Morals

Babmer, even your slavery passages don't show an instance of god supporting slavery and on the contrary he is advocating treating slaves well, like a family member.

Animal sacrifice, livestock are property, sacrificing livestock is a sacrifice from the owner and is meant to be just that, not to mention Jesus dieing for our sins stopped the need for animal sacrifice. Don't give me **** about man being morally superior to god when god hasn't asked for an animal sacrifice in 2000 years and today people hunt, shoot horses because they have overworked them into breaking a leg, slaughter animals for food when there is alternative food sources while the rest of thee population is completely aware of this and ignores or even supports it while being 'morally superior to god'.

Furthermore, as much as you try to deny it, new testament>old testament. You are in no position to say otherwise when you don't even follow the bible. As it has been said it was written for an earlier society and couldn't have been so extreme or it would not have been accepted and none of the messages would've gotten out.

 

Sorry overmind, I just had to do it...

Spoiler

 

Um, probably because the old testament was written by Hebrews, and they had no problems with enslaving others, but might not like the concept of themselves being enslaved.

Including religion's support of it.

No it was not. The Renaissance was the triumph of scientists, philosophers, and artists, and free thinkers who yearned to escape from the constrained base of knowledge that religion advocated.

I'd also say that you should explain this to Galileo, but Galileo's treatment by the church was less due to religion and more due to Galileo being a tremendously obnoxious douchebag.

That was due to art being forced to conform to religion's narrow constraints. Art would have been more varied were it not for the presence of religion insisting that it be confined. You'll notice that most religious art consists of a couple very similar styles.

Once again, you are missing cause and effect. Religion did not cause Art, it merely forced it to meet its specifications.

First, I never said that Christianity was the source of all evil, merely that it frequently causes it, more so than it stops it. That you can cite evils not caused by Christianity proves that there are evils that are not caused by Christianity, nothing more, nothing less.

Centuries of religious wars, religious support of slavery, religious support of discrimination, religious support of backward science, overall, religion has been one nasty thorn in the side of progress of mankind.

So? And Hitler liked dogs. That doesn't redeem him, and those scientists don't redeem Christianity. I'll add that Darwin lost his faith in God entirely and Einstein didn't really think about him much at all. Also, just because a great scientist was christian does not mean that he is a great scientist because of Christianity, he could well be a great scientist in spite of Christianity. So, you prove nothing.

Take a look at this passage. I find the conclusion to be self explanatory.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 31:31-40&version=9;

So who is to say the new testament was also written for an earlier society, and thus obsolete and no longer relevant? If you can decide that any given word of god can be ignored, then how can you say that any of it should be acknowledged as absolute truth?

Like all religious people, you simply take the parts of the bible that conform to your preexisting beliefs and ignore things that don't, letting the bible fill in any remaining gaps on subjects you are iffy on. Why?

 

I feel, before I post that I should point out when mentioning the renaissance and all religion slowing down progress. The Catholic Church is not synonymous with Christianity or religion. Because one group of idiots decide to use religion to enforce their beliefs does not make religion as a whole bad. Laws have been written to oppress people, that does not make all laws or even the rule of law bad.

So because YOU were taught morals in other ways EVERYONE should do the same? Thinking everyone should do the same as you is egotistical

.

Once again you haven't proven anything since morals are entirely subjective. The morals you are judging God by are YOUR morals, no more true than anyone else's morals, and since morals are a societal construct and many societies exist, no more correct.

Nice to know someone accepts that morals are a belief. Now I have read the Bible, but I don't read it, it's not a manual to my life (in fact I can't even remember where I stashed it).

As for the homosexuality and leftovers, First I would like to know which page this is that you mention. Second abut the leftover thing (and food in general) please take into consideration when the Bible was written, many of the rules set down are to protect the people from themselves in the same manner as it being illegal to walk on the highway. They didn't have Tupperware and refrigerators. Eating leftovers that have been sitting out exposed to room temperature air for long periods of time can make you sick due to the microorganisms that start to grow in it, and they didn't have sanitation or health care either. there are other rules of a similar nature, people who handled corpses were to be kept away from the general populous, the explanation given was something along the lines of cursed and evil spirits, the 'curse' is the fact that corpses spread infection when they rot, and as such that would be a quarantine.

As for the homosexual thing. We are supposed to build families, since two men or two women can't have children together, that goes against the building families principle, and from a survival of the species/evolutionary stance is not conducive to the cycle of life. I don't have to ignore that since, while I accept homosexuals, I think homosexuality is odd (after all, according to biology, the basic instinct is survival and procreation and everything supports them) and belongs in the category of "Why does this exist?"

Once again you divorce something from its context. Verse 29 states that the Lords share goes to Eleazar the priest. In verse 41 it is reiterated that the Lords share goes to the priest. Some translations make mention of this as being a heave offering, others just say to give it to the priest, but nowhere does it say sacrifice them to the lord. In addition heave offerings are not burned as a sacrifice to the Lord, they are held above the altar (hence the name) and once the ceremony is finished, belong to the priest. Not all offerings are a burnt sacrifice, that is only one type of offering.

Next time, BEFORE spouting off a bunch of crap, I suggest you do a little research so as not to look like an ass.

 

Doesn't save text =P





"Um, probably because the old testament was written by Hebrews, and they had no problems with enslaving others, but might not like the concept of themselves being enslaved."
We've already established that the Old Testament was screwed up. What about the New? What about current Christianity?

"Including religion's support of it."
Same with Christmas and Easter. Your point?

"No it was not. The Renaissance was the triumph of scientists, philosophers, and artists, and free thinkers who yearned to escape from the constrained base of knowledge that religion advocated."
And tell me, who taught them to write? The Church. Who were the philosophers patron to? The Church. Who gave them money to fund their science and art? The Church.

"That was due to art being forced to conform to religion's narrow constraints. Art would have been more varied were it not for the presence of religion insisting that it be confined. You'll notice that most religious art consists of a couple very similar styles.

Once again, you are missing cause and effect. Religion did not cause Art, it merely forced it to meet its specifications."
It wasn't forced. The Church commissioned them. Nobody was forced to paint a picture of Jesus, they did it willingly. Religion didn't cause art, but at this point in time, it inspired it.

"So? And Hitler liked dogs. That doesn't redeem him, and those scientists don't redeem Christianity. I'll add that Darwin lost his faith in God entirely and Einstein didn't really think about him much at all. Also, just because a great scientist was christian does not mean that he is a great scientist because of Christianity, he could well be a great scientist in spite of Christianity. So, you prove nothing."
Generally every single philosopher began thinking BECAUSE of religion. One of the greatest of all time, Decartes, philosophized simply because of his opinion that God existed. Granted, this is one example, but by no means does religion stifle progress. Also, dogs? lolwat

"Take a look at this passage. I find the conclusion to be self explanatory.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-40&version=9;"
It talks about tributes. Nowhere in any definition I could find about 'tribute' does it mention a sacrifice. It was probably talking about enslaving them

"Like all religious people, you simply take the parts of the bible that conform to your preexisting beliefs and ignore things that don't, letting the bible fill in any remaining gaps on subjects you are iffy on. Why?"
Like all anti-religious people, you simply take the parts of the Bible that help you prove your point, and leave the rest by the wayside. Why?

 

I cannot believe it man.

You actually anwsered your own argument.
Im not going to take the time to respond to your obviously ignorant udnerstanding of your religion until you take the time to read my posts.

I have anwsered EVERY single point you have just made there. Go back through the pages instead of rehashing old idiotic points.

 

Funny thing:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

 

Indeed.