Religion [Archive] - Page 3

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 04:30 AM

Maybe it's sadistic to you. Some might even think God allowed his one and only son to suffer for us is sadistic too! Yes. God could've prevented these things from happening, but to me, these things demonstrate Gods love for us.

He could've offer us no choice but to be forever locked in paradise Eden. That way nobody has to suffer anything and we'll all be able to live happily ever after. That sounds wonderful in theory, but what if mr fry really want out of Gods paradise? There would be no way out. Perhaps there are folks who just don't want to live under gods tyrannical rule? Tree of knowledge offered folks an exit. For those who really want back in, Jesus is the way for them to come back. God loves all of us, but he also doesn't want to force all of us to love him back because such love wouldn't be true. In order for it to be true love, these seemingly sadistic things inevitably will happen.

My odds with god remains as I often wonder what happen to these babies? They don't even get a chance to choose anything yet? However, I guess I'm just not all knowing and have to trust god knows what he's doing...

Anyway, let's cease arguing with words. As screwed up as this world might be, we do still live in a free nation... able to freely choose whatever we want to believe. It's okay to not believe in God. I just think it's unreasonable to expect God's blessings and protection(such as never having children meeting untimely deaths), yet refuse to want to have God's presence. Kinda like freeloading kids... wants to live under daddy's roof without having to live under daddy's rule? ;) Maybe if you were God or a parent, you might want to spoil your kid like that. I wouldn't spoil my kid that way and as far as I know, God is not that kind of God.

Anyway, I'm sure most find this post boring, let's end this boring discussion with some music:

http://youtu.be/huFra1mnIVE

LHutton

February 3rd, 2015, 08:04 AM

See, saying this makes it even worse. Based on this, that means that even if all the little kids with cancer devoutly believe in god, they're still gonna die because of something some guy did thousands of years ago.

So, basically, even though god is all powerful and he could cure sickness at any time, he still lets little kids die of cancer, even if they believe in him, and the only point at which kids will stop dying of cancer is when the world ends.

That's sadistic.
Putting a positive spin on it, is it better for them to die seeing death as the end, or die with the hope of an afterlife?

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 09:21 AM

Right. Although there's absolutely no concrete proof that God can resurrect the dead or any sort of afterlife, if I have to end up holding and witnessing my child die in my arms, should I just remain a sad little man or have faith to believe that someday I'll see my beloved kid again and will be able to be with him/her for all eternity free from all form of troubles... Why must I choose to remain a sad little man? Of course, not saying I won't weep, but I think it's good to have faith, hope and to love even when my kid is gone...

If God is bogus, what have I got to lose? If God is real, I have everything to gain.

If you don't need God and have a much better coping mechanism when faced with tragedy, great. More power to you.

As for me and my family, we choose to believe in God! :) This 'coping mechanism' also does help us live a fuller life right now..., even if there's really no afterlife... Christianity's influence on known human history in 'this life' is undeniable. Yeah, Christians certainly have screwed up in the past, but we are steadily making progress. I believe the best is yet to come... even in THIS life, in this messed up world. I don't know for sure if we'll have afterlives, but I BELIEVE they'll be even more awesome!

tigeraid

February 3rd, 2015, 09:59 AM

Godson

February 3rd, 2015, 10:50 AM

I do not know if there is an afterlife. If there is, is almost certainly has fuck all to do with the Bible, or any other ridiculous religious text.

So I choose to not know and not care. And that IS the coping mechanism, because it makes me live my life fuller, knowing that it's the only life that I have for sure. I do not live a lie.

Raised as a christian, this is ultimately my stand now after watching kids and others suffer. Billi, genetic diseases that can only be explained by science pisses me off when people like you say there is a plan. Fuck that. Don't fucking lie to your children saying you 'know'. You don't know. you have a feeling and nothing more.

Tell the truth.

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 11:19 AM

Never made the claim that I know the reason why kids die prematurely. Also never said God planned their deaths. God's plan is to save us, not to see us perish. Please read my posts carefully.

I believe Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life. Nobody's forcing you to believe it.

You speak of telling the truth... do you honestly know the truth? My faith is based on an old document. What do you base your current belief system on? Or how do you know if you know the real ultimate truth? Just because you witnessed death and suffering, you all of a sudden know the ultimate truth?

When one's living inside a 'Matrix', how does one know the real truth when there are still so much unknown?

Godson

February 3rd, 2015, 12:04 PM

Saying that it is "God's Plan" is saying you do know why they die prematurely. Because He says it is what is right. When did he say it was right, and ancient document that largely has been disproven countless times? It ultimately states that you have no freewill or choice in anything. Which is utter bullshit.

My truths are based on empirical data that is constantly evolving and being adjusted to be as accurate as possible. Not a document that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men that decided what could and could not be in the document based on their vote and the inability to change or alter it in any way, yet 'interpretation' is wildly different and largely open to whatever any person thinks it should be.

Their is no ultimate truth other than life isn't fair and for a Ultimate and Supreme being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to allow shit like this happen. No matter how you turn it. If there is an ultimate plan, it is utter bullshit to let a kid suffer through the trials and tribulations of things we have no cure for, palliative or in any other sort.

Similar note, if God is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big that he can not lift it?

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 12:29 PM

Think about it dude. If you were omnipotent, would you want to create a rock so big that you yourself couldn't lift? Why would you even want to do that and waste your powers on something so stupid and self defeating? If God is seriously contemplating on doing what you're suggesting, then He must be an omni-stupid God. Thank God he doesn't really exist!

Sad, little man

February 3rd, 2015, 03:38 PM

God loves all of us, but he also doesn't want to force all of us to love him back because such love wouldn't be true. In order for it to be true love, these seemingly sadistic things inevitably will happen.
So in order for us to be able to truly love god, little kids need to get cancer and die?

I just think it's unreasonable to expect God's blessings and protection(such as never having children meeting untimely deaths), yet refuse to want to have God's presence.
So basically you're saying god is extorting us into wanting his presence in our lives by killing children with cancer? No acceptance of god's presence, no protection for the kids? So, if we did all accept god's presence, would he stop killing children?

Kinda like freeloading kids... wants to live under daddy's roof without having to live under daddy's rule? ;) Maybe if you were God or a parent, you might want to spoil your kid like that. I wouldn't spoil my kid that way and as far as I know, God is not that kind of God.
Again, if "living under daddy's roof" is a metaphor for children being protected from cancer, and "living under daddy's rule" is accepting god's presence, then that's using the lives of children to coerce people into believing in god. That's not ok.

Anyway, I'm sure most find this post boring, let's end this boring discussion with some music:
No.

Right. Although there's absolutely no concrete proof that God can resurrect the dead or any sort of afterlife, if I have to end up holding and witnessing my child die in my arms, should I just remain a sad little man or have faith to believe that someday I'll see my beloved kid again and will be able to be with him/her for all eternity free from all form of troubles... Why must I choose to remain a sad little man? Of course, not saying I won't weep, but I think it's good to have faith, hope and to love even when my kid is gone...
Having faith in something is the same thing as believing in something. You can't have faith to believe in something. That's like saying you believe you believe in something.

Never made the claim that I know the reason why kids die prematurely. Also never said God planned their deaths. God's plan is to save us, not to see us perish. Please read my posts carefully.

If you say that god is all-powerful, then there is no other option than to say that he planned the deaths of kids that die of cancer. He's all powerful. He could save them any time he wants, so if they die, then his plan was for them to die.

even if there's really no afterlife... Christianity's influence on known human history in 'this life' is undeniable. Yeah, Christians certainly have screwed up in the past, but we are steadily making progress. I believe the best is yet to come... even in THIS life, in this messed up world. I don't know for sure if we'll have afterlives, but I BELIEVE they'll be even more awesome!
Many christians routinely still persecute people in our society, such as gays. That's not ok.

If you don't need God and have a much better coping mechanism when faced with tragedy, great. More power to you.

As for me and my family, we choose to believe in God! :) This 'coping mechanism' also does help us live a fuller life right now...,
Sorry, but you can't choose to believe or not believe in something. Either you do or you don't. If I told you to choose to believe in Santa Claus, you could certainly act like you did, and you could put cookies out for him on Christmas eve. But deep down, you know that no one is going to travel down from the North Pole and eat those cookies. You know that.

Similarly, I don't believe in god. I could go to church every Sunday and pretend like I'm worshiping him, but I still wouldn't actually believe in him. If you do, that's your right. But I absolutely can't imagine how you can look at all the meaningless pain, suffering, and injustice in the world and still actually believe there's someone up there who loves us and is orchestrating all of this.

We have no proof that god exists.

Based on the state of the world, we have plenty of proof that he either doesn't exist, or he does exist, but he willfully allows terrible things to happen to people who have personally done nothing wrong. I see no point in worshiping him in either case, based on the evidence we have to go on.

If God is bogus, what have I got to lose?

If you believe in god and an afterlife, then you've lessened the significance of this life. If you believe that this life is the only life there is, then it takes on a greater significance.

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 04:43 PM

Let me put the dying kids thing in a perspective that might better help you understand...

God provided immunization against sickness and death for us, but unfortunately our parents chose to not believe and refused it. So should God be blamed for not forcibly vaccinating us now that we can get sick and die?

Vaccine is still available. Faith is all that's required to be administered.

Or do you really think God should just create a perfect paradise and the just go away and try to go lift that big rock and leave us alone? ;)

Lastly, faith in Christ is not just about having eternal after life but also living a fuller life here and now.

Sad, little man

February 3rd, 2015, 05:22 PM

No, see, you're twisting this around... No one is talking about preventable diseases here, I'm talking about cancer, something we have no sure defense for.

From my perspective, having faith in christ does not appear to promote having a fuller life here and now. It seems to treat this life as a waiting room for some fantastic life that comes afterwards, as opposed to fully embracing this life for what it is and embracing the fact that we only get a limited time, so we have to make the absolute most of it now before it's over.

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 05:43 PM

We also have no sure defense against death in general. God has a vaccine for that too!

As for the here and now, I've long stated that Christian nations seemed to develop better in most cases compared to nations of other religions. Now we just need more atheistic non-communistic nations to see if they can do better without Christ and without communism dragging them down. If Europeans can once again rise to world domination in a secular way of living, then perhaps their Christian faith was a fluke... As of now, it seems less Christ means less glory for them too... Glory and blessings seemed to have moved onto the dumb Americans. Of course as we Americans become more secular, I would not be surprised to see the decline of the fullness of American lives too...

So don't under estimate Christ's power in the here and now.

Sad, little man

February 3rd, 2015, 05:55 PM

Crazed_Insanity

February 3rd, 2015, 06:15 PM

What's to justify? Living in this fallen world is the consequence of our own action. It's not god who made us borrow beyond our means, destroying our planet and end up hurting our future generations.

