quote:

Why didn't god the 'all powerful' do anything to stop all the innocent people being killed?

Why are their natural disasters that kill children?

I know why because God isn't real. He's like santa.

because god just lets everything as it is suppose to be. if god would do tht everytime someone is about to die then it would look as if he was favoring those people while someone else was dieing off somewhere else. it wouldnt be very fair to anyone if he stepped in and saved some of the people dieing this way he doesnt discriminate and we dont all live forever here on this pathetic rock. we all have to die at some point and then we'll live forever in either heaven or hell.

Why didn't god the 'all powerful' do anything to stop all the innocent people being killed?

Why are their natural disasters that kill children?

I know why because God isn't real. He's like santa.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:
Then why has the Christian religion killed more than any other all in the name of Jesus Christ "the saviour."


I don't care about christians as long as they don't care about me.

If they're going to be douche bags and try to tell me how to live I'm going to do the same to them.

Also, there is a lot of discrimination in the Bible, so much for "love"

In my opinon, the christian religion has become a sham.

It was people, not God, that killed many people. You are blaming the innocent for what the guilty have done. If we Christians are living as the Bible says to then we do care about you. The sad thing is that many Christians don't follow the Bible in the love of all people, and have thus misrepresented Jesus Christ. In this sense, yes Christianity has become a sham, dragged through the mud by those that aren't truly Christians that claim to be Christians.

quote:

quote:
this im not sure how to answer most of what you state is true but let me ask you something if you knew that youd be shot if u didnt convert would u risk being damned to an eternal prison of pain and fire, or choose to die knowing that you have a more likely chance to get into a heavenly place of eternal bliss?

This is like a Russian-roulette version of Pascal's Wager. Well, as I don't believe in an afterlife, this problem doesn't really concern me. You see to me, converting to Islam offers me the same odds of being right as converting to Christianity; and besides, the heavens don't really come into. I refer you to my signature. And besides, I've already demonstrated on some other threads my problems with the heaven/hell afterlife - heavenly people sacrificing themselves for the people in Hell etc.

I ment try to put urself in their shoes if you cant understand or comprehend this as i understand that you have no concept of an afterlife.

quote:

quote:
but we also hve a hig population of false religions as well


You might want to have worded this post a little more delicately, but I understand what you mean, which is not the same as agreeing with it. I believe the statistics have placed American Christianity at something like 80% of the population, which means that unless you've got a massive spike in the crime statistics in the remaining twenty percent (so that virtually everyone not Christian is responsible for committing all the crimes in the States). The question remains: if there is such a clear disparity between religious groups, why hasn't the government cracked down on religious groups that cause/promote robbery etc? Why are these foreign religions permitted to run riot throughout the country? The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that crime is not correlative to religious pursuasion, though (I'm ashamed to admit this) in England at least, it is correlative to police stop-and-searches, and I'm guessing it probably is in America too.

not sure that i completely understand this but ill try to explain. I keep forgetting that ur not american the police cant do anything so drastic without a supreme court ruling and even then it would still upset the public and cause riots since the people being hunted because of their religion's rights are being denied. by this im referring to the freedom of religion.

quote:

I agree with wolfie. Telling someone what they believe is wrong. Maybe not to u but to anyone who disagrees. No man can say something is truly right or truly wrong, that isnt in our power. If u must say something dont say it. Telling someone their wrong can result in dire consequences.

how do you think this debate started? Everyone in the world cant agree on everything some say it out loud others bottle it up till they cant take it anymore an release it on an unsuspecting by standard. others take the power they need since the nice karl marx came up with communism people have risen to power to become dictators and take this freedom away.

probably.

Have we frightened Romashu away?

I agree with wolfie. Telling someone what they believe is wrong. Maybe not to u but to anyone who disagrees. No man can say something is truly right or truly wrong, that isnt in our power. If u must say something dont say it. Telling someone their wrong can result in dire consequences.

quote:

but we also hve a hig population of false religions as well

seriously how dare you. I'm sure Brehon already covered this in his nice, polite, british folk way but I just have to say I am floored by this statement.

