So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)


No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

---

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.

---

Back then it was socially acceptable. You are judging them based on what's acceptable/legal now. If you lived in that time frame, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded, since you would have grown up around it. Hence, the part "Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards."

You can't dismiss the morals of a religion by pointing out specific flaws. The majority of the morals are acceptable, in fact are continued to be preached to this day.

Quote:

---

I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.

---

I have another one for you,

That guy on the other side of the trench is a dirty enemy to the Kaiser. Kill him.

I hope you will not argue that world war 1 was not politics and that these people didnt march to their death for other reasons than political ones. or that it was not politics which divided them... not that it matters much, the entire division is not principal of nature but they are different aspects of the same part of (public) life i would say. and religion as opposed to personal faith is pretty much politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I have another one for you,

That guy on the other side of the trench is a dirty enemy to the Kaiser. Kill him.

I hope you will not argue that world war 1 was not politics and that these people didnt march to their death for other reasons than political ones.

---

I never claimed that there were no other reasons than religion to act stupidly.

However, I would claim that religion makes it easier for people to do stupid stuff. You disagree?

PS: To be more blunt - In a more scientific world we learn from our mistakes, such as WW1. In a more religious world not so much.

WW1: Oh, that was rubbish, this form of warfare obviously does not work.
WW2: Oooops we did it again, but with new tech and ideas.
WW... let's make a EU.


Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.

---

you do know that also what you say is contradictionary or trivial or pretty arrogant, since if you mean by universal, all around the globe people would find these morals short of the mark, in this time right now, then it would mean that they could be (universally) different in another time. thus it would be trivial. if you say that they are universally unaccepted and untrue for all times then it would be contradicting what you say because these morals were accepted some centuries ago. if you would claim that these morals are untrue for all times but only became universally unaccepted of late than you are assuming that what we know what is true, which is quite arrogant. but ofcourse, you could be right, but then you can answer me this

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I never claimed that there were no other reasons than religion to act stupidly.

However, I would claim that religion makes it easier for people to do stupid stuff. You disagree?

---

well you are now changing the initial statement which was religion is less divise than politics. but the worlds greatest division in known history, eg the world wars were of political nature and not of religious nature... another example could be the cold war, the division was less violent but perhaps deeper rooted, it still caused conflict all over the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

PS: To be more blunt - In a more scientific world we learn from our mistakes, such as WW1. In a more religious world not so much.

WW1: Oh, that was rubbish, this form of warfare obviously does not work.
WW2: Oooops we did it again, but with new tech and ideas.
WW... let's make a EU.


Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

---

this is so simplified and ignorant i will not even respond to this... fine ill respond -_-

to say this that the crusade was not just a religious mission, it was politics as well if not mostly (which again, for me are rather indistinguishable). and i do not see how we go from comparing religion to politics to comparing religion to science... really :S

if you whish to make such a comparison you have to compare theology to what... biology, or physics or chemistry... and only to conclude that one has a metaphysical field of work and the others physical and that one cannot make any claims about the other. and that the only thing you can basically do is deny the existance of one or the other...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

you do know that also what you say is contradictionary or trivial or pretty arrogant, since if you mean by universal, all around the globe people would find these morals short of the mark, in this time right now, then it would mean that they could be (universally) different in another time. thus it would be trivial. if you say that they are universally unaccepted and untrue for all times then it would be contradicting what you say because these morals were accepted some centuries ago. if you would claim that these morals are untrue for all times but only became universally unaccepted of late than you are assuming that what we know what is true, which is quite arrogant. but ofcourse, you could be right, but then you can answer me this

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

---

Sorry, all I got was blah blah blah sex with nine year olds is not so bad, can you back that up. Followed by blah blah blah is there a universal standard saying mass-rape is bad?.

A wall of nonsense, to be precise. I do believe that the majority is with me on these ones, so let us flip the card. In what way do you support these happenings as being part of the scriptures of the world religions?