Anyway, great empires have indeed rose and fell without Christ, but Christ's kingdom has certainly lasted longer than any other... And remained more relevant than any other.

My point is that Christ didn't teach us to waste this one life and just wait for the after life. We ought not only live an eternal life but also a full life starting NOW! I think past human history won't support your idea of Christians wasting their lives.

Godson

February 3rd, 2015, 08:18 PM

You can't justify god giving kids cancer. You can dodge around it and twist the point around, but you can't actually justify it.

Also, you have absolutely no basis for correlating the amount of prosperity of a society to its amount of acceptance of the christian faith.

I seem to recall a data set across the world showing the most Athestic societies doing better in all categories (health, monetary, crime,etc) than those who are "closest" to god.

tigeraid

February 4th, 2015, 10:32 AM

Anyway, great empires have indeed rose and fell without Christ, but Christ's kingdom has certainly lasted longer than any other... And remained more relevant than any other.

I'm pretty sure Islam would disagree with you there.

And even if Christ's kingdom "won," it won because it subjugated the masses more efficiently and ruthlessly than any empire before it. Emergent technology had plenty to do with it, thanks to naval power, map-making and exploration. And to do that exploration, Christianity's success was gained on the backs of millions of slaves, millions of forcibly converted "savages," millions more savages both murdered by blade and firearm, and still more millions murdered by spreading disease to the New World.

The only reason it remains relevant is because it killed anything that disagreed with it for a period of around 800 years. History (or pseudo-history in this case) is written by the victors.

Crazed_Insanity

February 4th, 2015, 12:27 PM

You guys just tend to take credit for all the good stuffs and insist God should be credited with all the bad stuffs.

I see things in reverse. I thank God for the good stuffs and when bad stuffs happen, I 1st try to see if is my own damn fault. If so, I try to fix it if I can. If it's beyond my control, then I trust that God knows what he's doing. I trust that I or perhaps somebody else can still benefit from it.

And if you think Islamic nations are as well developed as Christian nation, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. God certainly blessed Arabs with oil, but if Allah is the true God, he surly wouldn't direct his people to be hostile to Jews...

21Kid

February 4th, 2015, 04:03 PM

I seem to recall a data set across the world showing the most Athestic societies doing better in all categories (health, monetary, crime,etc) than those who are "closest" to god.Probably because we are not expecting some kind of space magician to fix things for us. We know that we are all ultimately responsible for our own lives and well-being.

I'm pretty sure Islam would disagree with you there.
And even if Christ's kingdom "won," it won because it subjugated the masses more efficiently and ruthlessly than any empire before it. Emergent technology had plenty to do with it, thanks to naval power, map-making and exploration. And to do that exploration, Christianity's success was gained on the backs of millions of slaves, millions of forcibly converted "savages," millions more savages both murdered by blade and firearm, and still more millions murdered by spreading disease to the New World.

The only reason it remains relevant is because it killed anything that disagreed with it for a period of around 800 years. History (or pseudo-history in this case) is written by the victors.Don't get Billi started on slavery again please. :smh:

Edit:http://jezebel.com/godless-parents-are-doing-a-better-job-1682844001?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_faceboo k&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

tigeraid

February 5th, 2015, 07:40 AM

And if you think Islamic nations are as well developed as Christian nation, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. God certainly blessed Arabs with oil, but if Allah is the true God, he surly wouldn't direct his people to be hostile to Jews...

I didn't say "as well developed," I said that that Islam would disagree that they aren't as relevant or "lasted as long."

"God" did not "bless" anyone with oil, a fucking geothermal process did. :rolleyes:

tigeraid

February 5th, 2015, 07:43 AM

Edit:http://jezebel.com/godless-parents-are-doing-a-better-job-1682844001?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_faceboo k&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the 'religious' parents in our study," Bengston told me. "The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose."

Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of "questioning everything" and, far above all, empathy.

The reason of course, is obvious. Morality comes not from a book, or a guy up in the sky, but from the idea that how you treat people matters, because how people feel matters. The Golden Rule. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, is, Zuckerman writes, "an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs."

Works for me.

Sad, little man

March 21st, 2015, 11:15 AM

Further proof that god's an asshole... He killed seven kids just because the family was attempting to observe the sabbath in the best way that they could.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/nyregion/7-children-die-in-brooklyn-fire.html?_r=0

tigeraid

March 21st, 2015, 07:45 PM

No, no, you satan-loving fool--he has a mysterious PLAN. :blahblah:

overpowered

March 21st, 2015, 07:50 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/christian-radio-host-explains-weather-gays-and-hollywood-witchcraft-cause-californias-drought/

A christian broadcaster who specializes in “end times” predictions claimed that the drought that California is currently suffering through is the result of God withholding rain from the state to punish it for abortion, homosexuality, and witchcraft, according to Right Wing Watch.

Crazed_Insanity

March 22nd, 2015, 08:07 AM

Bible is very clear that we ought not to listen to people who specializes and focus only in the end times. Yes, Jesus is coming soon, yes, the end is near, but there are also lots to do in the here and now such as loving God and one another!

Slm, as for that tragic fire, you could 'believe' God caused that, but I don't think anyone could really prove it though. Regardless of what one wishes to believe, God never promised us immortal and trouble free lives right away. All believers can still face trouble and death as far as I know.

It's just that I believe God can help us live more impactful, meaningful and loving lives. The only reason Israel managed to last longer than other ancient empires is because of God. The only reason western nations reached their peaks was because of Jesus. Without God, Israel can be destroyed, western nations can lose their former glory.

This is also observable in the US. As # of Christians decline, US's power will likely decline with it.

JoshInKC

March 22nd, 2015, 09:55 AM

I'm undoubtedly going to regret this, but I have to hear how Israel lasted longer than other ancient empires.
Also, how Israel has ever been an empire.

Sad, little man

March 22nd, 2015, 10:00 AM

Slm, as for that tragic fire, you could 'believe' God caused that, but I don't think anyone could really prove it though.
Nope, he's all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful. If anything happens, he caused it to happen.

Taimar

March 22nd, 2015, 11:04 AM

This is also observable in the US. As # of Christians decline, US's power will likely decline with it.

What an honestly insane suggestion.

Firstly, the "number of Christians" has absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of nations. There is no link in any demonstable way. And as somebody who isn't a Christian, I resent the implication that if somehow there were more non-Christians, the country would go to hell in a hand basket.

Second - If anything, the rise of religious zealotry in the United States is what has had a deeply negative effect on our power as a nation. As a world power, we were at our zenith when the influence of Religion was lowest on our political class, roughly from the end of Prohibition to the rise of the Religious right in the late 1970s. Nowadays we can't even protect ourselves from coastal flooding because of religious zealots and their tendency to vote for the stupidest people on earth.

It's just that I believe God can help us live more impactful, meaningful and loving lives. The only reason Israel managed to last longer than other ancient empires is because of God. The only reason western nations reached their peaks was because of Jesus. Without God, Israel can be destroyed, western nations can lose their former glory.

More absurd claims.

The only reason Israel managed to last longer than other ancient empires is because of God.

No specific part of the ancient Israeli "empire" lasted more than about 200 years as anything but a small community - we're talking about a place smaller than Rhode Island with a population of less than 100,000. I hesitate to use the word "empire" at all since nothing ancient Israel ever did ever verged on what we think of as "empires" such as the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923), the Roman Empire (27 BC - 476 AD), or other "empires." Certainly the part of the Ancient Israeli Kingdom that people remember - Saul to Solomon - was basically about 90 years. What we think of as the Jewish Kingdom of Israel ceased to be an independent political entity more than 500 years before the alleged appearance of Jesus.

I also have news for you - ancient Israel was destroyed. While Jews continued to live in that region continuously from that day to the present, the majority of Jewish people became a diaspora centered in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The modern nation of Israel traces it's origins to a 19th century Religo-political movement that most Jews, until the Holocaust, opposed.

The only reason western nations reached their peaks was because of Jesus.

Or, looked at in another way, it could be because they conquered and plundered everywhere outside of Europe (and some inside) and enslaved anybody who wasn't White, convert people to Christianity at the end of a sword, bayonet, or rifle, and otherwise destroy rivals. Which then allowed them to build up an industrial base with which to make better and better weapons. Do you think Jesus intended King James to take over the Dutch Slave trade and make it a key part of what built the economy of the American colonies? Or for Belgium to destroy Congo? Or for the various European powers to carve up Africa and Southeast Asia into fiefdoms and serf kingdoms? Doesn't sound like the Prince of Peace to me.

Without God, Israel can be destroyed, western nations can lose their former glory.

Ah, the myth of Christian Nation Exceptionalism, which is closely tied in our country to American Exceptionalism.

I'm sure that the Romans thought they were Exceptional. And that Ferdinand and Isabella thought Spain was Exceptional. I'm sure Cleopatra thought Egypt was Exceptional. And that Carthage thought it was Exceptional. Divined by God to always come out on top.

They're all gone now, because Exceptionalism is a delusion, not a verifiable kind of fact. People who believe in Exceptionalism are destined to get passed by in history.

Honestly Billi, you have to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Crazed_Insanity

March 22nd, 2015, 02:59 PM

Israel today is still more or less the same Israel. However, even Egyptians themselves don't know how they built the pyramids now. Babylon or Roman empires are also no longer in existence. Israel for sure were not more powerful than those empires, I'm also not implying Israel had been an empire. Just pointing out that the most powerful empires are no match to little Israel. Why? Because God.

In fact Israel continues to be the focus of worlds attention. What's so important about Israel? Nothing really. Lots of folks also hate her and wish to wipe her out completely for whatever reasons. However, I think God had always managed to make sure Israel somehow end up as the last one standing as those other empires fall away.

Taimar, Israel for sure is the most exceptional because God chose it to be. America can only be as exceptional as it's faith in God.

FaultyMario

March 22nd, 2015, 03:11 PM

neanderthal

March 22nd, 2015, 03:59 PM

The Pyramids were built with slave labour,so of course they know how the pyramids were built.

:D

MR2 Fan

March 22nd, 2015, 04:20 PM

hi guys, I haven't posted to this thread yet, have I missed anything in 54 pages?

Any new stuff or the same old Bible?

Yeti

March 22nd, 2015, 04:27 PM

hi guys, I haven't posted to this thread yet, have I missed anything in 54 pages?

Any new stuff or the same old Billi?