Why don't you go tell a shaolin monk that his religion is false after he spent decades of his life devoting his mind and body to what he believes in.

Why don't you say to the thirteen year old about to have a bat mitzvah that her learning the torah in order to recite it for 3 hours that it's all a lie.

Seriously, get over you're fucking religion. There are thousands and thousands of people who have devoted a hell of a lot more than you ever will to their 'false religion' and you should have the common decency to respect that.

quote:

btw did you happen to read my second post?

quote:

now that i think about it theyre more than likely to be agnostic than anything.

Why is this? Is this a joke? (I have a very poor sense of humour - comes with all the rationalising.

quote:

this im not sure how to answer most of what you state is true but let me ask you something if you knew that youd be shot if u didnt convert would u risk being damned to an eternal prison of pain and fire, or choose to die knowing that you have a more likely chance to get into a heavenly place of eternal bliss?

This is like a Russian-roulette version of Pascal's Wager. Well, as I don't believe in an afterlife, this problem doesn't really concern me. You see to me, converting to Islam offers me the same odds of being right as converting to Christianity; and besides, the heavens don't really come into. I refer you to my signature. And besides, I've already demonstrated on some other threads my problems with the heaven/hell afterlife - heavenly people sacrificing themselves for the people in Hell etc.

quote:

but we also hve a hig population of false religions as well

You might want to have worded this post a little more delicately, but I understand what you mean, which is not the same as agreeing with it. I believe the statistics have placed American Christianity at something like 80% of the population, which means that unless you've got a massive spike in the crime statistics in the remaining twenty percent (so that virtually everyone not Christian is responsible for committing all the crimes in the States). The question remains: if there is such a clear disparity between religious groups, why hasn't the government cracked down on religious groups that cause/promote robbery etc? Why are these foreign religions permitted to run riot throughout the country? The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that crime is not correlative to religious pursuasion, though (I'm ashamed to admit this) in England at least, it is correlative to police stop-and-searches, and I'm guessing it probably is in America too.

quote:

quote:
i know people who do actually think this is rational.


My point is that the people who think this is rational are just as likely to be Christian's as they are to be atheists: when you're not thinking about being caught by the police and prosecuted, which are, after all, the most immediate probable consequences, you are unlikely to be considering the potential ramifications on your immortal soul.

now that i think about it theyre more than likely to be agnostic than anything.

quote:

not very many especially teens who think ill never get caught or i just steal for the sake of it.


I also agree with you here, except that I don't think that being a teen is much of an excuse - basically, even if they think they're being rational, the wonderful thing is that we can rationally pursue their ideas, and if they turn out to be wrong, we can punish them (or, as I prefer, correct their behaviour by demonstrating why they're wrong, hopefully improving everything).

i wasnt meaning for being a teen to be an excuse just that they are more likely to do this kind of thing than an adult.

quote:
But its not like i must obey the bible at all costs we have a choice to follow it or not


I understand this, but that isn't really the point. If you choose not to follow the Bible, then you are wrong (provided you accept several things about the Bible, which of course I don't) and this is grounds for your ascendancy into heaven or damnation to an eternity in hell. This is the basic Christian moral paradigm, Divine Command Principle: you do what god says or bad things happen to you. This is only the baldest way of stating it; I know a lot of theologians argue that God has to allow for inherent human fallibility when deciding who can come into heaven, but you still have to choose to follow the Bible and accept that the times you didn't follow the Bible you were wrong. In that sense, following the Bible isn't really a choice at all, a bit like we don't expect people who convert to Islam with a gun pointed to their head to necessarily have meant to convert - the alternative was death (or in the Divine Command Theory of Ethics, a much worse eternity in hell).

this im not sure how to answer most of what you state is true but let me ask you something if you knew that youd be shot if u didnt convert would u risk being damned to an eternal prison of pain and fire, or choose to die knowing that you have a more likely chance to get into a heavenly place of eternal bliss?

quote:

So, to return to the point of origin, there is no reason why atheists should be criminals more than Christians, and no statistical evidence to bear this out. For example, in the UK, where there are lots of atheists (possibly up to 80% of the population) we have a much lower rate of gun and knife crime than the US, where there is a much higher proportion of Christians.

but we also hve a hig population of false religions as well

btw did you happen to read my second post?

quote:

ill correct this when i find it.

