In article <2qkggvg85a67q6p0k3et2b8jq3n47ikr6p[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:02:00 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>> Taking the bible literally is
>>>>just one more way of interpreting it, you know.
>>>Right. Another way is just to make up terms and ideas on our own and
>>>completely change the meaning of the book.
>>And how do you know it was supposed to be interpreted literally?
>I've asked for other ways to interpret the passage I posted. You're
>more than welcome to try your hand at it.

That passage doesn't need to be interpreted; it can also be discarded
since it described norms of a society that ceased to exist 2000 years
ago.

>>>> It also depends on
>>>>which translation you're reading. Maybe all the translation are
>>>>homophobic. Maybe not.
>>>Can you find a recognized translation that doesn't have quotes in
>>>about a dozen passages explicitly condemning the homosexual or loose
>>>lifestyle?
>>Dunno. Never bothered to read the thing through even once.
>A shame.

Not really. Alice in Wonderland is a much better book.

>>>>Personally, I do agree the bible is "anti-homosexuality", but then the
>>>>thing was written 2000 years ago in a more brutish time. Trying to
>>>>force the morals of a more ignorant era onto ours is pointless.
>>>How was it a more ignorant era WRT morality?
>>The homosexuality thing for one.
>Many believe that's a better moral compass than an anything-goes
>philosophy.

You do realize that there are more choises than "follow the bible
literally" and "anything goes", right?

>>>>>Are you talking about yourself?
>>>>Which prehistoric view is it you're saying I have?
>>>Spell out what YOU are saying. You're the one saying it, not I.
>>No, you're saying I'm talking about myself wrt "prehistoric views".
>>That makes me want to know what you think you're talking about.
>Just specify what prehistoric views you're talking about.

In this case; "homosexuality = baaad".

>>>>>>>> Besides, it's an evil church if it raises people to think and talk
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>It's an evil church that raises people to have core values of what is
>>>>>>>right and wrong? How's that?
>>>>>>A church that raises people into bigotry could be called "evil", yes.
>>>>>How is knowing the difference between right and wrong either bigotry
>>>>>or evil?
>>>>Stating that something is wrong and/or immoral "just because" is
>>>>bigoted, yes.
>>>There is no 'just because' here.
>>So why then?
>The Bible is used as a moral compass for many, rather than the
>'anything is OK' philosophy used by many.

Still no reply I see.

And no, "cuz the bible says so" is not an answer.

>>>>Bin Laden thinks the US is "wrong and immoral". Look
>>>>what he did about it.
>>>And he was wrong.
>>How do you know he was wrong and the bible is right?
>Some things are obvious.

Yeah; to me it's obvious they were both wrong.

> What do you think about what he did?

I think he's no better than the people who use the bible as an excuse
to perpetuate their own prejudices.

>>> What's your point?
>>That calling homosexuality "immoral" is based on bigotry and ignorance.
>Or a different moral compass from what you've got.

A moral compass that labels a large group of people "baaad" for no
other reason than "the bible says so" is no good at all.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <gj0jgvo30b10u01a5sd85ag5jpadkgo4a6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> >> What do you think about what he did?
> >
> >I think he's no better than the people who use the bible as an excuse
> >to perpetuate their own prejudices.
>
> I see. So following a belief system is to you the same as murdering
> 3000 people? What an odd world you live in.

Make no mistake about it: Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists followed a
belief system. Just being a belief system is not a guarantee of
goodness.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <gj0jgvo30b10u01a5sd85ag5jpadkgo4a6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:14:13 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>>> Taking the bible literally is
>>>>>>just one more way of interpreting it, you know.
>>>>>Right. Another way is just to make up terms and ideas on our own and
>>>>>completely change the meaning of the book.
>>>>And how do you know it was supposed to be interpreted literally?
>>>I've asked for other ways to interpret the passage I posted. You're
>>>more than welcome to try your hand at it.
>>That passage doesn't need to be interpreted; it can also be discarded
>>since it described norms of a society that ceased to exist 2000 years
>>ago.
>That's your take; others believe the book is intended to show
>guidelines for living too.

I am aware of that.

>>>>>> It also depends on
>>>>>>which translation you're reading. Maybe all the translation are
>>>>>>homophobic. Maybe not.
>>>>>Can you find a recognized translation that doesn't have quotes in
>>>>>about a dozen passages explicitly condemning the homosexual or loose
>>>>>lifestyle?
>>>>Dunno. Never bothered to read the thing through even once.
>>>A shame.
>>Not really. Alice in Wonderland is a much better book.

>Too bad for you. At the very least you'd have a better idea of what
>you so vehemently argue against.