9/10 underrated thread :up:

JoshInKC

March 22nd, 2015, 05:44 PM

Israel today is still more or less the same Israel. You're relatively correct, if you are speaking exclusively in terms of a geographic expression. Yes, between two and three thousand years ago, there was a territory in the levant called Israel and now there is also a roughly similar territory with the same name. However - This doesn't mean anything. Many, many geographic/territorial expressions are relatively fixed once somebody invents writing. For examples - See the city of Rome, Egypt, Macedon, or Hispania (Spain). Names don't mean a whole lot, and it can be difficult to get any traction with a change. Israel has nearly zero political continuity with any of the ancient kingdoms that used to occupy that territory.
Also, you did say that Israel was an empire by using the word "other" to precede ancient empires.
Really- if you're quantifying greatness by age, either Syria or Egypt is probably your winner, having both been called the same(ish) names and having some measure of territorial continuity since well before Hector was a pup. While Israel functionally ceased to exist for the better part of 2000 years. Palestine (which Israel is a subset of) in fact has substantially greater historicity attached to it, pre-dating any of the kingdoms of Israel by a good margin.

I'm not even going to screw with the whole Jesus makes Western civ the best thing- we've been over that enough, but if you're going to talk about things that are based on and can be verified by facts (history, science, etc), please do some research beforehand. It makes you seem stupider than you probably are, and frustrates the hell out of people who would otherwise be content to let you mind your own business.

Crazed_Insanity

March 23rd, 2015, 07:49 AM

Today's Israel is the product of Europe. Period.
The United States is the product of European capitalism.

Israel is the world's center of attention because of geography, politics, and economics. But mostly economics. The Israeli ruling elite know that much, much better than you.
And while you freely use the word empire, I suggest you dress that noun with the adjective "Ottoman", It'd do wonders for your understanding.

Accept it, Billi. Your God is money, you're only trying to turn a blind eye to the fact.

God certainly can control the flow of money. However, I don't believe Jesus is money. Money is just a tool. I don't believe God is a tool.

Anyway, my point was that Israel really shouldn't be that big of a deal throughout human history. For sure she's not that better than any of the past great empires of the past. Yet, she has influenced most of the world with her 'God of Abraham'. Israel biggest legacy is Bible, not money. Both biblical and secular history have shown that you'll never wipe Jews out completely. They'll always come back much stronger than before and whoever tried to wipe them out will end up being wiped out first. If the Nazi's make a full comeback, more powerful than WWII, I'll be surprised.

sandydandy

March 23rd, 2015, 08:03 AM

Crazed_Insanity

March 23rd, 2015, 08:35 AM

You're relatively correct, if you are speaking exclusively in terms of a geographic expression. Yes, between two and three thousand years ago, there was a territory in the levant called Israel and now there is also a roughly similar territory with the same name. However - This doesn't mean anything. Many, many geographic/territorial expressions are relatively fixed once somebody invents writing. For examples - See the city of Rome, Egypt, Macedon, or Hispania (Spain). Names don't mean a whole lot, and it can be difficult to get any traction with a change. Israel has nearly zero political continuity with any of the ancient kingdoms that used to occupy that territory.
Also, you did say that Israel was an empire by using the word "other" to precede ancient empires.
Really- if you're quantifying greatness by age, either Syria or Egypt is probably your winner, having both been called the same(ish) names and having some measure of territorial continuity since well before Hector was a pup. While Israel functionally ceased to exist for the better part of 2000 years. Palestine (which Israel is a subset of) in fact has substantially greater historicity attached to it, pre-dating any of the kingdoms of Israel by a good margin.

I'm not even going to screw with the whole Jesus makes Western civ the best thing- we've been over that enough, but if you're going to talk about things that are based on and can be verified by facts (history, science, etc), please do some research beforehand. It makes you seem stupider than you probably are, and frustrates the hell out of people who would otherwise be content to let you mind your own business.

Anyway, what I said was based on what I believe the bible said. I could make misinterpretations. I also sometimes may not find secular sources to back up my claims. But anyway, it's not like any secular historians would ever completely agree on everything. You certainly don't have to agree with my opinion if you don't want to. Just as I don't agree with SLMs opinion that he has found proof that God is an asshole murderer.

Israel can always find continuity with her bible. The day when most Jews give up their faith in God, then I'd agree that's the day Israel is truly done.

Crazed_Insanity

March 23rd, 2015, 09:31 AM

Hey Billi, how do you explain China and India rising as economic and military powers if Jesus is the only way?

Last I checked, neither of those countries have embraced Christianity as their dominant religion.

India has lots of ancient religious influences... The chinese used to be also with our own traditional religious, but thanks to Mao, he has managed to turn most Chinese to be atheists.

The Chinese people are more spiritually hungry than ever before, in case you don't know, there are a LOT of chinese folks being converted now.

Of course, I know China's current success is not due to Christianity. China is where she is only because of her sheer size. Now, in order for her growth to be sustainable, in order to gain more favors from God, China definitely needs more Christians. I don't mean any state sanctioned christian churches, but hopefully more of those people who'd freely choose to become followers of Christ. If that happens, I believe China will definitely become a true superpower. It's current power and riches are probably mostly based on exploiting cheap labors and the appeals of its huge market. Businesses are in it for making money. Nobody, including the chinese, truly want to permanently remain living in China. It's not a free country, pollution is horrible, lots of folks want out if they can... IMHO, a true 'superpower' should be a place where people actually want to be IN. Not just a place you go to grab some cash and then split.

As for India, I kinda doubt it'll surpass china. Its 'class system' is stifling them. Also reading news regarding how young men can rape girls without remorse and lots of parents helping kids cheat to get ahead... these are not the type of things that'll help a nation get ahead. Perhaps those were isolated incidences. However, India is also not somewhere where I'd want to live and raise my family in. Anyway, other than those things, I don't really know much about India... other than I don't think Hinduism is helping the Indians out very much.

Anyway, I think I've said this before. Some prophet? were saying the Gospel will continue to move westward, at least for northern hemisphere. When Jews rejected Christ and Europeans embraced him, God's glory moved away from Israel to Europe. Then as Europeans began to lose faith and turn secular, God's glory moved on further west to America. If this is a true prophecy, then I suppose as Americans lose faith in Christ, then it'll continue on west ward so the next logistical step would be China! Then the Chinese would preach the gospel to the Arabs... and then Arabs will preach the gospel back to Jews... and then that may be when Christ will return when the Jews finally embrace God's Son. Anyway, we'll see if that's true. This is not in the bible, so I can't tell if it's really from God or not. Only time will tell.

However, I do hope someday China will become more Christian than it is today. If I ever move to China, it'll be for Christ. Otherwise, I have no interests in moving there...

Lastly, Jesus is the only way to the Father. I never meant that Jesus is the ONLY way for a nation to become a superpower. Obviously human history had shown many wonderful superpower/empires created by people not knowing Christ. Humanity is definitely capable of achieving great things, just that humanity is mortal. All good things will come to an end for us. However, Christ's kingdom should theoretically last forever.

If after America turned secular and dropped Jesus and no other nation end up picking Jesus back up... and if Christianity itself slowly turned in the likes of Greek Mythology..., then I guess that's proof enough that Jesus is probably bogus.

sandydandy

March 24th, 2015, 08:07 AM

I never meant that Jesus is the ONLY way for a nation to become a superpower. This seems to contradict this:

The only reason western nations reached their peaks was because of Jesus.

Also...

Obviously human history had shown many wonderful superpower/empires created by people not knowing Christ. So in other words what you're saying about Jesus is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if a country embraces Jesus or not, they'll still be successful. So what was the point of mentioning Jesus in the first place?

As for your spiel about India and rape and cheating...those are largely isolated incidents. Rape happens in America too...and all over the world. Things like this get highlighted when a major incident occurs, India caught the attention of the world in a bad way with regard to the subject because of that poor woman who was gang-raped with an iron rod in a bus. Last I checked the perpetrators didn't get away with it. With your logic one can easily make the argument that everybody in America loves to shoot up movie theaters and elementary schools, and that kidnapping young girls and keeping them prisoner for decades is a national pastime.

Crazed_Insanity

March 24th, 2015, 09:16 AM

I know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but the correlation is very strong with the west and Christian influence. And based on the old testament, bible also described the well being of Israel to her level of faithfulness with God. When they were faithful to God, Israel prospered. When they disobey God and even began to do evil, God won't allow them to continue on such a path... so God's glory can leave Israel too. God even allowed Israel to be destroyed on couple of occasions as disciplines. But God would always rebuild with the remnants of few faithfuls... So I was merely applying the same principles to the new testament era. Since Europe was predominantly christian, their faith level in God also should have an impact on their livelihood in the here and now. Even if you refuse to believe Europe's rise is due to its Christian influence, you don't find it coincidental and Europe's declined sort of match with its secularization? Likewise I believe America's rise is due to American's faith in Christ. I also believe that Europe won't remain 'successful' forever if they abandon Christ. Likewise, I don't think US can remain successful if they abandoned Christ. So Christ's influence isn't irrelevant.

If the Gospel were preached eastward to India and China, I'm sure they can easily be the next world superpower due to their sheer size. And they'd pick up the bibles to preach and colonize the rest of the world..., but God usually elect the small and the weak guys so that the small and weak guys can know that they were able to do it because of God. When people get too big and too arrogant, they'll end up thinking that they don't need God. I don't know about India, but the Chinese believe they are the center of the universe. China in chinese is literally called the "Central Nation", we're so obsessed with ourselves we don't really give a damn about the other parts of the scavenger world because we are the center of everything already. Others need to revolve around us! So although Chinese had the capability to do what Columbus did... to navigate around the world, but we just couldn't care less. China had been a powerful empire(s) with various dynasties without Christ, but like all the other past powerful empires, none last forever! ;)

Only way to make it last is with Jesus. It's just unfortunately that once we become richer and more powerful, we tend to think we don't need God anymore...

Anyway, regarding social problems with US, although shooting up theaters and schools aren't really national past times, but people are genuinely concerned, right? We most certainly do have a national gun control problem and mental healthcare problem. We can't just brush those issues aside as if those were 'isolated incidences'.

Lastly I wish to add, that as followers of Christ, it doesn't mean we'll be problem free. Christians are not really that holy and God knows that. Christians are simply a bunch of self confessing imperfect sinners who recognize their problem and also recognize that they need help from God and from one another. Just like the 12 step program that was developed using biblical principles to combat additions... As Christians, we're to use it to combat all sort of problems we encounter thru life... and God will help us get better. It is this collective effort which eventually helped develop a nation of people into greatness IMHO. Whenever folks end up believe, nah, I'm good enough and I don't need anymore help and I don't need to make progress anymore... and that's when things begin to fall apart.