OK. I can probably wait till then.

quote:

i know people who do actually think this is rational.

My point is that the people who think this is rational are just as likely to be Christian's as they are to be atheists: when you're not thinking about being caught by the police and prosecuted, which are, after all, the most immediate probable consequences, you are unlikely to be considering the potential ramifications on your immortal soul.

quote:

not very many especially teens who think ill never get caught or i just steal for the sake of it.

I also agree with you here, except that I don't think that being a teen is much of an excuse - basically, even if they think they're being rational, the wonderful thing is that we can rationally pursue their ideas, and if they turn out to be wrong, we can punish them (or, as I prefer, correct their behaviour by demonstrating why they're wrong, hopefully improving everything).

quote:

But its not like i must obey the bible at all costs we have a choice to follow it or not

I understand this, but that isn't really the point. If you choose not to follow the Bible, then you are wrong (provided you accept several things about the Bible, which of course I don't) and this is grounds for your ascendancy into heaven or damnation to an eternity in hell. This is the basic Christian moral paradigm, Divine Command Principle: you do what god says or bad things happen to you. This is only the baldest way of stating it; I know a lot of theologians argue that God has to allow for inherent human fallibility when deciding who can come into heaven, but you still have to choose to follow the Bible and accept that the times you didn't follow the Bible you were wrong. In that sense, following the Bible isn't really a choice at all, a bit like we don't expect people who convert to Islam with a gun pointed to their head to necessarily have meant to convert - the alternative was death (or in the Divine Command Theory of Ethics, a much worse eternity in hell).

quote:

Not everyone is like you to the point were they think so clearly that morals overtake emotions place and rationality takes place of a gut feeling. not everyone is that lucky to be in such a position were they have time to think about these things. im not trying to be rude just trying to state something.

I hope that I didn't come across as this strange, emotionless, rational saint; that wasn't my intention. But the emotional immediacy etc is why most rational ethical systems, like Utilitarianism, and even Kantianism, are so often reducible to simple ideas that can be more readily used in actual ethical situations.

Utilitariansim: the greatest good for the greatest number.
Kantianism: universalise your choice and see if there are any inherent contradictions in following it.

While these systems require a bit of thought at the point of choice, so does recalling that in some obscure part of Micah or Leviticus or one of the Pauline books where the Bible says this or that might just be applicable to this or that moral problem. In the moment you have to act to the best of your ability according to the spirit of the moral systems you ascribe to, but in debates like this, you have to try and consider the fuller implications of the ethical choices that you explicate.

So, to return to the point of origin, there is no reason why atheists should be criminals more than Christians, and no statistical evidence to bear this out. For example, in the UK, where there are lots of atheists (possibly up to 80% of the population) we have a much lower rate of gun and knife crime than the US, where there is a much higher proportion of Christians.

quote:

quote:
Let me ask you this when in history do we need to now science to write a paper/ essay/ newsletter/ letters in general/ etc.?


