've said this before:
1. My criteria for determining moral truth is not "does anyone get hurt."
2. In my illustration of the college girls, were the girls AND my wife okay ( nobody gets hurt) with the relationships it would be no less immoral on my part.
I think we've had this discussion before, and again, it goes back to the source of moral truth. No need to travel down that path, we are on divergent trails.
ddeevviinn,
What EXACTLY is your criteria for determining moral truth? It can't be a 2,000-year-old book that you don't believe ALL of, so what is it?
O course it's the 2000 year old book ( actually it's quite older than that) but you already realize this.
And, as a point of clarification, I do believe all of it, even the very few passages that deal with slavery, giving away of virgin daughter's for prost i tution, and the seeming brutality of YHWH in the OT, all of it. Now I realize that the version you read ( the NAOV- New American Observer Version) only has those few passages, along with the Golden Rule ( only good natured humor intended here), but there really is so much more: grace, the love of God, His mercy, redemption, peace with God,forgiveness of sins, hope, eternal life, all things I honestly wish for you my friend.
ddeevviinn,
So when one of the many contradictions in the Bible come up. how do you decide?
When dealing with gays, how do you pick negative verses over the Golden Rule?
" contradictions"
I just justify and rationalize them away. Thought you would like that. Actually, I don't find contradictions, when said passage is given more than just a superficial glance. Now what I am not saying is that I understand everything in Scripture and that there are not teachings that cause me a great deal of questioning, I just don't find the contradiction. Hard stuff to swallow, yes. Contradiction, not so much.
" Dealing with gays"
This is pretty straight forward. I find in scripture a number of practices that the God revealed in those scriptures deems sinful, h o mo s e xuality being one of many. As with adulterers, of which I am one if only in thought ( Jesus never differentiated between thought and action), liars, thieves, gossips etc. the Golden Rule is not negated. I am required as a Christian to do to others as I would have them do to me, regardless of their particular sin. Implementing the Golden Rule is not contingent upon a person's behavior, but identifying a particular behavior and calling it for what it is does not mean I am not practicing the Golden Rule.
kudlak,
My take on Francis as well. He talks real good. I like what I hear from him, but nothing has changed with the RCC, nor do I expect any changes. I also agrees that it appears the RCC is on a major PR blitz, with Frank being the star.
The RCC is not set up to change easily. I think even the Pope cannot so easily change things–even if this were really his true intent. It is set up to reinforce orthodoxy. The RCC does not change unless it is dragged kicking and screaming into modernity, and sometimes not even then. Think about it–it took the RCC hundreds of years to finally officially admit Galileo was right that the Earth does indeed orbit the sun, not the other way around.
I absolutely agree. I remember when Pope JP II apologized for Galileo plus a host of other wrongs perpetrated by the RCC covering many many years. I was completely stunned, my jaw hit the ground. My wife who grew up a liberal Baptist didn't get why I was flabbergasted. I said "you don't understand...the Church is never wrong, and even if they are... they certainly don't ever, ever admit it." This was long before the abuse scandals hit. After watching how the RCC handled and mishandled all the criminal behavior she said to me years later..."now I get it".
It may not even be intentional on Francis's part. Catholics may be so desperate for even the possibility of change after the abuse and other scandals they're just reading this into it themselves. They want being Catholic to be acceptable again so much that they're seeing liberal popes in every guy to get the white smoke. Maybe they're hoping to inspire Francis into becoming the pope that they want?
And six are catholic that sit on the bench – that follow the pope no ? (hope not)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/05/vatican-tells-australian-commission-that-it-wont-provide-all-docu-ments-in-child-se-xual-abuse-investigations/
Check out thr pope song at url above.
Take out dash from se-x and docu-ments
kudlak,
I'm pretty sure it's deliberate on the part of Frank and the Vatican heirarchy. All of the press and well-staged photo-ops? It has all the Hallmarks of a well-coordinated PR campaign. I'm also struck by the fact that Benedict was shunted aside before he died. That's extremely rare–the last Papal resignation was in 1415. Things must be really bad at the Vatican.
So I think most likely they are trying to have it both ways–appear liberal, but without much really changing.
Family planning needs to be encouraged rather than frowned upon by company owners grasping at justification from the Bible. Common sense is preferred.
According to the opening commentary, Hobby Lobby supports 16 of the 20 contraceptives available to women. I don't know if their health coverage includes contraceptives for men. The ACA does NOT include these which is very discriminatory.
in slightly related news.
http://rt.com/usa/170356-faith-leaders-obama-lgbt-order/
churches want to expand the right to discriminate.
if any organization getting government money says the wish to discriminate against LGBT for the religious reasons, should no long get money, i do not want any of my money going to a Christian organization, it violates my religious conviction under Lilith, that states: i will do nothing to further the advancement of the 1000 year kingdom of Christendom. i should be exept from all taxes until we stop giving money to Christian organizations. its said I do love to pay my share in the civil common wealth but supporting christian ideals is against my religion.
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain.
And they'll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
It's Heaven and Hell, oh no!
Fool, fool!
You've got to bleed for the dancer!
Fool, fool!
Look for the answer!
Fool, fool, fool!
"Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shlt they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'"
And there you have it, Robert. Your "offer from god" was an emotional experience that you deem supernatural. Your experience is no different than any other true believer of any other god. So why should yours be any more credible?
I am not a person ruled by my emotions. I strongly suspect that people who claim to have experienced the "supernatural" are simply looking at an unexpected or unfamiliar natural phenomena through the filter of emotion and are thus unreliable witnesses.
I will not believe in a god until I am presented with proof. It's been thousands of years and there have been thousands of gods, but not a single shred of evidence. In light of that fact, I think that disbelief is entirely reasonable.
Damn. That was for Bob. I'm gonna go put this in the proper place.
"but not a single shred of evidence."
Creation itself?
Nope...it doesn't prove a god, it proves we have unanswered questions.
Do you believe something can come from nothing?
I simply don't know the answer and that is far more honest than claiming a god is responsible.
nmaybe honest for YOU..cause Yo udont know God..just because You don't know God doesnot mean the rest of us cannot know God...thus youre the arrogant one....
TF: what TP said, and don't try trotting out your argument from ignorance, stupid.
kermi: You BELIEVE you know god, yet you have yet to provide evidence outside of your bible and personal experience. Claiming to know is arrogance not admitting to not knowing-that is called honesty, you should attempt it.
just because I cannot prove it to you does not make me arrogant or merely a believer or dishonest
Oh my kermi, you call me arrogant for admitting to not knowing but you're not arrogant for claiming to know?? Such hypocrisy! The fact remains that you have not proven your god exists and yet claim it does-that is arrogance. Geez, dictionaries are useful and not the one you have invented to make words fit your delusions!
I did OT call you arrogant for not knowing..RED my post again...for some reason yohave really hard time reading....first you couldn't tell sarcasm...now you cant see why I call you arrogant..try again
truthfollower,
Calling all that exists "Creation" is assuming a premise. It is begging the question. It is pre-loading the discussion.
A liberal Muslim hom.ose.xual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist
"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!"
At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decisions made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.
"How old is this rock?"
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian"
"Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should have evolved into an animal now"
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears.
The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named "Small Government" flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.
Amen.
They should turn that into a movie! Oh wait... they did.
That is without a doubt the strongest, most convincing argument against social conservatism that I have read in a long time.
Sounds like Doc is off his meds
hahaaahhahhahah, What the fuck was that