LHutton

March 24th, 2015, 10:10 AM

What did I miss?

http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100303064854/southpark/images/0/01/GoGodGoXII13.jpg

tigeraid

March 26th, 2015, 08:23 AM

I know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation

Says the guy basing all of his beliefs, worldview and behavior on a book of fiction.

21Kid

March 26th, 2015, 09:09 AM

:lol:

#win

Crazed_Insanity

March 26th, 2015, 09:42 AM

:lol:

#JesusLovesYouNoMatterWhat

MR2 Fan

March 26th, 2015, 10:05 AM

#jesusisdeadandsomeoneremovedthebodyfromhiscoffina ndtheyclaimedherosetoheaven

Crazed_Insanity

March 26th, 2015, 10:14 AM

#NoJesusRoseFromTheDeadAndHasBeenRulingOverHisKing domOnEarthEverSince
#ThatsHowChristianityBecameTheNumber1ReligionAfter 2000YearsAndStillGoingStrong!!!
#ButItReallyIsn'tAboutReligions
#JesusLovesYouAndWantsToHaveARealtionshipWithYou
#Don'tWorry
#JesusDoesn'tWantASexualRelationship :p
#JustALovingRelationship :)
#JesusLovesYou
#HeNotOnlyWantsYouToHaveLife
#ButToHaveItToTheFULL!

LHutton

March 28th, 2015, 03:29 AM

##~

FaultyMario

March 28th, 2015, 07:34 AM

Those hashtags fall somewhere between Buddy Jesus and #R8mainGrosjean in the hell pits of internet irrelevance.

overpowered

April 5th, 2015, 09:15 AM

Prosecutors: Jewish woman beaten, harassed in conversion attempt

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/crime/2015/02/13/haragan-malicious-harassment-jewish-christian/23365051/

LHutton

April 5th, 2015, 09:31 AM

^Almost as bad as a Jehovah's Witness.

overpowered

April 5th, 2015, 12:11 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363247/-FOX-NEWS-Only-Muslims-have-ever-killed-anybody-in-the-name-of-religion

Reports say radical Muslim jihadists killed thousands of people in the past few months alone. And yet when you take Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever, their combined killings in the name of religion––well, that would be zero.

LHutton

April 6th, 2015, 03:31 AM

He needs a quick history lesson.

21Kid

April 6th, 2015, 05:29 AM

A history lesson of the past few months? :erm:

Crazed_Insanity

April 6th, 2015, 08:29 AM

From OP's linked article:
The problem isn't Islam. The problem isn't Christianity or any other religion either. The problem is ideology. When an ideology splits the world between us and them, same and other, human and dehumanized, it enables violence.

LHutton

April 6th, 2015, 11:02 AM

A history lesson of the past few months? :erm:
Oh yeah, Judaism, I forgot about that one.

overpowered

April 8th, 2015, 04:45 PM

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1233cb-xenu-intergalactic-overlord.jpg

overpowered

April 22nd, 2015, 06:34 PM

http://www.liberalamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1359520-600x460.jpg

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

tigeraid

April 23rd, 2015, 08:09 AM

Sums up religion nicely.

Crazed_Insanity

April 23rd, 2015, 09:37 AM

You guys are free to think whatever you want, that's why that sign is telling you guys that you end up as satan's slaves. :p

Sometimes wars are absolutely necessary. If you don't fight the Nazis, if you don't fight the Japanese who just attacked you, how would you achieve peace? Just stand there and watch or surrendering to them would achieve peace?

And freedom is slavery? Depend what you mean by freedom. Jesus was sent to set people free! So being slaves to Jesus is actually freeing! Just as you are free to enjoy drugs, but after you've 'enjoyed' it, you'll be it's 'slave' now that you're an addict. Is that really 'freedom'? Even if you look at the 10 commandements and remove all the commandments that involve God... Do you guys really believe dishonoring your parents as free? Cheat, steal, and sleep with neighbors wives as freeing? These laws... even secular laws are not imposed on us to limit our freedom, but to ensure that we can continue to live our lives as truly freeing.

Lastly, ignorance is definitely not strength. I really don't believe God is against knowledge. If He is that absolutely against it, He would not have planted a tree of knowledge in the garden. I Personally believe that God definitely wants to peak our interests in knowledge, but He wants us to gain knowledge thru Him, rather than thru something else without Him. Plus, God also should know better whether if we're ready for certain type of knowledge or not. Eating from Tree of knowledge behind God's back obviously overwhelmed Adam and Eve. Sometimes some people are just no ready for certain knowledge. Ignorance could be bliss at times, but I don't think it's something we should strive for. It's just gonna be different for different folks. Anyway, for us believers, I have to concede that I don't know a lot of things, but I don't see that as my strength, but I do rely on God as my strength. Even when I don't know, I trust God will lead me on the proper path. So God is my strength, not my ignorance.

overpowered

April 23rd, 2015, 11:28 AM

Apparently you didn't get the reference. The lines I wrote were a quote from Orwell's novel 1984. I was comparing that sign to Orwell. I thought they were common knowledge. For anyone who's read it, if they remember anything, they will remember those lines.

FaultyMario

April 23rd, 2015, 11:41 AM

Billi.does.not.read.

Not even the bible.

Crazed_Insanity

April 23rd, 2015, 12:58 PM

If this were a thread about Orwell's book, I probably still wouldn't get the reference because Mario's right, I don't read much novels. However, I do read the bible! :p

Anyway, ultimately, I see your comments as reference to religion(the ruling party). (I googled the book and did a quick read of the summary) Anyway, God's party is not like that ruling party of the novel. He definitely won't torture or brainwash you and force you to live the way He wants you to live. We're all given freewill. We are free to think and do however we like to. God won't stop me from doing good. God also won't stop Hitler from doing evil. God didn't stop Adam and Eve from sinning... so we are 'free' to do whatever we want. Whether if God exists or not, we still have to live with the consequences of our actions though. It's often these consequences that end up causing us to be less free later on whenever we chose poorly.

speedpimp

April 23rd, 2015, 03:17 PM

Actually I think all of Satan's Slaves got patched over to Hells Angels.

overpowered

April 23rd, 2015, 03:34 PM

What you don't get is religion is being used as a tool to control people, much like the propaganda described in 1984 was used to control people.

thesameguy

April 23rd, 2015, 03:55 PM

Much like politics is being used to control people. Much like everything people do is being used to control people. We are pack animals. We all want to be together. We all want something to believe in.

Crazed_Insanity

April 24th, 2015, 08:17 AM

What you don't get is religion is being used as a tool to control people, much like the propaganda described in 1984 was used to control people.

What you don't seem to understand is that those who used Christianity to control people in past history are long gone... while Christianity continued to make a difference in people's lives even today! Have you ever consider that perhaps Christianity is a pretty good tool not just to control people but to actually help people? Further, modern day Christianity really can no longer control people. I can't control what Westboro Baptists do and nor can they control me. We have religious freedom now in case you forget? It'll be impossible for any religion to behave like that 'Ruling Party' at least in the US. American Christians are pretty free with their thoughts... we can have multiple interpretations of the bible, which results in multiple denominations. We just don't want to be so free as to go completely against what the bible teaches. That to us is a danger zone we don't want to be in. If you really believe the Bible is wrong and it's the 'ruling party' messing up all the fun, then feel free to not believe in it. Bible is not going to torture you and force you into submission. If Christians end up torturing you, then hopefully freedom of religion laws can help save you there.

In a nutshell, I just don't see the reference to 1984. :p

Yw-slayer

April 24th, 2015, 08:40 AM

What you don't seem to understand is that those who used Christianity to control people in past history are long gone...

:lol:

That's why I stay out of this thread.

Crazed_Insanity

April 24th, 2015, 09:11 AM

Resistance is futile. You try to stay out, yet I managed to pull you back in. It's not because I have control over you, but it's because Jesus loves you! :)

MR2 Fan

April 24th, 2015, 09:24 AM

:lol:

That's why I stay out of this thread.

f0 real y0

overpowered

April 24th, 2015, 10:27 AM

What you don't seem to understand is that those who used Christianity to control people in past history are long gone...Wow. The image I posted shows that that is most certainly not true.

Crazed_Insanity

April 24th, 2015, 12:18 PM

Oh com'on. How has that sign controlled unbelievers like you?

How has it controlled believers like me? I'm the same crazy thinker even before I decided to follow Christ! ;)

You see the contrast between God that that 'Ruling Party' of the novel? You don't have to live in constant fear that God and his people are going to come beat you and torture you and force you to change your mind. Regardless of our faith or lack of thereof, we are all free to think and do whatever we want in this world. The only thing is that by making wrong choices, we may suffer the consequences. We are free to experiment with drugs or whatever, but it's also possible for us to end up addicted to it... and end up as slaves to drugs or whatever bad attitude/habit we thought it's no big deal before. When that happens, we're no longer free. Our brains would be 'washed' into desiring these addictive behaviors/substances and unable to break free.

Some times it is wiser to limit ourselves a bit to avoid falling into these kind of traps, that's basically what that sign is saying. It's not meant to be as if we Christians must not think and just blindly follow orders of the church.

To be frank, I don't follow orders from pastor of the church. I only follow Christ.

LHutton

April 25th, 2015, 07:36 AM

Media is a far more pervasive method of control, especially when it's laced with government spyware and e-sock-puppets.

thesameguy

April 27th, 2015, 10:35 AM

... and corporate interest.

But, really, the worst thing about The Media is that it's a business. The Media needs to make a profit, and there isn't much of a reason to say something if it won't sell media or worse not to say something if it will. The fact that the media is only incentivized to say or phrase things by how much money those things will generate is the issue. Sadly, the intersection of what people should know and what they will pay to know is very, very small.

LHutton

April 27th, 2015, 11:53 AM

I honestly think religion was pretty cool relative to the modern media Gods. Constant bullshit vs ever-changing bullshit!

Crazed_Insanity

April 27th, 2015, 11:56 AM

Yeah, there are lots of tools people can use to control other people. Use of religion is really out of fashion these days. There are indeed much more effective controlling tools than the use of religion.

Now, whatever forms of control, it's not all bad. For example, would you oppose air traffic control? Why should they tell us where to fly? We should be able to fly freely, right? So think about it. Is control always bad and free always good? Such thinking won't cost you a cent! ;)

Dicknose

April 27th, 2015, 01:42 PM

thesameguy

April 27th, 2015, 02:52 PM

MR2 Fan

April 27th, 2015, 03:22 PM

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/ar4dWzK_460s.jpg

LHutton

April 27th, 2015, 11:53 PM

thesameguy

April 28th, 2015, 09:04 AM

Add to that fact that the media has scientifically calculated exactly what to say and how to say it to have the quickest, maximum impact. The various religious texts predate that science, and by their nature kinda aren't subject to modern presentation. :lol:

Crazed_Insanity

April 28th, 2015, 10:38 AM

Control is bad when you start to get large numbers of people killing other people.
You usually need good motivation to get people to do something that is a long way from normal behaviour.
Fear and patriotism go a long way. But telling someone that an almighty power wants it - well that really helps a lot.

