The Pharaoh, Exodus, God, and the Meme that started an argument

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2016, 07:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I get what you're saying, but no amount of science, information and technology is going to do away with natural human animal instinct.  As I see it, most religions were created to either answer the question of "Why are we here?", or to be used by a few in the know as a means of controlling the ignorant masses and their behavior.

Without opening an entirely different can of worms here, (I apologize for deviating from the original intent of the thread) could either of you explain just how this progress toward science, information and technology will have any bearing on peoples moral compasses, or how it will encourage anyone to ignore their primal (also scientific) instincts?

The snake handling sects of mostly Appalachia Pentecostals believe if you have faith in God the venom from a rattlesnake won't harm the faithful. 

Science has influenced me not to handle rattlesnakes at church. 

I don't give a shit if they "choose" to believe their indoctrination into snake handling. But, I do give a shit when they try legislate their beliefs onto others. 

I'm pretty sure it has been awhile since we have burned a witch at the stake. 

[SunsetBengal]

(09-21-2016, 08:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The snake handling sects of mostly Appalachia Pentecostals believe if you have faith in God the venom from a rattlesnake won't harm the faithful. 

Science has influenced me not to handle rattlesnakes at church. 

I don't give a shit if they "choose" to believe their indoctrination into snake handling. But, I do give a shit when they try legislate their beliefs onto others. 

I'm pretty sure it has been awhile since we have burned a witch at the stake. 

Yes, science has proven why people die when bitten by rattlesnakes.  However, you could have just observed the guy next to you dying from a bite, and chosen to keep your distance from the snake. 

I've read your postings for quite some time, I know that you are a very intelligent, educated man.  How will "progressing" to science, information and technology ever get rid of primal human natural instinct?  You know, those animal urges to rape, kill, take from the weaker, etc.?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2016, 08:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, science has proven why people die when bitten by rattlesnakes.  However, you could have just observed the guy next to you dying from a bite, and chosen to keep your distance from the snake. 

I've read your postings for quite some time, I know that you are a very intelligent, educated man.  How will "progressing" to science, information and technology ever get rid of primal human natural instinct?  You know, those animal urges to rape, kill, take from the weaker, etc.?

Observation is a part of the scientific process. 

I'm not sure where you are going with this because I don't believe I've ever claimed science will replace or eliminate human nature. I don't believe any scientist has ever made that claim. Can it affect our morals? Sure it can. Our medical/scientific understanding of conception and death influences our ethics related to abortion and euthanasia. However, that knowledge will never replace our desire for sex as a species or prevent a single murder. Any more or less than religion. 

Like I told Philhos, I don't know if there is or isn't a god(s).  However, if there is a being capable of creating the universe and everything in it then I an certain that being is capable being more than the simpleton caricature depicted in the Bible whose plan for salvation involves human sacrifice which replaced the previous animal sacrifice model. 

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 07:23 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Bullshit. In the context of talking about the Exodus story with 0 political statements made, you chimed in that anyone that believed in the Eden story was stupid. I believe you when you say that you act differently in the real world, but please spare us your crap that you're not really anti-religious.

Thanks.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

Point to Phil.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-21-2016, 09:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Observation is a part of the scientific process. 

I'm not sure where you are going with this because I don't believe I've ever claimed science will replace or eliminate human nature. I don't believe any scientist has ever made that claim. Can it affect our morals? Sure it can. Our medical/scientific understanding of conception and death influences our ethics related to abortion and euthanasia. However, that knowledge will never replace our desire for sex as a species or prevent a single murder. Any more or less than religion. 

Like I told Philhos, I don't know if there is or isn't a god(s).  However, if there is a being capable of creating the universe and everything in it then I an certain that being is capable being more than the simpleton caricature depicted in the Bible whose plan for salvation involves human sacrifice which replaced the previous animal sacrifice model. 

I guess the only point that I was that it is just as wrong to ridicule folk for believing, as it is for folk of a particular religion to hold bias against another individual, simply because of their particular religious beliefs.  Personally, I was raised with religion, but I choose not to practice, for a multitude of reasons.  However, I see the value in folks having something fundamental, like a religion to believe in.  Now, if that particular religion's doctrine instructs believers to convert or kill all who do not think likewise, I may have an issue.  We should look at those people a little more closely.