Why is that? I can judge the people who claim the thing is a moral
guideline by their actions. As for the bible itself, it's just a stack
of paper with ink on it. It's not proof of anything in itself and
isn't anything to be argued for or against. At best it's an
interesting historical document. It has no more authority than Alice
In Wonderland. (or a stack of Marvel Comics, for that matter)

>>>>>>Personally, I do agree the bible is "anti-homosexuality", but then the
>>>>>>thing was written 2000 years ago in a more brutish time. Trying to
>>>>>>force the morals of a more ignorant era onto ours is pointless.
>>>>>How was it a more ignorant era WRT morality?
>>>>The homosexuality thing for one.
>>>Many believe that's a better moral compass than an anything-goes
>>>philosophy.
>>You do realize that there are more choises than "follow the bible
>>literally" and "anything goes", right?
>What do you use for your moral compass?

My most basic guideline is "would this cause harm?" and "what would
happen if everybody did the same?" Apply some common sense and
everything else follows.

Simply handing your brain over to the local minister and saying "the
bible says so" means you're letting somebody else think for you.

>>>>>>>Are you talking about yourself?
>>>>>>Which prehistoric view is it you're saying I have?
>>>>>Spell out what YOU are saying. You're the one saying it, not I.
>>>>No, you're saying I'm talking about myself wrt "prehistoric views".
>>>>That makes me want to know what you think you're talking about.
>>>Just specify what prehistoric views you're talking about.
>>In this case; "homosexuality = baaad".
>In this particular case, sure.

But why? WHY? Just because some dusty old book says so? You have a
brain. Use it. Try to explain why homosexuality is bad without
referring to the bible.

> There are plenty of other things that
>are listed as bad in the Book too.

No doubt.

>>>>>>>>>> Besides, it's an evil church if it raises people to think and talk
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>It's an evil church that raises people to have core values of what is
>>>>>>>>>right and wrong? How's that?
>>>>>>>>A church that raises people into bigotry could be called "evil", yes.
>>>>>>>How is knowing the difference between right and wrong either bigotry
>>>>>>>or evil?
>>>>>>Stating that something is wrong and/or immoral "just because" is
>>>>>>bigoted, yes.
>>>>>There is no 'just because' here.
>>>>So why then?
>>>The Bible is used as a moral compass for many, rather than the
>>>'anything is OK' philosophy used by many.
>>Still no reply I see.
>That was the reply.

IOW you prefer to let others think for you.

(further questions re my moral compass in this post and others
snipped, since I answered that question above)

>>>>>>Bin Laden thinks the US is "wrong and immoral". Look
>>>>>>what he did about it.
>>>>>And he was wrong.
>>>>How do you know he was wrong and the bible is right?
>>>Some things are obvious.
>>Yeah; to me it's obvious they were both wrong.
>What do you use as your moral compass?

You can't even tell me why you think the bible is right?

>>> What do you think about what he did?
>>I think he's no better than the people who use the bible as an excuse
>>to perpetuate their own prejudices.
>I see. So following a belief system is to you the same as murdering
>3000 people?

Strawman argument.

My point is that you and Bin Laden think in similar ways. Instead of
thinking for yourself, you let some old book think for you. Both your
belief and his has caused death, destruction and oppression.

> What an odd world you live in.

Reality might seem odd to somebody who lives in a fantasy world full
of ghosts and ghoulies.

>>>>> What's your point?
>>>>That calling homosexuality "immoral" is based on bigotry and ignorance.
>>>Or a different moral compass from what you've got.
>>A moral compass that labels a large group of people "baaad" for no
>>other reason than "the bible says so" is no good at all.
>We all believe what we do for a reason.

So what is your reason?

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:54:47 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>My most basic guideline is "would this cause harm?" and "what would
>happen if everybody did the same?" Apply some common sense and
>everything else follows.

There's really nothing for us to debate, Christian. You believe
animal sex is OK; I do not. With that kind of a difference in
morality, anything else we discuss is just icing on the cake.

>Simply handing your brain over to the local minister and saying "the
>bible says so" means you're letting somebody else think for you.

Who here hands his brain over to a local minister? If you've got
someone who does that, I'm sorry for them, but that has nothing to do
with what we're talking about.

>>>>>>>>Are you talking about yourself?
>>>>>>>Which prehistoric view is it you're saying I have?
>>>>>>Spell out what YOU are saying. You're the one saying it, not I.
>>>>>No, you're saying I'm talking about myself wrt "prehistoric views".
>>>>>That makes me want to know what you think you're talking about.
>>>>Just specify what prehistoric views you're talking about.
>>>In this case; "homosexuality = baaad".
>>In this particular case, sure.
>
>But why? WHY? Just because some dusty old book says so? You have a
>brain. Use it. Try to explain why homosexuality is bad without
>referring to the bible.