When was the last time US government used God or the Bible to justify killing lots of people? Maybe during the Civil war? Each side believing God is on their side? But obviously the side which believe it's their God given right to own slaves lost. So if there is a God, is it fair to say that God didn't side with the slave owner side? Is it fair to say that God wants slaves to be freed rather than controlled by slave owners? I really don't believe God wants to 'control' us. Yeah, people can definitely use religion to control others, but at least my understanding of God's words is that He wants people to live free.

Like TSG said, a lot of time, people only used God or religion as excuses, especially during modern days.

It's much easier to use fear to control people now.

Crazed_Insanity

April 28th, 2015, 10:54 AM

Obviously there is no way to actually know, but I wonder how many people use "God made me do it" as an excuse for "I was afraid." I'm sure hundreds of years ago the threat of an Almighty was plenty motivation, but I'd be shocked to learn that really that many people these days are drinking that Kool Aid. These days, I feel like it's a bunch of fearful and/or greedy people who are happy to use whatever excuse necessary to defend their choice to do horrible things. I mean, the Bible may preach homophobia and racism, but it also preaches a lot of take care of your own. How you can legitimately use Bible as an excuse to bomb brown people while simultaneously disenfranchising and depriving the middle class down of help doesn't ring true. The only way to defend the latter is a decidedly more modern ism. Like Capitalism, Darwinism, or Libertarianism. I don't think you'd ever say "The Bible warned against socialized medicine," because in fact it rather supported it. Bible when it suits, not Bible when it doesn't.

Yeah, I'm morally conservative, politically, I really see the conservatives in the US as really out of touch with what Jesus is all about.

It's interesting how history repeats itself. Back in Jesus' days, the pharisees are exactly like the conservative republicans... seemingly more spiritual..., think that God is on their side... tend to look down on the social misfits. However, Jesus often end up socializing the the misfits of society, giving them free healthcare! Of course this doesn't mean Jesus like to party with the misfits..., he was just sent there to help and heal folks with various problems. Help them to be able to live their lives to the fullest. Believe it or not, Jesus is still selling the same kool aid today. All it takes to buy one is thru faith! Of course, if you think you're not really that thirsty, he's not the kinda guy who'd force you to drink anything you don't want to! :p He's here to help us live free, not control us.

thesameguy

April 28th, 2015, 11:27 AM

I'm not so sure about that. Whether you look at the Bible literally or religiously, it just cannot be denied that the Bible seeks to establish a set of guidelines in which people are to live. Sure, there's some leeway between the lines, but those lines are very solid and there are clear consequences indicated for transgressions. The concepts of freedom and happiness aren't really central themes like "don't fuck up or else" is.

Crazed_Insanity

April 28th, 2015, 11:57 AM

Jesus summed up all of the laws guidelines or whatever down to 2 things. Love God and Love one another. If you truly love somebody, naturally you wouldn't fuck him over. The focus really should be 'love', not 'don't fuck'! Yeah, sometimes fucking can be enjoyable, but in order to be truly happy and free, one has to have a loving healthy relationship. Not just a fuck buddy or don't have a fuck buddy! :p

Edit: I think I misinterpreted what you said 1st time around... you're talking about "fucking up or else", not fucking sombody else... Anyway, regarding this aspect of your concern, you don't think God knows we can fuck up? If fucking up is totally unacceptable, why bother sending a savior to help clean up our mess? Just throw down fire balls or drown all of them stupid little fuckers and be done with it.

Yes, there will be consequences with every action we take. I'm sure you know this is true even without any threat of hell.

However, surely you know enough about Jesus that you know he is also graceful, merciful? Therefore, forgiving? When we fuck up, as long as we repent and change our old wrongful ways, you don't think God can forgive us and still help us turn things around?

We are after all humans and prone to make mistakes. We are also 'free' to make mistakes. If we don't ever learn from our mistakes and continue to repeat them, who do you have to blame but yourself?

Bible is full of characters who fuck things up. As long as they repent and continue to stay faithful, there's nothing God cannot do to help turn things around.

tigeraid

April 28th, 2015, 12:35 PM

Casual sex is spectacular.

And Jesus' "rules" aren't the only ones Christians hen-pick on a regular basis. Whatever conforms to their worldview they use, whatever doesn't, they discard.

thesameguy

April 28th, 2015, 12:37 PM

Free to make mistakes is not actual freedom. Having to choose between repentance and Hell is not actual freedom. The criteria that causes someone to have to seek forgiveness or face Hell are roadblocks to freedom. They are excellent illusions of freedom, but those are still inescapable rules of that game. NT God may be more patient and willing to let the cards settle than OT God was, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a system in play, and all mankind is subject to it.

Crazed_Insanity

April 28th, 2015, 12:58 PM

Unless you are Neo and can break free and escape from it, you are living inside this Matrix and you'll have to subject to its rules.

I can't be sure who is the real Architect of our universe, I'm betting on Jesus, even as an atheist, there will always be some secular rules... even physical natural laws that you'll have to follow.

Law of gravity and lack of feathers will mean that we just cannot fly! However, somehow we got brains and we could use it to figure out how to fly thru some other means..., while still obey the laws of nature. No point blaming the law of nature for being so limiting!

Anyway, basically I believe the game God wants us to play is to learn to love. You don't have to play if you really don't want to. If you don't really want eternal life, God also won't force you. It's just that I believe eternal life should be more free than death. Love should be more joyful than being all by myself... I quite like the game God wants me to play! Again, if you don't really want to play, I don't believe God will force anyone to play this game of love.

21Kid

April 28th, 2015, 01:13 PM

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/ar4dWzK_460s.jpg

:lol: That's good.

thesameguy

April 28th, 2015, 04:00 PM

Crazed_Insanity

April 29th, 2015, 08:09 AM

What do you think are the repercussions for me breaking the Sabbath?

Whatever religious laws you're not following now, you really think God would come down and force you to obey them once you become a believer? ;)

Regarding physical laws..., in the event of balloon, plane or rocket failure, law of gravity will still have our asses. :p

Lastly, like I've said before, Christianity really isn't about laws, but about love. If we love, it'd really be difficult to break any of God's laws.

thesameguy

April 29th, 2015, 08:40 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking the Sabbath" exactly. My understanding is that the Sabbath is a holy day, and the Bible is pretty clear about what happens when you violate the Sabbath. OT says you will die. NT says your spirit will wither and die. Sounds pretty dire in both cases. If by "break the Sabbath" you mean break holy law, I'm pretty sure at the very least you risk not being whisked away with the rest of the faithful. That also sounds pretty dire.

Again, don't confuse the laws of nature with the laws of man. If you know when your aircraft fails you will be subject to gravity, there is no penalty for having a backup or remedial measure. We have parachutes. We have had them for a long time. There are very few laws of nature we haven't mitigated in some way. If you use a parachute for beating gravity you don't have to apologize to anyone, seek forgiveness, or worry about your place in the afterlife. The same cannot be said for

Crazed_Insanity

April 29th, 2015, 09:34 AM

In a nutshell, God just wants us to rest on Sabbath and not overwork ourselves to death. However, religious extremists would have you believe on sabbath days, you can't do this or that. Some Jews won't even push an elevator button on such a day. If that's what you truly believe God wants you to do, fine. One can certainly be free to practice one's own religion. Now, at least according to NT, Jesus himself was accused of breaking the Sabbath for healing a sick man on that day! OT was also clear that adulterers should be stoned to death. Yet, when an adulteress was captured and brought to Jesus, Jesus chose to let the repenting woman live. Again, was Jesus violating the will of God the Father?

When people focus in only on laws and forget about what is God's true intention with these laws, that's when it becomes a 'religion'.

Anyway, my point is that Christianity ought not to be just another religion. It's really not about obeying a set of rules and regulations, but about love. That's why I don't believe God the Father would be mad at Jesus for working to heal a sick man on the Sabbath day and not stoning a repentant adulteress to death. Christianity should be about having a relationship with Christ rather than living life with a bunch of laws.

tigeraid

April 29th, 2015, 09:49 AM

But don't allow gay marriage. Your "love" can only go so far.

thesameguy

April 29th, 2015, 10:14 AM

Anyway, my point is that Christianity ought not to be just another religion. It's really not about obeying a set of rules and regulations, but about love. That's why I don't believe God the Father would be mad at Jesus for working to heal a sick man on the Sabbath day and not stoning a repentant adulteress to death. Christianity should be about having a relationship with Christ rather than living life with a bunch of laws.

That is certainly one opinion. Things might be better if more people shared that opinion, but clearly the text is sufficiently ambiguous that not everyone agrees on what is okay and what's not. That is somewhat of a problem, as has been demonstrated.

But don't allow gay marriage. Your "love" can only go so far.

... by things like this. :)

Crazed_Insanity

April 29th, 2015, 12:24 PM

Opinions can change. Pope used to be the authority in bible interpretation, but not anymore. This is why it's now encouraged that we read our own bibles. That's why there are so many different Christian denominations. We are to interpret the best we can and live in accordance to whatever we believe.

With regard specifically to marriage, regardless of what Christians believe, it wasn't an institution created, whether by God or by men, to discriminate against gay couples. Gays only felt like they're being discriminated against because they're different.

Some Christians for sure are perhaps being hateful of gays by not supporting gay marriage. If they take on such a stance with that in their hearts, then obviously they are not acting very lovingly. However, I'm pretty sure most are only fighting it because they don't want to change the definition of marriage just because 10% of the population want to redefine it. If that's the stance they're taking, then I don't think they are acting unlovingly or against what Christ is all about.

As from a personal perspective, I believe we can definitely use scripture to support gay marriage. There's no getting away with homosexuality being a sin. Heck, even heterosexuality is a sin... but it can be a lovely thing if you are making love! By law, we can't really prove love, so marriage is about the best we can do to put our love on paper. Bible is clear that love can cover multitude of sins. (1Peter4:8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+4%3A8&version=NIV)) So to me, there's no question that marriage should also legitimize homosexuality... just as it legitimizes heterosexuality. Bible is also clear that there'll be no more marriages in the eternal life. Probably because there'll no longer be any genders... so I personally think it's really stupid for us to bicker about marriage here on earth. If Christians really want to protect marriage, we ought to start by working on our own marriages. Make sure Christians have much much lower divorce rates than unbelievers. Until then, Christians ought just shut the fuck up about gay marriage. Let God be the judge..., and all we have to do now is basically just love.