If you really want me to explain why the "hide the Willy"-game is wrong with a 9 year old, you have way more urgent people to speak with than me. Same goes for mass-rape.

if that is what you got from it, perhaps you should learn how to read :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

this is so simplified and ignorant i will not even respond to this... fine ill respond -_-

to say this that the crusade was not just a religious mission, it was politics as well if not mostly (which again, for me are rather indistinguishable). and i do not see how we go from comparing religion to politics to comparing religion to science... really :S

if you whish to make such a comparison you have to compare theology to what... biology, or physics or chemistry... and only to conclude that one has a metaphysical field of work and the others physical and that one cannot make any claims about the other. and that the only thing you can basically do is deny the existance of one or the other...

---

Ok.

The very minute you stop heavily editing your posts when you re-read and realize they do not hold up to standards, I will look beyond your initial statements. Is that fair mate?

the thing i added regarding to your post was basically fine ill respond and really :S

the 2nd thing i added was to provide further, but for this topic not necessarily relevent, clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

the thing i added regarding to your post was basically fine ill respond and really :S

the 2nd thing i added was to provide further, but for this topic not necessarily relevent, clarification.

---

Is this the end boss of the internet, or what?

Someone help me please..

no i just like feeding trolls from Sweden.

All you have been doing so far is dodging, twisting, turning, running, ridiculing, joking, anything but answering the questions straightforward... obviously you are not interested in debate, so why are you here...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

no i just like feeding trolls from Sweden.

---

Now that was rude. Not to mention geographically incorrect.

PS: Again, heavily editing your posts afterwards are just..

Answer my post 6 posts up and stop editing and you might get a better result?

lol... and you tell me to stop editing my posts in an edit... really wtf

i said sweden because your location tag says sweden. but really its indifferent to me. i will not answer your post 6 posts up because it was a dodge to some questions i asked you, which was again the result of some twist you made to an earlier statement and so on... i am quite done with you since nothing interesting is coming out of you anymore. rather sad, since you raised some good points to begin with.

edit: and here is the edit just because you love them so much :) i am not really editing, just adding.

What have I created?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

What have I created?

---

Backroom.. Don't feel bad the about Frankenstein.

PS: The Stranger, if I edit my posts I make it clear what I edited from the original post. Don't get me wrong, you are way better off not following that example.

So far the most murderous religions have been the atheistic ones. Communism comes to mind with the Great Prophet Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin the Messiah, St. Joseph Stalin and St. Mao. With the Communist Manifesto in hand along with various works of the Messiah and the saints Communism was able to exterminate more people than any other religion/ideology and make like hell for millions more. Holy books, holy places, holy people, flocks of the faithful, chastisement of the heretics, communism had it all. One notion that communism was totally lacking: God. Perhaps that is what allowed it to be so brutal. After all, who needs the big man in the sky when you have The Great Successor Kim Jong Un right here and right now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

That is, of course, a laughable excuse for a reason. Your reason for believing has nothing to do with the church as an establishment? Let me correct you.

If the same things happened as you have encountered in your life, but without the church, would you have gone all "I think this is because Jesus built a ship and Moses got people drunk on water alone".

---

Really, my reason for believing is nothing to do with the church as an establishment. For as long as I can remember I've prayed, even when I would have called myself an atheist oddly enough. My father is an atheist and my mother a nominal Christian. I went to a non-denomiantional school. I guess it just comes naturally to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

If anyone wanted a textbook example of the term: "can't see the forest for all the trees" this would be it. You are indeed absolutely 100% right that religion has kept the (as an example) jews together. Now that has got them a load of joy, right?

If not for the religion, the very same people might have discovered that there is a whole world out there, with humans just like them, who are seeking to have a good life!

---

I'm not sure if you are just being silly here and/or trying to lure me into the obvious Godwin, but lets be more sensible please. You don't have to respond to every sentence I write with a rebuttal - do you really believe what you wrote there contributed anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.

---

I only have to take a short trip on the ferry to see my family and I can walk down streets where there's a war memorial every ten metres and murals on every end-terrace commemorating the people that volunteered to fight and die in a political struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Gah, really?

Error 1: America = USA
Error 2: Like anyone cares about the united states these days, they can not contend with countries like Afghanistan militarily or politicly, and their economy is an absolute joke.

Basically, let them elect Palin for president and walk on with a knowing smile.

---

Gah what? I was responding to Gelatinous Cube who I believe is a US citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I think the hen just ate the egg. Or did the egg eat the hen?

