How Religion does Harm

[Logicman]

So what? Your book of bronze-age mythology....

You make the claim it's mythology. Prove it.

says the same thing in four books that were copied from a single source.

Nope. In the first century all the different New Testament books were individual works which had not been compiled together yet. So you have several dozen different writings.

I'm sure Hitler believed that too and you're willing to declare him a non-Christian because it gets in the way of your delusional agenda.

Anyone who thinks Hitler was a rational individual needs help themselves.

 

[Cephus]

You make the claim it's mythology. Prove it.

It fits into the same category of stories that all religions are based on. The resurrection of Jesus is no more credible than the story of Mohammed riding off on a winged horse.

Nope. In the first century all the different New Testament books were individual works which had not been compiled together yet. So you have several dozen different writings.

Seriously, you need to go do some research on the historicity of the Bible and the construction of the Biblical canon.

Anyone who thinks Hitler was a rational individual needs help themselves.

Oh, I think he was nuts, just like most hardcore theists. There are far too many people who are more concerned with how their beliefs make them feel than whether or not they're actually true.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So the courts got it wrong on church and state and you're fighting it. They ruled on abortion but you're fighting it anyway. They ruled on Stem cell research and everyone should just respect the decision and let it end there. Gotcha. All I see is Hypocrite.

Only see Hypocrite? Well, I would probably suggest taking down the four walled mirrors you must have yourself encased in, eh? That do the trick did it?

I said nothing of the sort and would expect anyone who truly believes, after they actually know what the heck they are talking about, to keep fighting for what they truly believe. But I also believe this is a majority rules country...and your side sidesteps that so often using activist judges. Think we are blind to that, think we are not going to say something about that hypocrisy? That is a tyranny of the minority.

And yes, they absolutely got it wrong on Church vs State if they continue to rule in the manner in which they have, they most certainly got Roe vs Wade wrong. I am actually unaware of any court case banning embryonic stem cell research or its funding. Its not my area of expertise so maybe you might enlighten us all?

So, where exactly am I being hypocritical again?

 

[The Baron]

Other than the obvious stuff like Muslims throwing acid in the faces of young girls for having the audacity to learn to read and write...

Hold-up!!!

If we're going to have a legitimate debate over the harm of religion then let's not gloss over how Muslims throw acid into the face of children, rape women with impunity or behead anyone for being Jewish.

Oh, and let's not forget flying jets into buildings like they were missiles and killing thousands in a single day all in the name of Allah.

 

[calamity]

Hold-up!!!

If we're going to have a legitimate debate over the harm of religion then let's not gloss over how Muslims throw acid into the face of children, rape women with impunity or behead anyone for being Jewish.

Oh, and let's not forget flying jets into buildings like they were missiles and killing thousands in a single day all in the name of Allah.

I'm sure there are a million more---my favorite: killing apostates. Lovely how those people give religion a bad name.

 

[Cephus]

I'm sure there are a million more---my favorite: killing apostates. Lovely how those people give religion a bad name.

No, religion gives religion a bad name, these people are just the poster children for it.

 

[Grand Mal]

One can have reservations about using unborn humans in research without being religious.

Is a cluster of unformed cells human?

 

[Logicman]

It fits into the same category of stories that all religions are based on. The resurrection of Jesus is no more credible than the story of Mohammed riding off on a winged horse.

That story doesn't have the array of real-life contemporary witnesses that the Gospels have with the resurrection.

Seriously, you need to go do some research on the historicity of the Bible and the construction of the Biblical canon.

So you're going to argue with me that the entire New Testament, containing all 27 separate works, was in one single volume in the first century? And I'm the one who needs to do research on the Bible?

 

[Cephus]

That story doesn't have the array of real-life contemporary witnesses that the Gospels have with the resurrection.

Really? Name one demonstrably contemporary eye-witness account to the resurrection. Just one.

So you're going to argue with me that the entire New Testament, containing all 27 separate works, was in one single volume in the first century? And I'm the one who needs to do research on the Bible?

Actually, it wasn't, the Bible wasn't compiled in any official terms until the 4th century. There was still widespread disagreement over the canon, it wasn't widely accepted until then. Besides, Revelations wasn't even written until 95CE, there's certainly not enough time for it to have been distributed throughout all of the world and to be accepted as canon in less than 5 years.

So yes, I'm telling you to research the Bible.