Bible can indeed be very ambiguous at times. However, God also gave us brains and hearts in order to figure out what is the right thing to do. Of course, even if we screw up, that's okay, just repent and try out a different path again! God just want us to enjoy our lives to the fullest. The good bad and the ugly.

Dicknose

April 29th, 2015, 03:20 PM

How is homosexuality a sin, but working in the Sabbath not?

Crazed_Insanity

April 29th, 2015, 03:49 PM

I thought your smart!

So let me explain again...

Jesus worked on his rest day out of love that's why it wasn't a sin.

If gay couples really love one another that much, then homosexuality would no longer be sinful. When heterosexual couple just fuck around, even with a marriage certificate, I believe God would see that as more sinful!

Get it? Or am I still not clear enough?

thesameguy

April 29th, 2015, 03:49 PM

The suspected answer would be because Jesus healed on the Sabbath (“Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”) but Jesus never made man love.

I'm honestly not adequately familiar with the Bible to know exactly how and when homosexual relations (love, or otherwise) are addressed, but I'd be interested to know whether most of the anti-gay sentiment originates in the OT, where God was portrayed as vengeful, or whether it originates in the NT, where God was not only more forgiving but it was suggested that crossing God's will was not inherently bad so long as the motivation and outcome was good. In this particular example Jesus suggests that violating the rules is okay when not violating them results in harm. I wonder if there are even more extreme examples, where supporting the rules rather than simple inaction results in harm, and thus it's okay to bend or break them.

I'm a strong believer that the Bible-thumping idiots of our time are idiots first, and Bible thumpers second. I really do think most of the "you're going to hell" rhetoric is cherry picking arguments. There are too many words, too many themes, and too many themes revisited in the Bible for any particular action short of maybe murder or torture to be clearly condemned. I'm just too lazy to go find out for sure. :P

thesameguy

April 29th, 2015, 03:56 PM

Hmmm... worth a read: http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm

Presbyterian theologian Mark Achtemeier argues against the traditional view of homosexuality in his book, The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage, An Evangelical's Change of Heart:8

This book is the story of a change of heart. In the middle 1990s, I was a conservative church activist working hard to defend the “traditional” teaching of my own Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that was condemning homosexual practice. In the fall of 1996, I published an article supporting traditionalist efforts to keep openly gay and lesbian people from serving in positions of ordained church leadership. Those efforts proved successful, and the result was a constitutional ban on gay ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), beginning in the summer of 1997. The passage of fourteen years found me working to repeal the ban on gay ordination I had once helped put in place.
Achtemeier uses the story of a young seminarian named Kristi (not her real name) to illustrate the problems with traditional interpretations:

What kind of God were we dealing with, I wondered, if the traditional condemnations of homosexuality were faithful and accurate reflections of the divine will? That would mean that God places Kristi and others like her in a situation from which there is no escape. They have absolutely no ability to wish or pray or choose their way out of their same-sex attraction, yet God condemns them unless they can change it. God further adds to the difficulty of the situation by withholding the gifts and calling that would make lifelong celibacy a realistic possibility.

... That was a distressing picture to contemplate, but fortunately I realized it was a picture that stood in utter contradiction to the portrait of God painted by Scripture. If the Bible and Christian proclamation are true and if Jesus really is God-with-us, then the clearest picture we have of what God is really like is Jesus himself. And there was absolutely nothing in Jesus’ life or ministry that even remotely resembled the kind of gratuitous cruelty that would bring someone into existence only for the purpose of breaking or condemning them. To the contrary: Jesus’ love and compassion broke through all the traditional barriers of his age, reaching out to embrace even his own enemies (Luke 23:34). Jesus spoke about God’s heart rejoicing when the wandering find their way home (Luke 15) and about God’s desire that no one be lost (Matt. 18:14). None of this fit with the picture of a God who would cruelly leave no path to grace for people like Kristi.

Achtemeier concludes that traditional condemnations of homosexual acts are based on a fragmentary reading of the Bible that is inconsistent with overall Bible teachings:

At the beginning of this journey, described in chapter 1, I had found strong reasons for doubting whether the church’s traditional condemnations of homosexuality were in line with the will of God. Now I found myself considering how it was possible for those teachings to be mistaken, even though they seemed to be based on a reasonably straightforward reading of individual passages taken from the Bible. I found strong evidence, both in the history of the church and in the testimony of the New Testament, supporting the conclusion that this fragment approach to interpreting biblical Law is unreliable and highly prone to error. These findings lent further credibility to my initial strong suspicions that the traditional condemnations were contrary to the will and plan of God.

... The predecessor denominations of my own Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) split over the issue of slavery in the mid 1800s. Going back and reading about that history, one discovers that the pro-slavery churches were defending their positions by appeal to the Bible! Isolated fragments, pulled out and interpreted apart from the overall witness of the Scripture, led those devout southern Presbyterians to conclude that their pro-slavery cause was blessed by God. Another such episode, which extends into more recent times, saw well-intentioned Christians appealing to isolated scriptural fragments as they argued to keep women in subordinate roles within both church and society. The fragment method clearly has a long and sad history of providing “biblical” justification for teachings that we can recognize in hindsight as contrary to the will of God.

Crazed_Insanity

April 29th, 2015, 05:59 PM

Amen!

Dicknose

April 29th, 2015, 10:09 PM

Which all goes back to the concept that the bible is inconsistent and clearly the work of man.
If God was in charge of the bible, he did a very crap job of getting his views across.
Amazing that an all powerful being has such trouble making clear his views.

Hey big fella - just SMS us some answers. And let us know you are thinking of us.
This hiding in rainbows and wanting us to believe based on faith is getting real old.
If you are there, drop the desperate mind games and just say hello.
Cause I dont know if you have been distracted watching Simpson reruns, but lots of people are being total bitches to each other, often in your name.
Im sure the world would be a much better place if you just said hello.
Dont assume we can read your holy books - because there is a few of them and they are a pretty crap read and are terribly inconsistent.
Am I suppose to be jewish, christian or muslim?
What about being gay? or sex without marriage? Do you even care about marriage or is that just for us to worry about as a society?
Do I take Saturday off, or Sunday. Or is it ok to work all 7 days as long as I dont blow up people who dont agree with me?

And a lot of people are blaming you for this mess.
So maybe just for once give a damn and actually do something tangible and unmistakable.
It would also help if you give us 1 page cheat sheet of what you want, because its a bit confusing at the moment.
How much effort could that be if you are omnipotent?

regards,

dicknose

Crazed_Insanity

April 30th, 2015, 06:17 AM

Love God and love one another the best you can. It's really not that confusing, DN.

Dicknose

April 30th, 2015, 06:40 AM

If it's that simple, why is there so much confusion?
Why do you refer to sin?
What is morally right and what is wrong?
Is it ok if I love someone but fuck someone else?

If God exists then why not step in and give us some help.
Worst ultimate being ever!

Crazed_Insanity

April 30th, 2015, 07:59 AM

Dude, he stepped in 2000 years ago and helped. Some believed and some went as far as wanted him crucified. Will you really be on the side that'll finally believe or will you be on the side who'd like to see him fuck off? God's physical presence isn't the issue here. Problem is with humanity's condition.

To answer some of the problems with your human condition... yeah, you can certainly love you mother and fuck your wife. I'm sure that'd be okay. Not sure about the other way around. ;) Now, if you're asking whether if we can love our wife and fuck other women, man, are you insulting your own intelligence? Can you explain to me why is it okay for you to claim to love one woman and yet still want to fuck other women? If you're God, maker of all rules, can you explain to me why that is okay in your book? What is your definition of love?

tigeraid

April 30th, 2015, 08:42 AM

Love God and love one another the best you can. It's really not that confusing, DN.

Were this the case, it sounds an awful lot like you have no need of a Bible at all, and can simply use common sense and logic.

Imagine that.

thesameguy

April 30th, 2015, 08:51 AM

I think you know that common sense and logic is never going to be enough to rely on to keep humanity alive. If it were, we wouldn't have government or laws at all to remind people what they should be doing.

I think largely the origins of the Bible are immaterial to believer and nonbeliever alike. The simple truth is that it exists, and it is text and a code by which some people live their lives, just like it's a shield behind which idiots cower. Personally, I wish things were different, but the Bible figures into a huge number of peoples' lives. I'm not going to rail against something that is unfixable. Maybe it'll work itself out over time, maybe it won't, but right now it is how it is.

I learned a lot yesterday in the scope of this discussion - I finally did some research into exactly what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Turns out almost nothing. That's awesome ammo against idiots as far as I'm concerned.

Crazed_Insanity

April 30th, 2015, 09:29 AM

Were this the case, it sounds an awful lot like you have no need of a Bible at all, and can simply use common sense and logic.

Imagine that.

Without the Bible, I'd never be able to know what Jesus was like and what he did 2000 yrs ago or that he was a Jew. The history part isn't as critical, but still important.

Can you really imagine our founding fathers fought and won the revolutionary war to start a free nation and figured the constitution is useless and we can just start and build this new nation based on common sense and logic?

Anyway, IMHO, bible or constitution to a society is like DNA to a living organism. Yes, they are indeed trying to 'control' things to develop a certain way... Yes, it may seem limiting, but it'd be good for the whole. Cancerous growth would be completely free. To a cancer cell, it just may think it has plenty of common sense and logic. I don't need DNA to tell me what to do or how to live my life! :p

BTW, your last sentence reminded me of the song... "Imagine".

It's really a great song. I love the song. However, the original song writer is obviously a hypocrite. His own son accused John Lennon of this. Proclaiming peace and love to the world, yet, showed very little of that to the ones he supposedly should love the most! Anyway, I don't want to judge Lennon or anything... there are also plenty of hypocritical Christians. Even myself can be hypocritical at times... THAT, is the human condition. We may know in our heart the 'common sense and logic', but we're unable to carry it out. Christ is the Savior God sent to us to help us out in that area. Yes, Bible can help us know some things a little better, but the main thing isn't really about 'knowledge'..., but about living the 'life'. But of course in life, we can't completely throw away the knowledge, right? So Bible gives us some insight, but it's Jesus himself who'll help us live fuller lives. Without accepting Jesus into our lives, Bible is as useless as trash. Now, without the Bible, one would never know about Jesus and you'll never accept Jesus in the first place... so it's kinda like a chicken and the egg thing... ;)

overpowered

August 20th, 2015, 12:37 PM

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/556493_10150969691937202_1193333989_n.jpg?oh=e9538 9451ae5498b24d8695bbb7c0d79&oe=563B1CF0

tigeraid

August 20th, 2015, 12:41 PM

:lol:

21Kid

August 20th, 2015, 01:16 PM

It's amazing how many similarities there are between religions of history. It seems that Christianity hit on the best hybrid of other religions and combined them into one.