But then again - are people radical christians because they are [insert], or are they [insert] because they are christian? All I can tell is that there seem to be a denominating factor.

---

Radical religious movements respond to changes that they see as threatening their way of life in the same way that political movements do - often in a reactionary and somewhat extreme manner. See the fascism of the 1930's for a political equivalent to the religious example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Nah, 50 years back people more took church for what it is - Go there, bend your knee some, say "amen", enjoy being part of community.

Now it is more like "Ah mah gawd, day sayz sam darwenian monkey is godz!"

---

Well although the Christian Right never gained a real political voice until the 1980's with the likes of Moral Majority, the theory of evolution is now much more accepted even in Evangelical circles than in the past. A few decades ago evolution would have been dismissed out of hand by most Evangelicals, in the same way as interracial marriage would have been. These churches tend to be in more conservative areas, but they tend to catch up with the rest of society eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

You see it as a state they will get through.

Others might claim that the winner writes history.

---

Not sure what you're getting at here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

Back then it was socially acceptable. You are judging them based on what's acceptable/legal now. If you lived in that time frame, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded, since you would have grown up around it. Hence, the part "Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards."

You can't dismiss the morals of a religion by pointing out specific flaws. The majority of the morals are acceptable, in fact are continued to be preached to this day.

---

I soo oo oo missed this answer. Sorry!

As to your claims.. You are right that back then this was socially acceptable. But really, do you want what was socially acceptable back then to be the moral code of today? If not, maybe we should not base the writings dictating our lives on morals based on some book written 2000 odd years ago?

Yes, 2000 years ago a MIGHT not have minded if some guy had intercourse with my 9 year old daughter. But then again, I might have had, no?
And also, I MIGHT not have minded to have women mass-raped. But then again, I possibly would have.



Please do explain why I can NOT dismiss the morals of a religion by specific flaws?

Just because a majority of the morals are ok, it does not mean that those very same morals can not be achieved otherwise. I do not need the bible to tell me not to kill, I kind of figured it out already that killing is generally bad.

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

Also, I did not go to the bible to learn that my father probably is right, I just noticed that more often than me he was, well, right. However, that was something I learnt, not got taught. There are other dads out there, who are not always so nice. And I pity the child then growing up being taught that his/her dad is to be respected.. No matter what. Is that something you want to sign up on?

Christians have made good PR of claiming human values as "christian values", please do not fall into that trap.

What stops me from killing is not fear of prison, what stops me from killing is - "Hey, he is a human being too!"

Is that better or worse than religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

---

The foundations come from the axioms we (our culture/civilization) have established as basic truths. We recognize them as universal since that ties into one of our axioms (natural rights). This is all of course subjective on Western Civilization's part. But such subjectivity means that although our view is not right, it neither wrong either. So it's perfectly ok to judge based on the axioms one has taken from his/her culture because within the context of such culture and its axioms, such judgement can be declared objectively right or wrong.

Well that's my attempt at providing real conversation. I await your devastating but highly educated rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I soo oo oo missed this answer. Sorry!

As to your claims.. You are right that back then this was socially acceptable. But really, do you want what was socially acceptable back then to be the moral code of today? If not, maybe we should not base the writings dictating our lives on morals based on some book written 2000 odd years ago?

---

I'm in the same boat as you. I have my own set of morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yes, 2000 years ago a MIGHT not have minded if some guy had intercourse with my 9 year old daughter. But then again, I might have had, no?
And also, I MIGHT not have minded to have women mass-raped. But then again, I possibly would have.

---

As opposed to now where you detest it completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Please do explain why I can NOT dismiss the morals of a religion by specific flaws?

Just because a majority of the morals are ok, it does not mean that those very same morals can not be achieved otherwise. I do not need the bible to tell me not to kill, I kind of figured it out already that killing is generally bad.

---

I don't base my own morals on a book which I consider to be lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

---

Well, if she's hot... Hey hey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Also, I did not go to the bible to learn that my father probably is right, I just noticed that more often than me he was, well, right. However, that was something I learnt, not got taught. There are other dads out there, who are not always so nice. And I pity the child then growing up being taught that his/her dad is to be respected.. No matter what. Is that something you want to sign up on?