 

[Logicman]

Really? Name one demonstrably contemporary eye-witness account to the resurrection. Just one.

All the disciples, except Judas (who hanged himself) eventually saw the resurrected Christ.

Actually, it wasn't, the Bible wasn't compiled in any official terms until the 4th century. There was still widespread disagreement over the canon, it wasn't widely accepted until then. Besides, Revelations wasn't even written until 95CE, there's certainly not enough time for it to have been distributed throughout all of the world and to be accepted as canon in less than 5 years.

You're making a strawman argument. Although the New Testament wasn't compiled until the 4th century, all the 27 individual works were in existence before 100 AD.

So yes, I'm telling you to research the Bible.

You blew it. You probably don't even know what progressive sanctification is, do you? Or state an Old Testament passage that alludes to it. You can't do that without looking it up, can you?

 

[Cephus]

All the disciples, except Judas (who hanged himself) eventually saw the resurrected Christ.

I said DEMONSTRABLE! Except for the religious loons, pretty much nobody in scholarly circles accepts that the disciples actually wrote any of the gospels that bear their names. So come on back when you can prove something with actual evidence.

You're making a strawman argument. Although the New Testament wasn't compiled until the 4th century, all the 27 individual works were all in existence before 100 AD.

No, I'm responding to what you said. While all of them were in existence, so were literally hundreds of other books which were eventually rejected from the official canon. Those 27 books were not widely recognized as a cohesive work in the first century, they were just individual tales written by individual people, most of whom are totally unknown today.

You blew it. You probably don't even know what progressive sanctification is, do you? Or state an Old Testament passage that alludes to it. You can't do that without looking it up, can you?

Yes I do, but that's entirely irrelevant, I'm talking reality, not theology. It doesn't matter what messages you take from the Bible, only what you can actually demonstrate exists in the real world. You just keep demonstrating you have no idea about the Bible, the history of your religion or anything else, just want prattle you've been taught in Sunday school or from the pulpit.

 

[Logicman]

I said DEMONSTRABLE! Except for the religious loons, pretty much nobody in scholarly circles accepts that the disciples actually wrote any of the gospels that bear their names.

That's false. I don't know of any (or many) conservative scholars who believe the traditional Gospel authors didn't write them.

Yes I do, but that's entirely irrelevant, I'm talking reality, not theology. It doesn't matter what messages you take from the Bible, only what you can actually demonstrate exists in the real world. You just keep demonstrating you have no idea about the Bible, the history of your religion or anything else, just want prattle you've been taught in Sunday school or from the pulpit.

I'm not going to waste time with someone who keeps making spurious claims and then engages in sophomoric ad hominems. So have a nice life.

 

[Cephus]

That's false. I don't know of any (or many) conservative scholars who believe the traditional Gospel authors didn't write them.

Then you need to do your research because pretty much no scholars (as opposed to theologians) accept that. Then again, I doubt you ever get out of your little theological comfort zone, you never look at objective science, you stick to people who believe what you believe.

I'm not going to waste time with someone who keeps making spurious claims and then engages in sophomoric ad hominems. So have a nice life.

Run away, as expected. The facts are the facts. You don't seem to care about the facts, only the religious comforting faith that you cling to. This is why it's so impossible to debate theists, because without exception, all of them reach a point where they will reject reality in favor of their religious security blanket. You cannot follow the evidence to it's logical conclusion, you have to start with your own religious conclusion and then only look at the evidence that supports it.

So be it. Adios.

 

[calamity]

No, religion gives religion a bad name, these people are just the poster children for it.

Yeah. I agree. Christians have something akin to killing apostates--they invented a God who banishes them to eternal suffering in a lake of fire called hell.

 

[Ikari]

Interesting indeed. So laws passed by the majority of our congress critters and signed by the POTUS (Clinton in this case) should not to be upheld by the courts, or may tossed aside (overridden?) by executive orders, since you don't like the fact that those who introduced the bill are Christians?

Dickey-Wicker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if a bill that achieved all you listed above instead pushed religious rule over the masses? Is it OK to want to toss aside those?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What if a bill that achieved all you listed above instead pushed religious rule over the masses? Is it OK to want to toss aside those?

If you assert that the bill establishes a religion then the courts should be presented the case and make the call.

 

[Ikari]

If you assert that the bill establishes a religion then the courts should be presented the case and make the call.