Crazed_Insanity

August 21st, 2015, 09:59 AM

It's amazing how you guys continue to laugh or look down at stuffs you don't quite understand.

Bible's age and accuracy has been confirmed by dead sea scrolls. Of course this doesn't prove God exists, just that Bible has existed for a long time and had been pretty accurate over the thousands of years. Of course some divergent religions might add or delete stuffs too, but that's a different issue... main issue for believers is that even if we all were reading the same text, we can still come up with varying interpretations. Who's right who's wrong? If there's a God, only God knows. As for addition or deletions... were those in charge doing so really were prophet of God sent by God to do that? Once again, only God knows.

Point is, if there is a God and if He really cares for us, He also must manage to keep His 'religion' alive and not allow it to completely disappear into irrelevant mythology as Egyptian or Greek gods. Interestingly, God of Abraham seemingly had done well as most in this world do believe in the God of Abraham..., rightly or wrongly. God of this Abraham just isn't going away for whatever reasons.

Now, I believe if a particular group were really faithful to this God and are willing to do His will, then they'll be able to catch God's glory as surfing on a glorious wave. Jews supposedly did it according to the Bible during David/Solomon period. Modern history also indicated that the Europeans did it... and now America's doing it.

But of course none lasted forever..., not because God sucks, but people just end up too full of themselves and forget about God... and then they would get wiped out by the surf... America is also on her decline as # of faithful are dwindling as well...

Anyway, God wants to build relationships with us, He'll go only wherever He's wanted. If we truly love Him and do His will, which is basically to love Him and to love one another, nothing would be impossible for us. If your particular 'movement' is really riding on God's glorious wave, everyone surely will notice... whether they believe in God or not. Doing God's will and got nailed on the cross? Everyone will know you and you'd still end up changing the world. Now, if you were a thief and end up crucified, nobody would know your name... God works in the most mysterious and wonderful ways. Just like waves, whether you are a surfer or not, it'll continue on...

Of course, people can also achieve great things without believing in God. Don't get me wrong, just as pyramids are pretty awesome, but it no longer contributes much in the here and now... other than being a cool tourist attraction. Whereas God's work usually will have much longer lasting impact.

JoshInKC

August 21st, 2015, 12:25 PM

A quick note regarding your 3rd paragraph, Billi - Christianity and Judaism (if you combine them, which I would argue against, but whatever) have only just now gotten to the point where they've been around almost as long as the Ancient Egyptian Religion was a going concern. There's some archaeological evidence for the AER going back to about 4000 BCE and it hung around until about the BCE/CE split, giving it about a 4000 year lifespan. The absolute earliest evidence* for the existence of Judaism dates to somewhere around the mid- second millenium BCE (1600-1500). So it's around 3600 year old, if you're being very generous. As far as I understand, actual firm evidence for the practice of Judaism doesn't actually pop up until about 900 BCE.

* - This evidence consists of an engraving mentioning Israel. Why the existence of a kingdom named Israel counts as evidence for the existence of a religion, I don't know. It seems much more supportable to me to assume that Judaism likely emerged from the Ancient Semitic Religion in or around Israel at some later date. But then, I tend to find the entire field of "biblical archaeology" to be kind of irritating.

overpowered

August 21st, 2015, 01:48 PM

Bible's age and accuracy has been confirmed by dead sea scrolls.

Accuracy? Erm. No.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

21Kid

August 24th, 2015, 05:44 AM

:lol:

My daughter believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny until this last year. Even she didn't believe the stories in the bible when she has gone to church with her grandparents.

FYI, we didn't prompt her in anyway either.

Crazed_Insanity

August 24th, 2015, 10:34 AM

A quick note regarding your 3rd paragraph, Billi - Christianity and Judaism (if you combine them, which I would argue against, but whatever) ...

Christianity is based on Judaism, J may not recognize C, but without J, C just won't exist and won't make sense.

Anyway, age of religion aside, it also needs to make a difference to our lives. How has the Egyptian gods helped the Egyptians... How has the Hindu gods helped the Indians?

Now examine the Jews. They've built nothing as fancy as pyramids. They also don't have the same amount of population as Indians. For sure Jews are also more hated by other folks than Egyptians or Indians.... Still, Jews have managed to be the focus of worlds attention.

According to the irritating biblical history, almost every neighboring empires wanted Jews gone. But Jews always managed to come back. No group which messed with Jews managed outlive the Jews.

Anyway, so if you really want to play the #s game, you really think Judaism and Christianity may finally disappear in 400 yrs?

Maybe maybe not. Either way, we both won't live long enough to see 400 years into the future. We can only live our current lives the best and fullest way we know how! Sure glad we now have freedom of religion and we can minimize fighting in wars over this! :p

Crazed_Insanity

August 24th, 2015, 10:46 AM

Accuracy? Erm. No.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

Dead Sea scrolls only showed the this old copy of the bible matched modern day bible.

It can only confirm that the bible is really old and accurately reproduced, unlike texts about Flying Spaghetti Monster. As for historical accuracy, Dead Sea scrolls cannot prove that. Nor can anything be used to prove existence of God. Even if Jesus were to actually face you, how can he prove to you that he's Jesus? Plenty of magicians can walk on water, turn water to wine or even fly!

LHutton

August 26th, 2015, 09:56 PM

Is it ok if I love someone but fuck someone else?

If married then no. That's actually one area where The Bible is superior to the law IMHO. That kind of shit leads to a whole world of other crimes, like homicides and serious assaults.

thesameguy

August 26th, 2015, 10:29 PM

I fully endorse separating sex from partnership. Not to say the two can't coexist, but requiring something as basic as sex go hand in hand with an emotional or spiritual commitment to another human being is a fairly good formula for failure across modern day lifespans. It'll be really bad in 50 years.

Crazed_Insanity

August 27th, 2015, 09:18 AM

Okay, I'm not sure if we should 'endorse' such separation, perhaps just 'allow'. I'd endorse an ideal, but allow other things to happen due to practicality. Just as I'm sure God endorsed 1 man 1 woman kinda marriage with creation of Adam and Eve. However, obviously God also allowed lots of biblical figures from Abraham to David to have multiple wives as well. So I don't think we need to 'endorse' something that's less than ideal. But we certainly shouldn't 'require' folks to live under such lofty ideals. I just don't think we should 'endorse' our future generations to just fuck around. Fucking around is inevitable in this real world already, no need to endorse it.

If you've tried your best and just can't find an ideal mate... or perhaps your ideal mate passed away or whatever... people certainly should be 'allowed' to settle for something less than ideal as long as they're not hurting one another.

If one really cannot commit to a 2 yr cellphone contract, then don't sign on the dotted line.
If one really cannot commit to repaying a multi-year car or home loan, then don't sign on the dotted line.
If one really cannot commit to a lifetime of partnership, then don't get marry.

Of course if AT&T has really weak signals and you wish to switch to Verizon, other than pay a bit of penalties, you could switch. No human contract is unbreakable.
Likewise it doesn't make sense for you to finance one car, yet continue to rent and drive another in the same town, right?
Do you make payments to one house and occasionally rent another or stay in hotels in the same town?
If you're super rich, then perhaps you can have different wives located at various parts of the globe, but faithfulness really counts for something.
Yeah, I might want to rent a Ferrari or some high class escort someday just to enjoy myself a bit..., but look at it from another perspective, should we really treat our partners as properties or objects like that?

If your wife is really being a bitch and refuse to have sex with you to satisfy your basic needs after you've satisfied every one of her needs, then I'd say it's grounds for divorce. Why bother looking for sex else where and stay married to this bitchy wife?

I really think DN's question doesn't quite make sense. Marriage license aside. If you really love somebody, you wouldn't want to fuck anybody else. If you still feel the need to fuck somebody else, it's proof enough that you don't really love that person... or perhaps you're just a sex addict and need help. Either way, don't get marry and fuck up somebody else's life.

I recently read from a book from psychologist Stan Tatkin, saying that we all tend to seek out and need to have a primary attachment figure. When we're young it tends to be your parents. When you're single, it tend to be your buddy... of course when you marry, it should be your spouse. Just somebody who'll be there for you no matter what. People like cops or firefighters sometimes often end up 'attached' to their partners at work because they have each other's back day in and day out... and their spouses actually end up as the '3rd wheel'. So I guess in such scenarios, DN's comment might hold true. Some cops love their partners above all others, but they'd only have sex with their wives. ;)

But of course, those spouses end up getting a rotten deal. The ideal still should be that you connect both emotionally and sexually ONLY with your spouse! If this ideal is repulsive to you, then marriage, whether traditional or gay, is probably not for you.

MR2 Fan

August 27th, 2015, 01:57 PM

I thought your smart!

:lol:

let's see if Billi gets the irony

thesameguy

August 27th, 2015, 04:12 PM

Sex is an experience. Love is a state of mind or being. Monogamy, as it were, is an sensible arrangement between two people predicated on a variety of factors (comfort, financial, etc.). You can have marriage without sex or love, you can have love without sex or marriage, and you can have sex without love or marriage. Bundling all of those things up made sense a couple thousand years ago, maybe even a couple hundred years ago, from the perspective of disease control, ensuring the survival of young, and rearing competitive children. It was easily achievable when a marriage might like ten or twenty years. You really didn't have to put up with someone for very long, they didn't have to be your everything across years of personal development and maturing. These days a marriage could easily last 70 years, during which time both parties will probably go through a half dozen personal changes and they may not always match up.

It's fine - great even - if everyone could find that person where everything clicked across seven decades, but statistically speaking I think the chances of that are low. I don't think there is anything wrong finding your sex in a different place than your love than your living situation. Two people committed to each other "forever" should be able to find happiness however they can, as best they can, for as long as they can. Throwing in roadblocks into the mix just because is dumb. If there's a practical reason for it, I'm all ears, but as far as I can tell "strict" monogamy exists only because someone said it did a long time ago.

(If you're curious, no I do not have an "open relationship" but I haven't needed one. Maybe I will someday. Maybe she will someday. That's cool. I just want us both to be happy.)

21Kid

August 28th, 2015, 05:13 AM

I think jealousy comes into play too much for that to work. (for me at least)

Crazed_Insanity

August 28th, 2015, 09:24 AM

TSG, going back to the book I read recently, author claimed that human brains are actually wired for war, rather than love. At least according to theory of evolution, brains prone to lovey dovey behavior probably won't survive easily! ;) Still, even from biblical perspective, ever since Adam and Eve's fall and sin entered into this world, things just have changed. Anyway, back to the point of warring brains that we have... this is why it can be so easy for us to get on each other's nerves. This also explains political polarization. Our tendency is to push each other toward the other extreme as time goes on.