I'm not entirely sure I understand how this is a challenge to the idea that science is necessary to an understanding of the world. I mean, it isn't specifically necessary to poetry, as Keats said that Newton destroyed the rainbow and DH Lawrence refused to believe the moon was a piece of rock because it was so reductive of the moon's romantic and symbolic beauty, but it is necessary for constructing a world view. So for example, the Bible is wrong when it states that the earth was created six thousand years or so ago in seven days. If this is interpreted metaphorically, it raises questions about Biblical authenticity and interpretation. But, and this is where I think Wolfie's point leads, the lack of scientific understanding in the Bible means that the Bible does not prepare Christians to deal with issues like abortion or genetic manipulation say. It does deal, in an incredibly thorough way, with the ethical problem of its day - for example, incest, family relations, crop growing, and the perennial problems like theft and murder - but simply does not cover anything like modern moral problems.

what i came to understand from her post was that the prophets needed to understand science to gramatically and so forth be able to write the world's best selling book.

quote:

uote:
What wolfie is referring to here is some of the more hard to imagine stuff that are in revelations such as the end of the world senerio. this senerio i a metaphor one of the ones i was referring to since we know that it cant and coulndt have happend since we're still here(and arguing). since some christians dont believe that the world is so many billions of years old we see it as impossible for it to be 2000 years before their time "since i believe the chinese came up with paper around this time as well"-not too sure about this last part.


I'm not entirely sure that I grasp this paragraph - could you explain it for me? I get the first part, where you identify the apocalypse as part of revelations and then say that it hasn't happened yet, but it's the next part I don't get. Is this something to do with the supposed date of the apocalypse? Are you saying that it needed to happen two thousand years after some event, and as we've now passed that mark, the apocalypse isn't going to happen? I really do need this clarifiying I'm afraid.

what i meant was that the apocalypse couldnt have happened and know one knows when it will happen. the rest i would refer to this when i took a class on this my teacher had us go through a timeline that mapd out the age of earth. one student who went further than me found that the bible records 4632 years which is the time added with after the time it was written i believe.

quote:

quote:
one cause wolfie does nothing but comment on how illogical and idiocratic my posts are.


I'm sorry, and I fully realise the irony of this since I keep trying to convince you to come back and respond, but 'idocratic' is not a word. Did you mean 'idiotic?' Again, I apologise for pointing it out, but I thought I might literally dissolve in irony if I didn't.

srry i guess i just picked it up after my dad uses it on me for so long its kind of natural now.

If i may ask this of you brehon. Id like to refer you to my post on the literature topic.
since you being the voice of reason of YN and being so clear headed, thorough, and more than likely unbiased. I need more opinions since wolfie is probly trying to spite me. the title of the post is "Is this any good?".thnx

quote:

quote:
now im thing that anyone that went against the emperor would have been killed, put to work, forced to fight in the coliseum, or imprisoned.

On the other hand, I can't see every Roman citizen happily waltzing off to get branded with a massive string of Roman numerals either - I think that if Nero really tried this, the Praetorian guard would have killed him. They did that to quite a few emperors over the years. Also, Nero was mad, but madness follows a pattern: why would Nero act to fulfil the prophecies of the Jews (thus undermining his position) by injuring his own citizens (thus turning them against him)? It makes much more sense, from a Roman 'feed the Christians to the lions' perspective, to brand the Jews/proto-Christians (hurting them) and then throwing them to the lions/Colosseum etc. I know that you're going to say that "he was mad", but 1) we don't know what sort of madness he had, but I'm guessing some kind of psychopathy and 2) his advisors/guards would have been able to turn him on the Jews easily. This was Rome, manipulation was the whole point of the system.

im not sure if they were all branded ik for sure tht the prisoners were but shop keepers and merchants and such got something like a tattoo i think. again ill hve to go find my file up in my closet somewhere.
Nero's mother had guards protecting him from this kind of treason or so i thought.
The part about nero was written after this happen or way before. Ill probly regret saying this but somewere in the bible there is a passage that suggests that the devil was influencing the roman empire. my teacher somehow went through a historical timeline compared it to the passages which said tht this happened like 150 years or 1400 years after jesus died. not sure must find the sheet. ill correct this when i find it.

quote:

Yes, indeed, your last question is a good one, but since no atheist appealing to rationality as a moral system made those ethical claims I'm not all that convinced that it should be rational. The process that you describe is not a rational one. I'll even try to lay it out like it is, just so that you can see that:

1) I don't have enough money to buy something.
2) Other people steal things.
Conc1: Therefore I should steal things.