Christians have made good PR of claiming human values as "christian values", please do not fall into that trap.

What stops me from killing is not fear of prison, what stops me from killing is - "Hey, he is a human being too!"

Is that better or worse than religion?

---

No comment. Because this is a delicate segment. Religion may condemn killing someone in cold blood, but may condone killing in the name of god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The foundations come from the axioms we (our culture/civilization) have established as basic truths. We recognize them as universal since that ties into one of our axioms (natural rights). This is all of course subjective on Western Civilization's part. But such subjectivity means that although our view is not right, it neither wrong either. So it's perfectly ok to judge based on the axioms one has taken from his/her culture because within the context of such culture and its axioms, such judgement can be declared objectively right or wrong.

Well that's my attempt at providing real conversation. I await your devastating but highly educated rebuttal.

---

I recognise, and agree, with most of this, and I believe that the Stranger probably wouldn't object either. The problem is that by definition these standards are subjective, thus invalidating Kadagar's point.

I believe that your point is that, in our context of a modern, western culture, we can take take some basic moral 'truths' as universal. I agree, provided that this doesn't extend too far. The problem is that since this 'objectivity' is inherently rooted in a particular context, it remains temporally and culturally subjective. If it is subjective then, ergo, at different times, and in different cultures - early Abrahamic cultures for example -one would find different ideals and values and moral 'truths'.

If so one can legitimately declare, as others have, that you cannot invalidate an entire religious system on the basis that some moral precepts, included millenia ago, are now at odds with our contemporary beliefs.

As an Atheist, I would suggest that I find the existence of a divine creator entirely implausible, and my moral values are exactly that - mine. But this does not mean that I do not have faith. I just do not have faith in the concept of a creator, or in the doctrines of an organised religious system. I do have faith that the sky won't collapse or that gravity will not disappear, something that cannot be proven beyond all doubt.

My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

For the sake of argument I'll contend that the only difference between religion and a state in this instance is that states are more fluid and flexible in their methods and their institutions.

Quote:

---

I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, Lev. 19.18 and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

Rhyf, do you think this is silly or not? I can't take it remotely seriously. Being a wimp is not laudable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My decision is made out of fear. I see in organized religion an active force that encourages reactionary behavior. That view is not held without good reason. The only reason I even care is because I have to live with the very real possibility that a Rick Santorum-type could come to power and undo countless years of intellectual and scientific progress--never mind the civil rights concerns.

The ironic part is that my view is no less reactionary--both extremes of this argument operate on the idea that their way of life is at risk sooner or later. So the question we have to ask is this: Who's concerns are more valid, and how do we measure? As long as people push for religious laws in the United States, this will be a serious concern of mine.

---

If you think religion is too reactionary, my advice is to join the Episcopal Church in the US, become a Bishop, then Presiding Bishop, then be less liberal than the current woman, just conservative enough and traditional enough, to draw people away from the crazies. I'd do it myself but the idea of residing in a country withour free-access healthcare fills me with utter and unqualified terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
This went really well
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
This went badly
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
This went OK, not a complete success
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
This got sidetracked, but if we'd held Constaninople...
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Initially went well, failed only due to overstretch short of Cairo, qualified success
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Resulted in restoration of Jerusalem to Christian hands, except for the Temple Mount.
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Failed
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Failed
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish
Failed

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

---

So, maybe not quite how you presented it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)

---

Actually, Angrboda was not his wife any more than Rind was Odin's, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the Narvi/Vali story looks like a confused retelling of the Baulder/Vali/Fenris arc.

Quote:

---

No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

---

I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

---

Hang on, you spent litterally years telling us you did EXACTLY that, including the specific examples of a priest's wife and a newlywed bride, you ridiculed we Christians on this board for taking a more circumspect and serious view of marital vows, and now you have the gall to tell us that you don't need a Christian to tell you it was a bad idea that it is not something you need to read in the Bible to know it is a "bad thing".

Seriously?

I call major foul, because you are seriously misrepresenting not just specific past remarks, but your entire posting history viz sexual ethics on this board.