But your complaint is that laws like this shouldn't be overturned by the courts. But if a democratically passed and signed law states that all people need to go to Church on Sunday, it can be reviewed? Well what is it? Should be able to be overturned or shouldn't?

 

[ttwtt78640]

But your complaint is that laws like this shouldn't be overturned by the courts. But if a democratically passed and signed law states that all people need to go to Church on Sunday, it can be reviewed? Well what is it? Should be able to be overturned or shouldn't?

Your view of what "establishes a religion" is far too broad if you assert a particular religious basis is behind all moral issues. Any law can be reviewed, yet I see no case to be made that banning research using X, in fact, establishes a particular religion. One may think that blue laws (e.g. no drinking alcohol on Sunday) would have been struck down long before now, yet it is extemely hard to prove that any particular religion has been established by simply restricting the days/hours of product sales.

EDIT: Perhaps going after Christmas being a national holiday should be your first cause and proceed from there.

 

[Ikari]

Your view of what "establishes a religion" is far too broad if you assert a particular religious basis is behind all moral issues. Any law can be reviewed, yet I see no case to be made that banning research using X, in fact, establishes a particular religion. One may think that blue laws (e.g. no drinking alcohol on Sunday) would have been struck down long before now, yet it is extemely hard to prove that any particular religion has been established by simply restricting the days/hours of product sales.

EDIT: Perhaps going after Christmas being a national holiday should be your first cause and proceed from there.

I don't care about Christmas being a holiday, days off are days off. I care when you use the force of government and laws of your god to prevent action that has no legitimate basis for discrimination through government force. Blue laws should be struck down universally as they are religious laws forcibly placed against those of varying religion.

 

[head of joaquin]

The use of embryo's was the issue.

As for how religion does harm, it's not Christian principles that cause death and destruction, but the violation of those principles.

Godless heathens have brought more death and destruction to the world than anyone else. Watch out for them.

Atheist vs Christian. Whose killed more and who will survive? - San Diego Political Buzz | Examiner.com

"Godless heathens" -- how quaint.

Violating Paul's admonition not to judge those outside the church, I say. It's what fundies tend to do, harming the Christian witness. I'll take a godless heathen over a sanctimonious evangelical heretic any day.

 

[head of joaquin]

Satan never looks like, walks like, talks like or acts like Satan.

No, he doesn't. He looks and talks and acts like a televangelist literalist evangelical. They do more to destroy the Christian witness than anybody.

How could any nonChristian look at Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggert or Paul Crouch and not want to barf at their sanctimony, contempt for the truth, and love of money?

 

[Cephus]

EDIT: Perhaps going after Christmas being a national holiday should be your first cause and proceed from there.

Christmas is almost entirely a secular holiday these days, very few people celebrate it as a purely religious event. You don't go to stores and find much, if any, religious symbology, but you do find lots of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, wreaths and presents to put under the tree. All of those are secular, not religious.

 

[head of joaquin]

Your view of what "establishes a religion" is far too broad if you assert a particular religious basis is behind all moral issues. Any law can be reviewed, yet I see no case to be made that banning research using X, in fact, establishes a particular religion. One may think that blue laws (e.g. no drinking alcohol on Sunday) would have been struck down long before now, yet it is extemely hard to prove that any particular religion has been established by simply restricting the days/hours of product sales.

EDIT: Perhaps going after Christmas being a national holiday should be your first cause and proceed from there.

The fact is this: we don't do stem cell research because certain religious groups have imposed their notion of what constitutes a person on the rest of us. The fact that those groups include my own -- Christians -- doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned. It's bad for government and bad for Christianity.

There may be good reasons not to use fetal tissue in research. But nobody has made such a case and never will as long as religious groups are able to demagogue the issue and poison our political discourse.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Christmas is almost entirely a secular holiday these days, very few people celebrate it as a purely religious event. You don't go to stores and find much, if any, religious symbology, but you do find lots of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, wreaths and presents to put under the tree. All of those are secular, not religious.

Christ's mass is celibrated as a U.S. holy day - but, other than that, I see no problem with it either.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? :roll:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The last time I checked, there were over 72 non-embryonic stem-cell therapies in use and proven effective.

Embryonic stem cell therapies had experienced substantial complications and the latest time I checked there were 0 (zero) effective embryonic therapies in use.

I seriously doubt all of that can be blamed on a lack of Federal funding for the research... it can still be privately funded, and if it were as promising as some claim it would be.

:caution: truth is not accepted here!