This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, and is therefore non-rational. It is also a very weak inference, which no person pursuing ethics in a rational way would consider over the alternatives, say.

1) I don't have enough money to buy X.
2) In order to buy X, I need P amount of money.
3) I can get P amount of money several ways
3a) I can steal the money. This may end up with me getting caught and sent to prison.
3b) I can earn the money illegally. Because this breaks the law, I face not only legal sanctions, but I will lose my place in society.
3c) I can earn the money. This is a social norm, and will not only get me the money, but will also earn me the good opinions of society.

Given the above (a limited and not a watertight example, but it'll do for a refutation of the 'how is this rational?' point:

Conc 1: (From 1, 2, 3c) Earning P money to buy X is better than stealing it, because it is more rewarding for me.

indeed but i know people who do actually think this is rational. just like they think that street racing (which is illegal) is ok as long as you dont get caught. im just using this as an example since a student in my class today used this argument against a teacher. How many people actually think those things through before they do something illegal? not very many especially teens who think ill never get caught or i just steal for the sake of it.

quote:

1) The Bible says I must do this
2) If I don't obey the Bible (and through it, God) I will go to hell, whereas if I obey the Bible I will go to heaven.
Conc1: Therefore I should do what the Bible says.

the bible isnt tht strict. im not to sure if that was a good way of putting it. But its not like i must obey the bible at all costs we have a choice to follow it or not god knows that everyone cant possibly follow the bible to the letter if we did that would make us perfect beings in which we would be just as jesus was which is impossible.

Not everyone is like you to the point were they think so clearly that morals overtake emotions place and rationality takes place of a gut feeling. not everyone is that lucky to be in such a position were they have time to think about these things. im not trying to be rude just trying to state something.

quote:

now im thing that anyone that went against the emperor would have been killed, put to work, forced to fight in the coliseum, or imprisoned.

On the other hand, I can't see every Roman citizen happily waltzing off to get branded with a massive string of Roman numerals either - I think that if Nero really tried this, the Praetorian guard would have killed him. They did that to quite a few emperors over the years. Also, Nero was mad, but madness follows a pattern: why would Nero act to fulfil the prophecies of the Jews (thus undermining his position) by injuring his own citizens (thus turning them against him)? It makes much more sense, from a Roman 'feed the Christians to the lions' perspective, to brand the Jews/proto-Christians (hurting them) and then throwing them to the lions/Colosseum etc. I know that you're going to say that "he was mad", but 1) we don't know what sort of madness he had, but I'm guessing some kind of psychopathy and 2) his advisors/guards would have been able to turn him on the Jews easily. This was Rome, manipulation was the whole point of the system.

quote:

atheists who use "rationality" as their morals/ ethics....let me put it this way if a person rationally thought that if i dont have money to buy something ill steal it or well he/she does this why not me and its something illegal or he made me so mad i just had to kill him to have peace again. how is that rational?

Yes, indeed, your last question is a good one, but since no atheist appealing to rationality as a moral system made those ethical claims I'm not all that convinced that it should be rational. The process that you describe is not a rational one. I'll even try to lay it out like it is, just so that you can see that:

1) I don't have enough money to buy something.
2) Other people steal things.
Conc1: Therefore I should steal things.

This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, and is therefore non-rational. It is also a very weak inference, which no person pursuing ethics in a rational way would consider over the alternatives, say.

1) I don't have enough money to buy X.
2) In order to buy X, I need P amount of money.
3) I can get P amount of money several ways
3a) I can steal the money. This may end up with me getting caught and sent to prison.
3b) I can earn the money illegally. Because this breaks the law, I face not only legal sanctions, but I will lose my place in society.
3c) I can earn the money. This is a social norm, and will not only get me the money, but will also earn me the good opinions of society.