I think you're claiming a moral position you don't actually hold in order to attack religion as a moral force, and I have a problem with that because I don't think you believe what you are saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, Angrboda was not his wife any more than Rind was Odin's, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the Narvi/Vali story looks like a confused retelling of the Baulder/Vali/Fenris arc.

---

Either way, Loki is chained up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

---

If there IS a god, IF there is a god, when I see him, I'd spit in his face. No offence. I have reasons that are personal and I do not wish to disclose. Again, it shouldn't matter to you how I feel about religion and god. Hate me if you will, I couldn't care less.

I don't consider myself an avowed atheist. I don't fight religion with every fibre of my being. In fact, I don't fight it at all. I only fight it, if it intrudes with my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

If there IS a god, IF there is a god, when I see him, I'd spit in his face. No offence. I have reasons that are personal and I do not wish to disclose. Again, it shouldn't matter to you how I feel about religion and god. Hate me if you will, I couldn't care less.

---

To quote Lord Sachs, "That God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

The kind of God that would be the responsible for whatever has grieved you is not the kind of God the vast majority of religious people believe in, and whatever you choose to believe it is important you understand that. It is also important that you understand that the same God would not want me to hate you, nor does He hate you.

My objection is not your beliefs, it is the way that you presented them, which - frankly - seemed designed to draw the negative reaction they have.

Quote:

---

I don't consider myself an avowed atheist. I don't fight religion with every fibre of my being. In fact, I don't fight it at all. I only fight it, if it intrudes with my life.

---

In your first post you declared yourself an atheist, you declared all religions deliberate fabrications and you just threatened to spit in God's face, if he exists. that's a pretty definitive avowel from where I'm sitting, even if you aren't an activist atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To quote Lord Sachs, "That God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

The kind of God that would be the responsible for whatever has grieved you is not the kind of God the vast majority of religious people believe in, and whatever you choose to believe it is important you understand that. It is also important that you understand that the same God would not want me to hate you, nor does He hate you.

My objection is not your beliefs, it is the way that you presented them, which - frankly - seemed designed to draw the negative reaction they have.

---

I will not give my reasons for hating the idea of a divine being.

Of course they will garner a negative reaction. Since I am on this forum, I'll give a Total War Diplomacy menu analogy (In this case Shogun 2).

I'm Takeda (because I love Takeda). You are Matsuda (since I'm Shinto-Buddhist which isn't technically a religion, and you are Christian.)

Becasue of Religious Differences, you are Unfriendly to me. Fair enough. With enough Religious Divide, you will become Hostile (maybe). And if a war starts, then I'll defend myself with my superior cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In your first post you declared yourself an atheist, you declared all religions deliberate fabrications and you just threatened to spit in God's face, if he exists. that's a pretty definitive avowel from where I'm sitting, even if you aren't an activist atheist.

---

I declared all religions fabrications. Yeah, but I'm not preaching this actively to everyone I see. If someone asks me on my thoughts on religion, there they are.

I'd spit in god's face, when I meet him. If he wants an appointment, he'll book an appropriate time with me. I'm not going to demand that god breaks his schedule, by barging in on him, spitting in his face, then leaving. Although, it does sound fun. It just isn't worth the effort. So, yeah, I don't actively hate religion. I just hate it. Using normal hate. Level 1 Hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hang on, you spent litterally years telling us you did EXACTLY that, including the specific examples of a priest's wife and a newlywed bride, you ridiculed we Christians on this board for taking a more circumspect and serious view of marital vows, and now you have the gall to tell us that you don't need a Christian to tell you it was a bad idea that it is not something you need to read in the Bible to know it is a "bad thing".

Seriously?

I call major foul, because you are seriously misrepresenting not just specific past remarks, but your entire posting history viz sexual ethics on this board.

I think you're claiming a moral position you don't actually hold in order to attack religion as a moral force, and I have a problem with that because I don't think you believe what you are saying.

---

that guy is a joke... dont bother.

he is kicking at religious people and then he cant come up with better reasons than, everyone else is with me on this, its common sense, you are a psycho... hahah i make fun of you now answer this question... oh you just kinda said something that made my point troublesome but you did it in an edit, and you didnt say PS in the edit section so i will ignore your entire post.

ofcourse all valid arguments and offcourse we have seen them all before somewhere... just if i could remember where... :idea2: