Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Jan '10 23:46
    It seems I upset a few people with this thread. For those of you who expressed your disapproval in a mature and intelligent manner, I apologize for the way I portrayed my position. For the one or two of you who reacted childishly, go piss up a rope for all I care.

    I would just like to explain a couple of things. As I've stated a few times in this thread, I am not a Christian. This is not about "my religion is better than yours"

    I am not a fan of religion in general, but I am fascinated by religious text. I look all religious publications the context of NOT believing they are the divine words from the mouth of God. They fascinate me because I view them as windows into the past - the culture of people and how people thought long, long ago.

    The Bible is full of contradictions because it's a huge compilation assembled from many different sources. There exists many cases of blatant sexism. Why? Because in that era in time women were almost unanimously considered inferior to men. Let's look at an example verse.

    34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


    "Shut up inside the church you wench!"

    Now, I am quite sure I can go online or talk to any number of Christians who will give me lengthy explanations as to why this crap doesn't really say what it appears to say. I'm sure to "properly interpret" this I would require a deep rooted and fancy understanding of the bible.

    And you know what? ALL of them are full of s***. The bible was written during a time when men were less than women, in fact, women treated like crap. In a few places the bible advocates this treatment, case in point the above passage.

    The bible also advocates killing sorceresses (witch hunting), killing people who have sex with animals, and there are lots of other things in it that are extremely taboo in today's society.

    As the times change interpretations by "experts" conveniently change as well to suit the times. As I stated before the bible is a big compilation which causes contradictions. These contradictions become most obvious when you compare the old testament to the new. The overall tone (contradictions not withstanding) of the old testament is "God is all powerful and fear him" in the new testament the overall tone for Jesus is "all loving perfect forgive all ultra-pacifist" - again - contradictions not withstanding.

    The bottom line is I do not give an ounce of credence to "fancy" interpretations of the bible that are meant to explain away all the things that have become taboo by modern society.

    _________________________

    Now, let's move on to the Quran. The full text of every chapter (surah if you prefer) is available here.

    http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

    A great deal of the Quran was written while they were at war with "unbelievers." As a person who's seen combat I can tell you it is the very nature of war to dehumanize your enemy. In Vietnam the enemy were "gooks" and in WWII the Germans were "krouts."

    The overall tone (contradictions not withstanding) of almost the entire quran is one of contempt for - and violence toward "unbelievers." Verse after verse after verse reflects this.

    Copy and paste the link above. Start going through each and every page. Do a word search for "unbeliever" and "disbeliever" and see how often the words pop up. (Surah 1 doesn't have them). And of course read what it says and the context for yourself. Throughout the Quran unbelievers are the most commonly discussed subject, or so it seems.

    Just like Christians, moderate Muslims have fancy explanations for all of this because the words are taboo in modern society. I don't swallow their explanations anymore than I swallow Christian's explanations for weird crap in the bible.

    There are many Muslims who take the contemptuous words toward nonbelievers quite literally. There are others who explain them away. What makes one right and the other wrong? I guess the truth can only be told by people who died long, long ago. Those who actually wrote the words.

    For now though, the Quran offers ample fodder for those would do harm to others and those who run tyrannical regimes. An infidel draws a silly cartoon and the war cries of the Quran call mass mobs into violent action, and people die.

    Disagree with me all you like, but this is not about bigotry. I don't have any particular feelings toward people based on the color of their skin or what they call God. I don't have any particular feelings toward anyone based on what religion they choose to follow. I judge people based on their actions, and that's it.
  2. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 00:01
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It seems I upset a few people with this thread. For those of you who expressed your disapproval in a mature and intelligent manner, I apologize for the way I portrayed my position. For the one or two of you who reacted childishly, go piss up a rope for all I care.

    I would just like to explain a couple of things. As I've stated a few times in th ...[text shortened]... w. I judge people based on their actions, and that's it.
    The right of freedom speech implies the duty of the obligation to hear.

    Even though I disagree with some things you've just said I will always think that you have the right to say it. But I will also think that whenever someone says a thing that he wants it to be said he has the duty to listen for the replies.
    So just keep with your part of the deal and worry not about being PC.
    Worry about being coherent, logic, and truthful to your believes.
  3. 18 Jan '10 00:04
    There exists many cases of blatant sexism. Why? Because in that era in time women were almost unanimously considered inferior to men. Let's look at an example verse.


    You are God to know why such statements are in the Bible?

    Is it sexist to say that only women can have children? Is it sexist to say that there are physical differences between the male and female brain? Is it sexist to say that it is possible that God intended for there to be "male roles' and 'female roles".

    It is my opion that people think to highly of the physical world and the roles that people play. If the spritual really is more important than the physical, then some of the statements in the Bible make a bit more sense.

    By the way, I consider religion to simply be a worldview. Everyone has one, although they are based on different things.
  4. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 00:13
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If the spritual really is more important than the physical, then some of the statements in the Bible make a bit more sense.
    Can you please explain to me, in a spiritual way (whatever that is), the misogyny that pervades the Bible then?
  5. 18 Jan '10 00:33
    It isn't just the treatment of women that people have problems with. It is also the acceptance of slavery.

    If you assume that what happens to you really doesn't matter, then mistreatment doesn't matter. That's what I meant when I said the physcial vs the spiritual. If someone strikes you, let them do it again. If someone steals from you, give him more. These are not statements that make sense to most people, but then again, neither does Jesus' torture and death.
  6. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 01:02
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It isn't just the treatment of women that people have problems with. It is also the acceptance of slavery.

    If you assume that what happens to you really doesn't matter, then mistreatment doesn't matter. That's what I meant when I said the physcial vs the spiritual. If someone strikes you, let them do it again. If someone steals from you, give him more ...[text shortened]... ents that make sense to most people, but then again, neither does Jesus' torture and death.
    Slavery isn't just accepted in the Bible: it is endorsed.

    So if what happens to one isn't really important why do Christians go fighting against injustices in the world?
  7. 18 Jan '10 01:06
    So if what happens to one isn't really important why do Christians go fighting against injustices in the world?


    I'd say it is because most who proclaim to know God don't. Christian is a self proclaimed mantle and really doesn't mean much.
  8. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 01:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]So if what happens to one isn't really important why do Christians go fighting against injustices in the world?


    I'd say it is because most who proclaim to know God don't. Christian is a self proclaimed mantle and really doesn't mean much.[/b]
    So Theology of Liberation is a bunch of rubbish in your view, right?
  9. 18 Jan '10 01:25
    Any time someone tries to create something of religion, other than a personal relationship with God and how an individual is to live, I am suspect.
  10. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 01:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Any time someone tries to create something of religion, other than a personal relationship with God and how an individual is to live, I am suspect.
    Should individuals pursuit better ways of living if those ways don't cause harm to other individuals?
  11. 18 Jan '10 01:55
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Should individuals pursuit better ways of living if those ways don't cause harm to other individuals?
    There are too many terms to define here. What kinds of pursuits are we talking about? What is harm?

    I just posted my point of view. I tried to answer your original question. I don't intend on going around in circles.
  12. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Jan '10 02:00
    Originally posted by Eladar
    There are too many terms to define here. What kinds of pursuits are we talking about? What is harm?

    I just posted my point of view. I tried to answer your original question. I don't intend on going around in circles.
    Let me try a few definitions by means of examples then:

    Liberation Theology was a movement mostly in Latin America where the poor people tried to have better living conditions.

    Instead of starving to death and watching their children starve to death they tried to change how things worked so that they could have better conditions. They didn't steal nor anyone became poorer because of that.

    They tried to do this with the help of Latin America priests and clergy.

    Was this a good thing or not?
  13. 18 Jan '10 02:13 / 1 edit
    I don't have enough information to know if it is a good thing. In general, I don't think that one should use religion to push poltical ends. Can Christians be political? Sure! Can church officials be political? Sure! Should they use their position as a Church official to push political dogma? No.

    From what I've read, this is tied to Marxism. If this is true, then it is tied to politics being used to take from one group and give to another. In general, I think this is an inefficient way of doing business and leads to inferior living conditions. But seeing as this is South (or central) America we are talking about, it is quite possible that the Marxists are simply replacing an even more screwed up government. In other words we are talking about rats and snakes here. Is a rat no longer a rat simply because it is replacing a snake? Are things better under the rat? Does that mean that the rat is the ideal to which we should strive?
  14. 18 Jan '10 02:24
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]There exists many cases of blatant sexism. Why? Because in that era in time women were almost unanimously considered inferior to men. Let's look at an example verse.


    You are God to know why such statements are in the Bible?

    Is it sexist to say that only women can have children? Is it sexist to say that there are physical differences between ...[text shortened]... n to simply be a worldview. Everyone has one, although they are based on different things.[/b]
    No, I'm not God. I'm a thinking human being.

    It's not sexist to say only women can have children.

    It's not sexist to say there are physical differences between men and women.

    It IS sexist to say women should not speak in church.

    That God assigned different roles between men and women - I don't believe.

    If a woman is a genius and her husband is mentally challenged - should she learn from her husband at home?
  15. 18 Jan '10 02:32
    Within your culture, you are correct, saying that women should not speak during church services is sexist.

    You do not believe that you are God, but you do believe you hold eternal truth. I'd say it is close to being one in that same.