Given the above (a limited and not a watertight example, but it'll do for a refutation of the 'how is this rational?' point:

Conc 1: (From 1, 2, 3c) Earning P money to buy X is better than stealing it, because it is more rewarding for me.

The second example you provided is also a little off - 'I got angry, so I killed him because he wouldn't go away' is not even vaguely a rational-type morality. I personally appeal to logic and rationality in my moral reasoning, and so do you, even if your logic is something like:
1) The Bible says I must do this
2) If I don't obey the Bible (and through it, God) I will go to hell, whereas if I obey the Bible I will go to heaven.
Conc1: Therefore I should do what the Bible says.

Again, not watertight (and not strictly logical in a classical sense) but enough to lay out the basic framework. Rational moralities work better than appeals to emotion etc because they can be universalised. And even if you disagree with my decision, provided you can follow my workings, you can understand why I did it, and if you have no reason to overturn my choice except that you don't like it then you have no right to interfere in my moral choices. (I'm not actually ranting here, but this is what someone resolutely defending a more classical rational morality might say).

quote:

With the last sentence in the first paragraph i was joking i think about catholicism and protestantism but the devil is brought up as the dragon and the beast

Actually you weren't, because I said that and when I said that it was perfectly true. And I still think an answer to the question that it poses might be an exciting revelation (see what I did there? I crack myself up, I really do).

quote:

Let me ask you this when in history do we need to now science to write a paper/ essay/ newsletter/ letters in general/ etc.?

I'm not entirely sure I understand how this is a challenge to the idea that science is necessary to an understanding of the world. I mean, it isn't specifically necessary to poetry, as Keats said that Newton destroyed the rainbow and DH Lawrence refused to believe the moon was a piece of rock because it was so reductive of the moon's romantic and symbolic beauty, but it is necessary for constructing a world view. So for example, the Bible is wrong when it states that the earth was created six thousand years or so ago in seven days. If this is interpreted metaphorically, it raises questions about Biblical authenticity and interpretation. But, and this is where I think Wolfie's point leads, the lack of scientific understanding in the Bible means that the Bible does not prepare Christians to deal with issues like abortion or genetic manipulation say. It does deal, in an incredibly thorough way, with the ethical problem of its day - for example, incest, family relations, crop growing, and the perennial problems like theft and murder - but simply does not cover anything like modern moral problems.

quote:

What wolfie is referring to here is some of the more hard to imagine stuff that are in revelations such as the end of the world senerio. this senerio i a metaphor one of the ones i was referring to since we know that it cant and coulndt have happend since we're still here(and arguing). since some christians dont believe that the world is so many billions of years old we see it as impossible for it to be 2000 years before their time "since i believe the chinese came up with paper around this time as well"-not too sure about this last part.

I'm not entirely sure that I grasp this paragraph - could you explain it for me? I get the first part, where you identify the apocalypse as part of revelations and then say that it hasn't happened yet, but it's the next part I don't get. Is this something to do with the supposed date of the apocalypse? Are you saying that it needed to happen two thousand years after some event, and as we've now passed that mark, the apocalypse isn't going to happen? I really do need this clarifiying I'm afraid.

quote:

one cause wolfie does nothing but comment on how illogical and idiocratic my posts are.

I'm sorry, and I fully realise the irony of this since I keep trying to convince you to come back and respond, but 'idocratic' is not a word. Did you mean 'idiotic?' Again, I apologise for pointing it out, but I thought I might literally dissolve in irony if I didn't.

quote:

his arch that he built that was so big he could fit two of every animal in it.

Just for a second I really thought you meant arch, and that I'd missed something really important in the Bible, and that the eye of a needle story had some greater resonance that I just wasn't picking up.

quote:

of course not, because you are a fanatic you'll probably say 'they were god's miracles.' or some dumb crap like 'oh scientists have begun to think the flood was real.'

When you can stop making assumptions about what I am saying then I might deal with you again in a nice way.

If I continue to post, my brain will explode with irony. Really. Please stop making it so hilarious...