I come to all of this, because it appeared to me that one man was being attacked in group fashion, simply for his beliefs.  Not because he was propagating hate, just because he was expressing a view.  Even though I don't practice any organized religion, I don't think that is right.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-21-2016, 09:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess the only point that I was that it is just as wrong to ridicule folk for believing, as it is for folk of a particular religion to hold bias against another individual, simply because of their particular religious beliefs.  Personally, I was raised with religion, but I choose not to practice, for a multitude of reasons.  However, I see the value in folks having something fundamental, like a religion to believe in.  Now, if that particular religion's doctrine instructs believers to convert or kill all who do not think likewise, I may have an issue.  We should look at those people a little more closely.

I come to all of this, because it appeared to me that one man was being attacked in group fashion, simply for his beliefs.  Not because he was propagating hate, just because he was expressing a view.  Even though I don't practice any organized religion, I don't think that is right.

Agree with that although I'm not sure who the target you're referencing is.  I just think it's amazing how people can claim they are simultaneously the 'moral majority' and being 'persecuted' for their beliefs.  

That type of sensitivity to questioning said beliefs lies within the 'persecuted' not the person pointing out obvious fallacies their worldview is based on.  

[Rotobeast]

(09-21-2016, 07:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How many adults choose to have faith in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy after the indoctrination ends during childhood?

I have faith in Santa.
I see Santa, all the time.
I see people make sacrifices, so others might have some kind of joy in their life.
I see it often and it's one of the few things in this world that damn near makes me tear up.
Heck... I sacrifice my pride, all the time, just to entertain you stiffs.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*PhilHos*]

(09-21-2016, 08:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, I do give a shit when they try legislate their beliefs onto others.  

While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas  grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas  grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?

But the reasoning behind things like the transgender bathroom issues isn't a lack of religion. There are Christian denominations that support things like that. If you have a law supported by secular and religious thinkers alike, you have something that will move along. Laws with based on religious beliefs are, as interpreted by the courts, not acceptable. It used to be the Lemon Test for many years with regards to SOCAS, which I know isn't in the Constitution but courts have upheld. Now we use the Endorsement Test more often, which is whether or not a reasonable person could view the law or action or whatever as an endorsement of a religion. If the reasoning behind a law is because a bunch of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or whoever is putting it out there and the island of religious reasoning is not surrounded by an ocean of secular, then it isn't typically going to pass muster.

Every law we have is based on opinion. Our framers weren't omniscient entities as some people like to make them out to be, there were politicians pushing an agenda and that is what has been going on ever since in the country. Opinions and beliefs change, and laws change with them as we attempt to protect the civil liberties and civil rights of the people while providing services and security. Opinions on how that looks change all the time, but because of the Establishment Clause and the courts interpreting it as SOCAS and how it has been applied, religious reasoning must be surrounded by secularism if it is to occur at all, and that has caused many people to see religious opinions as irrelevant to our lawmaking processes.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas  grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?

It has been my experience that when a liberal disagrees with a law or lack thereod they will point to Law based on religion; just as they accuse folks or "ignoring science"

For instance there are non-religious folks that do not want to share a shower with a member of the opposite sex; but if you speak against it; your based law on your religion.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2016, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has been my experience that when a liberal disagrees with a law or lack thereod they will point to Law based on religion; just as they accuse folks or "ignoring science"

For instance there are non-religious folks that do not want to share a shower with a member of the opposite sex; but if you speak against it; your based law on your religion.

The problem is that 90% of the time the most vocal protesters against these type of laws are religious based.

It is not 100%, but it is very close.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2016, 09:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess the only point that I was that it is just as wrong to ridicule folk for believing

(03-02-2016, 12:46 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wow, is that what Mother Jones told you the appropriate response was??  You know, I used to think that you were clever, and maybe even close to being smart.  However, your posts get to be more and more like canned responses.  Btw, who in the heck was talking about Reagan? 


That post was about Hillldog, and how much the leftists like to blame everything on Bush...

That seems an awful lot like you are ridiculing someone for a belief.

Can you explain when it is appropriate to ridicule a belief and when it is inappropriate?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2016, 12:13 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I have faith in Santa.
I see Santa, all the time.
I see people make sacrifices, so others might have some kind of joy in their life.
I see it often and it's one of the few things in this world that damn near makes me tear up.
Heck... I sacrifice my pride, all the time, just to entertain you stiffs.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

One of those are called psychosis and the other humanism.  Good luck figuring it out.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas  grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?

It's pretty simple IMO, we don't all practice the same religions.  I don't want any legislation based on religion, who gets to decide which religion? Me? You?  No I think there are some pretty simple rules most can agree on (thou shall not kill comes to mind).  Then there are others that make no sense (don't eat shell fish comes to mind), at least to those that don't practice that religion.  We live in a mixed society, it makes sense that not one set of religious beliefs should govern everyone. 

