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

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2016, 06:49 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: 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

Lately?

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 02:37 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: 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

I think a major problem with organized religions is that, in trying to reconcile religious beliefs with living in a society or many different beliefs, there is a tendency for insecurity and a competitive spirit to arise. The concept that a religion should be a set of beliefs for an individual to adopt and live his or her own live by becomes warped into the concept that a religion needs to control and run a society in order to make sure that everyone adopts those beliefs and runs their lives in the "proper way". And that begs the question of, "If your religion is the one true religion, why would it need to force people to believe in it?" People can't help but question this as the logic behind forcing a religion upon others is flawed. And that questioning further increases the insecurity of the organized religion to the point of entrenchment. 

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 09:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Have you seen the latest crop of politicians that people are supporting? Reason and logic are an improbability.

True. But those are politicians, of course. When has the art of getting elected ever had anything to do with the art of good lawmaking? 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 09:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: True. But those are politicians, of course. When has the art of getting elected ever had anything to do with the art of good lawmaking? 

But the people are electing them. We have to keep that in mind.

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 10:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the people are electing them. We have to keep that in mind.

But when have the people ever been good at making good laws for themselves or electing good officials?

Didn't JFK have to write a book about how stupid voters can be called "Profiles in Courage"? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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. 

I don't disagree because in the example I provided in Giordano Bruno he was a victim of "divine" justice although contemporary proponents will most likely disagree (even though the Catholic Church still won't concede burning someone at the stake for heresy was a mistake.)

I think of justice in contemporary, secular terms such as "liberty and justice for all" which is different than The Inquisition's idea of justice which is different than sharia law's idea of justice.  So personally, I would rather have laws based upon reason rather than the idea a divine creator has every right to kill every first born human and animal because he is divine and therefore his immoral acts are rendered moral via his divinity and we know it is true because a book says it is true.  And we know the book is true because the book says the book is true.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 10:35 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

WTF is the Appalachian Trail sign doing in there? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2016, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: WTF is the Appalachian Trail sign doing in there? 

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 10:35 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't disagree because in the example I provided in Giordano Bruno he was a victim of "divine" justice although contemporary proponents will most likely disagree (even though the Catholic Church still won't concede burning someone at the stake for heresy was a mistake.)

I think of justice in contemporary, secular terms such as "liberty and justice for all" which is different than The Inquisition's idea of justice which is different than sharia law's idea of justice.  So personally, I would rather have laws based upon reason rather than the idea a divine creator has every right to kill every first born human and animal because he is divine and therefore his immoral acts are rendered moral via his divinity and we know it is true because a book says it is true.  And we know the book is true because the book says the book is true.

Yeah. Logically, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient God who makes His own laws for His own purposes, then that God can enforce those laws in a way that He sees fit. So, why would humans need to emulate those laws and also try to enforce them upon other humans? That doesn't make any sense. It is like saying, "You are God, all-knowing and all-powerful. And we worship you for that. But we don't really think you see what is going on down here or are taking care of it sufficiently." 

No, societies need to make their own laws based upon their needs and based upon reason and logic and not based upon a deity's laws (most of which, in the case of Christianity, would not be enforceable anyway since they deal with sins of thought). If they follow the course of reason and logic, justice and fairness should follow as a result. 

[Bengalzona]

(09-23-2016, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: WTF is the Appalachian Trail sign doing in there? 

[*bfine32*]

What specific relgion am I forcing on others if I (generic I):

Am opposed to SSM

Think folks should use facilities based on sex

Opposed to abortion

Think illegal immigration is illegal

ect...

[Vas Deferens]

(09-23-2016, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What specific relgion am I forcing on others if I (generic I):

Am opposed to SSM

Think folks should use facilities based on sex

Opposed to abortion

Think illegal immigration is illegal

ect...

It doesn't matter the 'specific' religion.  That is the point.  

What is the logic behind these stances?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2016, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What specific relgion am I forcing on others if I (generic I):

Am opposed to SSM

Think folks should use facilities based on sex

Opposed to abortion

Think illegal immigration is illegal

ect...

The answer is the "generic" I's specific religion. How can one identify the specific religion of a generic, hypothetical person. Do you know what "they" say about stupid questions?

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2016, 12:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: It doesn't matter the 'specific' religion.  That is the point.  

What is the logic behind these stances?

Values and sense of morality.

What is the logic behind your political stances?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-23-2016, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Values and sense of morality.

What is the logic behind your political stances?

Again, you're asking us to identify the specific religion of a generic person. Do generic people practice specific religions?  If they do, doesn't that mean they are no longer generic?  If a generic person practices Christianity wouldn't that make them a Christian? If a generic person practices Judaism wouldn't that make them a Jew?  If a generic person practices Islam, wouldn't that make them a Muslim?

So, yeah . . .

[Benton]

(09-23-2016, 12:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: It doesn't matter the 'specific' religion.  That is the point.  

What is the logic behind these stances?

Logic is dictated by point of view. It's relative to experiences and vindictiveness.