That would go towards morality, and I believe it's wrong for the same
reason I believe sleeping with animals is wrong, and for the same
reason I believe all kinds of other things are wrong.

>> There are plenty of other things that
>>are listed as bad in the Book too.
>
>No doubt.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, it's an evil church if it raises people to think and talk
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>It's an evil church that raises people to have core values of what is
>>>>>>>>>>right and wrong? How's that?
>>>>>>>>>A church that raises people into bigotry could be called "evil", yes.
>>>>>>>>How is knowing the difference between right and wrong either bigotry
>>>>>>>>or evil?
>>>>>>>Stating that something is wrong and/or immoral "just because" is
>>>>>>>bigoted, yes.
>>>>>>There is no 'just because' here.
>>>>>So why then?
>>>>The Bible is used as a moral compass for many, rather than the
>>>>'anything is OK' philosophy used by many.
>>>Still no reply I see.
>>That was the reply.
>
>IOW you prefer to let others think for you.
>
>(further questions re my moral compass in this post and others
>snipped, since I answered that question above)
>
>>>>>>>Bin Laden thinks the US is "wrong and immoral". Look
>>>>>>>what he did about it.
>>>>>>And he was wrong.
>>>>>How do you know he was wrong and the bible is right?
>>>>Some things are obvious.
>>>Yeah; to me it's obvious they were both wrong.
>>What do you use as your moral compass?
>
>You can't even tell me why you think the bible is right?

I believe it offers a better way of living than anything else
presented.

>>>> What do you think about what he did?
>>>I think he's no better than the people who use the bible as an excuse
>>>to perpetuate their own prejudices.
>>I see. So following a belief system is to you the same as murdering
>>3000 people?
>
>Strawman argument.
>
>My point is that you and Bin Laden think in similar ways. Instead of
>thinking for yourself, you let some old book think for you. Both your
>belief and his has caused death, destruction and oppression.

Every belief has caused death, destruction, and oppression the moment
people get involved. What's your point?

>> What an odd world you live in.
>
>Reality might seem odd to somebody who lives in a fantasy world full
>of ghosts and ghoulies.

Fortunately I don't.

>>>>>> What's your point?
>>>>>That calling homosexuality "immoral" is based on bigotry and ignorance.
>>>>Or a different moral compass from what you've got.
>>>A moral compass that labels a large group of people "baaad" for no
>>>other reason than "the bible says so" is no good at all.
>>We all believe what we do for a reason.
>
>So what is your reason?

I believe the Bible is a better way.

In article <hotlgvg8gp7prt3hr736ma9ds1e8mfk13m[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >>>>>>>Bin Laden thinks the US is "wrong and immoral". Look
> >>>>>>>what he did about it.
> >>>>>>And he was wrong.
> >>>>>How do you know he was wrong and the bible is right?
> >>>>Some things are obvious.
> >>>Yeah; to me it's obvious they were both wrong.
> >>What do you use as your moral compass?
> >
> >You can't even tell me why you think the bible is right?
>
> I believe it offers a better way of living than anything else
> presented.

There's always Buddhism. More on this later.

> >>>> What do you think about what he did?
> >>>I think he's no better than the people who use the bible as an excuse
> >>>to perpetuate their own prejudices.
> >>I see. So following a belief system is to you the same as murdering
> >>3000 people?
> >
> >Strawman argument.
> >
> >My point is that you and Bin Laden think in similar ways. Instead of
> >thinking for yourself, you let some old book think for you. Both your
> >belief and his has caused death, destruction and oppression.
>
> Every belief has caused death, destruction, and oppression the moment
> people get involved. What's your point?

Not Buddhism. That religion is remarkably free of religious wars and
deadly schisms. Yes, a few warlords here and there have used Buddhism as
the basis for their wars, but they are the exception. There are three or
four major branches of Buddhism. There is debate among them about
whether Tibetan Buddhism is one of the three or one of its own. And
that's all it is: debate. No religious wars over doctrine.

> >> What an odd world you live in.
> >
> >Reality might seem odd to somebody who lives in a fantasy world full
> >of ghosts and ghoulies.
>
> Fortunately I don't.
>
> >>>>>> What's your point?
> >>>>>That calling homosexuality "immoral" is based on bigotry and ignorance.
> >>>>Or a different moral compass from what you've got.
> >>>A moral compass that labels a large group of people "baaad" for no
> >>>other reason than "the bible says so" is no good at all.
> >>We all believe what we do for a reason.
> >
> >So what is your reason?
>
> I believe the Bible is a better way.

So despite that the Bible has caused measurably more death, destruction,
and oppression than, say, Buddhism, you choose it as the basis of your
beliefs. You can't pretend that this is a rational decision.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.