I hope that my answer gave you some satisfaction.  If not (as I've told many women)....sorry

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: While I understand this and in some ways, I agree (i.e. Muslim beliefs), the question I've asked before that no one really has ever answered to my satisfaction (that I recall, anyways) is why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

No matter what the topic, all legislation is based on someone's beliefs or ideas. Now, some are based on ideas grounded in fact, some are based on ideas  grounded in faith, and some (most?) are based on ideas grounded in opinion. Why is only one of those an issue?

How many different religions are there in the world?  How many throughout history? How many claim to be the only true religion?

Are you familiar with Giordano Bruno? He was charged with heresy.  Tortured over the course of seven years.  Then executed by being burned at the stake.  His crime?  An idea.  Actually several ideas.  Four hundred years later the Catholic Church still refuses to admit that maybe they were wrong lest it cast doubt on their faith.

Imagine if every religion burned people at the stake for differing opinions.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-fact-becomes-anti-catholic-fiction

Plato asked, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

God exists outside of time, correct?  After all, He was present before time.  He invented time.  Therefore, shouldn't God's morality also be timeless?  If something is morally good, shouldn't that something always be morally good?  Yet, what is morally good in the Old Testament isn't necessarily morally good in the New Testament.  Why?  God is omniscient.  So why would he change his mind about what is morally good?  If He knows He will change His mind about what He considers morally good, why didn't He just go with that from the get go?

Secular laws should be based upon justice, reason, logic, fairness.  When a man is executed for heresy, what does that have to with justice?  Although I'm not sure why you asked this question when you admitted in the first sentence you understand why.  Your first three words are literally, "While I understand."  If you understand why others oppose laws rooted in religion and even agree, why can't you answer your own question to your satisfaction? I mean if you understand . . . then you obviously understand.  Your understanding obviates any need for an explanation from anyone else to help you understand because you already understand. If you need an explanation then I don't think you do understand.  So which is it?  Do you understand?  Or do you need an explanation so you understand?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2016, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has been my experience that when a liberal disagrees with a law or lack thereod they will point to Law based on religion; just as they accuse folks or "ignoring science"

I think you are confusing "ignoring" with "understanding."

Quote:For instance there are non-religious folks that do not want to share a shower with a member of the opposite sex; but if you speak against it; your based law on your religion.

Are you suggesting non-religious folks who speak out against co-ed showers are accused of being religious? Or are you suggesting religious folk who speak out against non-religious folk opposed to co-ed showers (thus making the religious folk in favor of co-ed showers) are accused of being religious?

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2016, 01:08 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: One of those are called psychosis and the other humanism.  Good luck figuring it out.

You've been coming across as rather crotchety, lately.
I'm going to seek you out,  shower you with tinsel, and give you a big Santa hug.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 03:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Secular laws should be based upon justice, reason, logic, fairness.  

Concepts of 'justice' and 'fairness' are pretty subjective to the point of being often abused throughout history. 'Reason' and 'logic' are, by their nature, far more objective (despite the fact that people still sometimes argue against them). I would think laws should be based upon reason and logic and that concepts of justice and fairness should develop from that basis, rather than all being on an equal footing from the get-go. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2016, 11:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: why is it wrong to legislate beliefs based on religion, but it's not wrong to legislate beliefs based on non-religion? Like, I can understand why people would not want a law that says prayer is mandatory in school, but why is it then okay to make a law that says that genetic males are allowed to use a restroom designated for genetic females? I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about transgender laws, but my point is more on why people get upset at religious people pushing their agenda, but those same people don't get upset at non-religious people pushing THEIR agenda?

I'm not exactly sure what "non-religion" means to you, especially after your example, however, the first part is easy to answer. It's wrong to force others to adhere to a single religion. You're compelling people to worship and you're doing so in violation of the Constitution.

With regards to legislate based on non-religious, what do you mean? Based on science? Based on concepts of civil rights or equality? With the example you gave, the prayer law forces people to take an action and violates rights. The bathroom law doesn't force an action on anyone and doesn't violate any rights. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 09:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Concepts of 'justice' and 'fairness' are pretty subjective to the point of being often abused throughout history. 'Reason' and 'logic' are, by their nature, far more objective (despite the fact that people still sometimes argue against them). I would think laws should be based upon reason and logic and that concepts of justice and fairness should develop from that basis, rather than all being on an equal footing from the get-go. 

Have you seen the latest crop of politicians that people are supporting? Reason and logic are an improbability.