To me drunk driving laws are illogical. I don't do it, I've been impacted little by it and it goes against my own sense of logic that a person should be responsible for their own actions up to the point they impede or injure someone else.

To MADD and many others, it's logical for everyone to be considered a hazard if they washed down their burger with a beer.

Basing your opinions on religious beliefs is hardly different than basing them on things your parents or coworkers say, things you've experienced in life or your interpretation of events. And it's entirely open to interpretation.

I believe in same sex marriage. I'm a Methodist. My belief that two people of the same sex can love each other and live together is based, in part, off my interpretation of the Bible. That's my logic behind it. Finding that answer in the Bible doesn't make it any less correct of a belief than someone who found that answer by being raised in a same sex household, by having parents who told them it was ok to believe that way, or by knowing perfectly happy and stable same sex families as an adult.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-23-2016, 09:44 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think a major problem with organized religions is that, in trying to reconcile religious beliefs with living in a society or many different beliefs, there is a tendency for insecurity and a competitive spirit to arise. The concept that a religion should be a set of beliefs for an individual to adopt and live his or her own live by becomes warped into the concept that a religion needs to control and run a society in order to make sure that everyone adopts those beliefs and runs their lives in the "proper way". And that begs the question of, "If your religion is the one true religion, why would it need to force people to believe in it?" People can't help but question this as the logic behind forcing a religion upon others is flawed. And that questioning further increases the insecurity of the organized religion to the point of entrenchment. 

I think a mix of fear and pride make it difficult for people to admit their beliefs may be incorrect.   Admitting that you may be wrong is a difficult thing to own.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-23-2016, 02:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Logic is dictated by point of view. It's relative to experiences and vindictiveness.

To me drunk driving laws are illogical. I don't do it, I've been impacted little by it and it goes against my own sense of logic that a person should be responsible for their own actions up to the point they impede or injure someone else.

To MADD and many others, it's logical for everyone to be considered a hazard if they washed down their burger with a beer.

Basing your opinions on religious beliefs is hardly different than basing them on things your parents or coworkers say, things you've experienced in life or your interpretation of events. And it's entirely open to interpretation.

I believe in same sex marriage. I'm a Methodist. My belief that two people of the same sex can love each other and live together is based, in part, off my interpretation of the Bible. That's my logic behind it. Finding that answer in the Bible doesn't make it any less correct of a belief than someone who found that answer by being raised in a same sex household, by having parents who told them it was ok to believe that way, or by knowing perfectly happy and stable same sex families as an adult.

Solid explanation.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-21-2016, 10:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think religious people are stupid.  Both my parents are very religious and they're both very intelligent.  They're hardly the only examples I know.  I get why people are religious, it explains what happens after you die.  The inevitability of our own demise is the most terrifying thing, so terrifying that most people cannot even bear to seriously contemplate it.  Religion is a soothing balm on that immense discomfort.  

This is an argument that's raised on a regular basis and it makes no sense to me. 

I get how an eternal fate would cause some to act a certain way to "guarantee" they get the outcome they want. But in practicality, it makes little sense. With no tangible evidence that it will happen, who would continue to believe in something for years or decades? 

In my personal experience, and those that i know personally, it's the day to day experience that keeps the belief tangible. As i've stated on many occasions, simply reading something in a book, or hearing from someone else, isn't nearly enough for me to hang on to a belief for an extended period of time. 

Pre or post conversion, i never once had a fear of what will happen when i die and in my 50+ years, i've never once heard from or about someone who is a Christian because they were told that when they die, if they don't believe, they will go to hell--with absolutely zero personal experience of a personal relationship with their Creator. 

Before my son passed, i had hoped to live a long, healthy life full of time with my family, wife, kids, grandkids; not nearly as interested in what comes after--but secure in the knowledge that it was there. Now, i couldn't care less if i keeled over after finishing this sentence, but no more than simply secure in the knowledge that it is there. 

To me, a fear of what happens when we die is a lazy excuse for non-believers, passed down because they've never bothered, or cared to bother, to find out if there is the possibility of a personal relationship with their Creator. Certainly, there are those that have felt that relationship and have turned away from it for one reason or the other. Being an average, and of sound mind, individual that has experienced that relationship (and continues to) i can't believe that if it was true, it could simply be walked away from and someone could have their mind changed. **i can attest to a period of time where it wasn't as important to me--and i chose to live a live that wasn't close to being considered "Christian"--but the belief that there was something to it never changed**

"Intellectuals" like to read things, see verifiable recreatable evidence of things and come to a "logical" conclusion. That's never going to happen with Religion, so it's a waste of time to even debate that angle. 

I assume that at some point in your life, you've had this discussion about your beliefs of the afterlife with your parents. I'd also assume that you've probably heard a similar reply as to what i've typed here. It would definitely have been interesting to be a fly on the wall during those discussions.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-21-2016, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Really?

When every adult was telling me I'd burn in hell for all eternity?

I suppose I could have said I'd prefer that.

Yes. What he's saying is, you were forced to listen but it's up to you whether you believe or not.