But, on the other hand, please do both keep debating. We need everyone we can pull back onto the site, one person at a time.

quote:

What wolfie is referring to here is some of the more hard to imagine stuff that are in revelations such as the end of the world senerio. this senerio i a metaphor one of the ones i was referring to since we know that it cant and coulndt have happend since we're still here(and arguing). since some christians dont believe that the world is so many billions of years old we see it as impossible for it to be 2000 years before their time "since i believe the chinese came up with paper around this time as well"-not too sure about this last part.

Yeah dufus read my posts and then come back to me. I'm not fucking talking about revelations. I'm talking about all of the stories in the bible. A man survived for 3 days in the belly of a fish. Jesus fed 10000 people with a basket of bread. He even brought someone back to life. Then there's the whole thing with a man stopping the rotation of the earth. Then moses parted the waters of the red sea and he set plagues on people. Then there's the whole noah thing with the giant flood and his arch that he built that was so big he could fit two of every animal in it. and he did all of this is like what a year? Noah also lived to be 700 years old.

There, is that enough to show you that the bible completely disregards the laws of physics?

of course not, because you are a fanatic you'll probably say 'they were god's miracles.' or some dumb crap like 'oh scientists have begun to think the flood was real.'

When you can stop making assumptions about what I am saying then I might deal with you again in a nice way.

quote:

quote:
Whilst this might be the case, and I am perfectly willing to accept that Nero was mad - viz. setting fire to Rome etc - I'm just not willing to take the the accompanying points about him branding the entire citizenry of the Roman empire except the Jews (presumably the Roman citizenry would have had something to say about this...) or that Revelations records this phenomenon.


Since we were returning other posts to their purposes, I thought I'd have a stab at correcting the course of this one by looking through my old posts for points that got ignored. Hence the above. Any response to this, Romashu? Or indeed to any of the following:

i didnt reply to this before because i didnt know how to answer now im thing that anyone that went against the emperor would have been killed, put to work, forced to fight in the coliseum, or imprisoned. Besides if nero convinced the public that it was to find the jews whom he blamed for the burning of rome then the public would be glad to follow these orders since they see it as finding terrorists

quote:

Do you have any statistical reason (or, for that matter, any evidence at all) for believing that this is true? Or do you just consider that given the ethical teachings, and provided that all Christians follow those ethical teachings, they are less likely to be criminals? This seems, if you don't mind me saying so, to be a rather partisan and biased claim - much like atheists saying that because rationality is the foundation for their moral principles that there are no atheistic criminals. Also, if there was such a clear correlation between self-confessed religious practise and law-breaking, that governments round the world might have taken to using religion as a method of maintaining order? As this isn't the case, I am forced to consider the reverse to be more probable.


Massive atheist crime-waves: do they exist? If so, why?

what i meant by this was that it is less likely that a Christian would be a criminal i realize that there are some who are i know a few personally but atheists who use "rationality" as their morals/ ethics....let me put it this way if a person rationally thought that if i dont have money to buy something ill steal it or well he/she does this why not me and its something illegal or he made me so mad i just had to kill him to have peace again. how is that rational?

quote:

quote:
Having said this, if we are allowed to interpret revelations as a metaphor, then the Roman Empire does seem like the most likely candidate - though of course, the symbolism of the beast of Revelations has at times been any one of Protestantism, Catholicism and the devil.


quote:
Also the 666 numerology is not exclusively Biblical, and would have had quite different significations when it was written in Roman numerals as opposed to the Arabic influenced system of numbers we currently use. 666 looks like an easy number to brand someone with, but VI VI VI, or indeed DCLXVI.


Problems with interpreting scripture: are there actually any?

With the last sentence in the first paragraph i was joking i think about catholicism and protestantism but the devil is brought up as the dragon and the beast.for the rest i need to dig put my files with this in it ill try to answer it soon.

quote:

And to further complicate the above interpreting scripture problem, the original response from Wolfie:

quote:
In today's world, religions that are thousands of years old (their rules anyway) do not fit in with modern culture. When the koran, the bible, the torah, etc. were written it was by a group of people with a very very very limited understanding of science.

Let me ask you this when in history do we need to now science to write a paper/ essay/ newsletter/ letters in general/ etc.?

quote:

Today, we have so many new discoveries that prove their rules and examples physically impossible. (And when something is physically impossible, it means IT CAN'T HAPPEN. no matter what god or genies or pixie dust exists in the world.) This is why most people merely practice the idealologies of said religion. They see the examples as metaphors and often do not obey rules set 2000 years before their time.


I think that should be enough to get us back on topic. Again, take your time Romashu because these are complex issues, but we'd be interested in your responses, whatever they might take the form of.

What wolfie is referring to here is some of the more hard to imagine stuff that are in revelations such as the end of the world senerio. this senerio i a metaphor one of the ones i was referring to since we know that it cant and coulndt have happend since we're still here(and arguing). since some christians dont believe that the world is so many billions of years old we see it as impossible for it to be 2000 years before their time "since i believe the chinese came up with paper around this time as well"-not too sure about this last part.

as for interested in this no matter what form brehon do you really believe your not the only one cause wolfie does nothing but comment on how illogical and idiocratic my posts are.

lol, massive atheists crime waves.

what about massive christian crime waves.

people do things. debating them doesn't change anything.

quote:

Whilst this might be the case, and I am perfectly willing to accept that Nero was mad - viz. setting fire to Rome etc - I'm just not willing to take the the accompanying points about him branding the entire citizenry of the Roman empire except the Jews (presumably the Roman citizenry would have had something to say about this...) or that Revelations records this phenomenon.

Since we were returning other posts to their purposes, I thought I'd have a stab at correcting the course of this one by looking through my old posts for points that got ignored. Hence the above. Any response to this, Romashu? Or indeed to any of the following:

quote:

Do you have any statistical reason (or, for that matter, any evidence at all) for believing that this is true? Or do you just consider that given the ethical teachings, and provided that all Christians follow those ethical teachings, they are less likely to be criminals? This seems, if you don't mind me saying so, to be a rather partisan and biased claim - much like atheists saying that because rationality is the foundation for their moral principles that there are no atheistic criminals. Also, if there was such a clear correlation between self-confessed religious practise and law-breaking, that governments round the world might have taken to using religion as a method of maintaining order? As this isn't the case, I am forced to consider the reverse to be more probable.

Massive atheist crime-waves: do they exist? If so, why?

quote:

Having said this, if we are allowed to interpret revelations as a metaphor, then the Roman Empire does seem like the most likely candidate - though of course, the symbolism of the beast of Revelations has at times been any one of Protestantism, Catholicism and the devil.

quote:

Also the 666 numerology is not exclusively Biblical, and would have had quite different significations when it was written in Roman numerals as opposed to the Arabic influenced system of numbers we currently use. 666 looks like an easy number to brand someone with, but VI VI VI, or indeed DCLXVI.

Problems with interpreting scripture: are there actually any?

And to further complicate the above interpreting scripture problem, the original response from Wolfie:

quote:

In today's world, religions that are thousands of years old (their rules anyway) do not fit in with modern culture. When the koran, the bible, the torah, etc. were written it was by a group of people with a very very very limited understanding of science. Today, we have so many new discoveries that prove their rules and examples physically impossible. (And when something is physically impossible, it means IT CAN'T HAPPEN. no matter what god or genies or pixie dust exists in the world.) This is why most people merely practice the idealologies of said religion. They see the examples as metaphors and often do not obey rules set 2000 years before their time.

I think that should be enough to get us back on topic. Again, take your time Romashu because these are complex issues, but we'd be interested in your responses, whatever they might take the form of.

lol, haze isn't good...

i bet you like them bomb midi's.

lol i know what the haze is and its not good so the later cant be either.