So your concern is perfectly legit. Marriages nowadays can last so damn long. It certainly wasn't like this back then. It's much easier for Rose to stay in love with a dead Jack. Chances are, if Jack didn't die at sea, Rose probably would end up divorcing the loser! :p

However, that author also mentioned our need to have a primary attachment figure. We absolutely need somebody like that in our lives in order to thrive. Maybe there are some loners who can thrive very well all by themselves, but most of us need to have some sort of partner who we can fall back on or trust... As an grown adult, this person ought to be your spouse. You and your spouse don't have to always agree on everything, as long as you can respect each other's beliefs. Of course it'll be difficult for a ultra conservative and a liberal to stay married..., so you probably need to pick somebody with similar core values.

Later on, of course people could change their values..., but there must be some outside force at work, right? Whether it's your partner joining a new political org, or new church, or fell in love with another guy, or somehow became some sort of addict.. these things don't happen all of a sudden. If you've paid attention to your partner, you should be able to find these things out early on and be able to talk about it. If your partner is set on hiding these new things from you, then perhaps your partnership isn't as great as you think it is... Anyway, point is we need to pay close attention to our partners. Watch each other's back. When he or she end up getting sucked into some outside political, religious, drug or sex habits, you will have to decide whether you'll respect that and perhaps someday join her, or get a divorce, or try to rescue your partner back.

For me, politics isn't a big deal. My daily life won't be impacted by political positions. I also don't think things really changed all that much whether we have a republican or democratic president! :p As for religion, that is important to me. If one of us fall out of faith, it can certainly make the other person's life more difficult. Just as if one of us some how end up with a habit of substance abuse, that can definitely cause messes. Assuming I'm not the one who lost my mind or ceased to love my partner, I won't immediately divorce my spouse, but will try to restore her faith or try to get her off drugs. That's what marriage partners are for, right?

As for sex, am I really that lousy in bed that my wife needs to get fulfilled by somebody else... or vice versa? Unless if I married a porn star or professional prostitute, they're just doing their job, then I can understand perhaps my wife needs to have sex with somebody else. Otherwise, I'm sure jealousy will be an issue as 21Kid said.

Open relationships destroys the idea of having a primary attachment figure. Just as cops don't regularly switch partners either. Trust and respect usually takes a long time to build.

Now as for other pursuits or hobbies that won't compromise the partnership, surely we can pursue them fully knowing that our partners will also support us fully.

Anyway, marriage is definitely hard, but it'll be worth it if we do it right. Read 'wired for love' by Stan Tatkin for more details of how we can make marriages last longer. It's hard, but not impossible. People have done it.

thesameguy

August 28th, 2015, 10:23 AM

Open relationships destroys the idea of having a primary attachment figure. Just as cops don't regularly switch partners either. Trust and respect usually takes a long time to build.

I don't agree with that at all, and your example is a perfect reason why I do not. Building that trust with someone is important and critical, but cops don't need to fuck each other to feel that attachment and establish that relationship. Trust is not about who you're having sex with and who pays the bills. Trust is about being confident the other person has your best interest at heart and you theirs. I think we are conditioned by society to wrap love/sex/marriage into an impenetrable value meal and then we feel hurt when someone shares some of that with a 3rd party. I think that culture and that expectation is responsible for destroying healthy and productive relationships for really no good reason. If forty years down the road you want to screw a teenager or spend a week with an ex looking at art you should be able to do that without worrying about your primary relationship. Seeking joy somewhere else does not diminish your affection or appreciation of your primary any more than having desert diminishes your appreciation of dinner. To believe that people only contain a limited amount of love or sex and you need to grab all you can before it's gone is a sad way of thinking.

I trust my girl 100% - that is honestly not something that I could say about anyone else I have ever been with. I know that she is looking out for me 100% and vice versa. If she did something outside the bounds of normally described monogamy it would be for one of two reasons: 1) She was curious about something and wanted the answer, or 2) I was not providing something she needed. If it's #1, I want her to have all the experiences she wants to have and on her death bed know that no stone was left unturned. That's a happy death. If it's #2, then I have a choice of stepping up my game or know she's going to take care of that somewhere else and then come back. It's that simple as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to wrap up my insecurities and selfishness in requirements for her behavior, that's total bullshit and setting a standard for something that is very likely unattainable.

Hey, maybe people luck out and find others that enjoy kowtowing and stepping around insecurities and everything can be done together and there's no regret for not fulfilling personal interest. That does exist - I know people like that. But I think in a 100 year lifespan with 250mph cars and base jumping and Grand Theft Auto and neo-burlesque there is some shit that some people are going to want to try and some shit that people aren't. There is way more to life than survival in 2015, and I am not interested in depriving anyone of any of it just because I don't want to. Along the same lines, in a lifetime of experience, where survival is not on the line, sometimes people feel the need to do things that defy conventional monogamy. Maybe she needs to help her ex get to rehab, maybe I need to buy my ex a plane ticket to get her out of a shitty relationship. We're going to do those things. Not for any other reason that as individuals we feel they're the right things to do, and as a couple we know we've each done the right thing and we're better, stronger people for doing them and we are not angsty because one of us is holding down or back the other.

Relationships based on mutual jailing were not a big problem when every day was uncertain. But that jailing mentality - "you behave this way because any deviation is an attack on me" - seem pretty damned likely to fail in a world filled with wonder and opportunity. Maybe you're lucky and you die before it becomes a problem, but sure seems like given the divorce rate time is not on your side. Relax the rules, get a smoky and have a little fucky and then laugh at each others stories. A relationship based on great experiences seems superior in every way to a relationship based on a clear view of each other on the couch.

Anyway, marriage is definitely hard, but it'll be worth it if we do it right. Read 'wired for love' by Stan Tatkin for more details of how we can make marriages last longer. It's hard, but not impossible. People have done it.

I don't see why anyone would engage in a multi-decade battle for the sake of doing it. I believe marriage is hard, so is the Tour de France. I don't have interest in either of them, but at least one of them gets you some recognition and an amazing sense of accomplishment. I want my life to be filled with things I saw, made, and did and not "Welp, I held it together for 70 years." I am not interested in being a cop - I trust that whatever she is doing she had a good reason and we'll be back together when it's time for us to be back together. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is noise.

Crazed_Insanity

August 28th, 2015, 11:35 AM

Anyway, sex is kinda complicated. We could just straight up have sex, but often times we could also entangle ourselves up with emotions too... Point is we shouldn't do anything that seems to put down our partner. If my partner is in the sex business or if I'm just impotent and have absolutely no interest in sex, then my partner having sex else where most likely wouldn't bother me that much. But surely that is not the case with most folks. In most cases, your partner having sex with somebody else is going to hurt your partnership a bit. She's not just out there having sex for good reasons, but she out there having sex because you couldn't provide something that she wants. It devalues you! There are cases of decade old happy marriages, but have you really seen a longterm happy polygamous couple? Not even those awesome famous biblical figures in the bible could maintain all of their polygamous relationships properly.

Marriage also isn't about jailing our partners. Forget 'marriage', if we love somebody and if we're both interested in sex, chances are, we naturally wouldn't want to have sex with anybody else, right?

Even in nature, there are also monogamous animals too. So although this is a religious thread, I'm just for the moment not going to say poly must be wrong and mono is absolutely right or vice versa. If both partners honestly and openly talked about about it and both are okay with it, I suppose who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Key is we don't do anything that will compromise this primary partnership. My point is also that it'll be impossible for us to build multiple primary partnerships. Just as you can't possibly hold 2 full-time jobs and keep both of your bosses happy.

Lastly, you also shouldn't look at marriage as multi-decade battle. We also shouldn't just stay married for the sake of staying married. Yes, our brains are wired in ways that causes us to want to kill each other when being together for too long, but there's also another force at work here... that is love. Without love, for sure it will feel like a prison. Yes, we'd often naturally, inadvertently hurt one another, but with love, it'll also be able to help heal our battle scars.

So I guess you probably shouldn't be focusing on 'marriage' only. Marriage by itself without love can definitely be quite scary. Not sure if we're all just brain-washed to get marry or we deep down inside just want it?

I think it's probably because love is so abstract, marriage law is the closest thing that we came up with that can mimmick what love is all about? We definitely don't need 'marriage' to have love, but we definitely need love for marriages to work. If you and your primary partner love one another, whether if you have a marriage certificate or not, it shouldn't change your partnership at all. Of course you can mutually freely define how your partnership is going to work, but I suspect if you're both physically healthy and love one another, you just wouldn't want to have sex with anybody else! :p

thesameguy

August 28th, 2015, 03:55 PM

Point is we shouldn't do anything that seems to put down our partner.

If you believe your partner doing something that makes them happy devalues you, that's sad. I absolutely know that happens, I've watched it happen. I don't and can't see how a positive relationship can work that way. Our relationship is at its peak when we are complimenting each other, not supplementing each other. You don't get mad at the batter for practicing without the team so long as he shows up for game day.

She's not just out there having sex for good reasons, but she out there having sex because you couldn't provide something that she wants. It devalues you!

Her out there having sex is for a good reason, it makes her happy. Her action doesn't devalue me, I've devalued me for sucking at sex. I've got two options: Get better at it or expect she's going to find her joy somewhere else. It's cruel to deprive her of the thing she wants because I don't have it to offer. I'm not going to participate in that.

There are cases of decade old happy marriages, but have you really seen a longterm happy polygamous couple? Not even those awesome famous biblical figures in the bible could maintain all of their polygamous relationships properly.

I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about not gamy in any modern sense of it.

Marriage also isn't about jailing our partners.

That is contrary to what you just said. Suggesting that someone going outside the marriage for sex devalues you and you need to work to prevent that from happening is jailing. You are creating boundaries in what the other person can do.

Forget 'marriage', if we love somebody and if we're both interested in sex, chances are, we naturally wouldn't want to have sex with anybody else, right?

The rare exception, sure, but study after study shows that both men and women in long-term happy relationships think about sex with other people. People are animals, people are sexual. Sex predates marriage by millennia; you don't need marriage for sex and I think from a long-term view you don't need sex for marriage. Tying the two together creates pointless strife and boundary issues with no actual upside.

Even in nature, there are also monogamous animals too.

Yes, but remarkably few with our lifespans and our taste for non-survival-related experiences. Maybe even none.

So although this is a religious thread, I'm just for the moment not going to say poly must be wrong and mono is absolutely right or vice versa. If both partners honestly and openly talked about about it and both are okay with it, I suppose who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

I've not suggested and would not suggest there is a wrong way to live and a right way to live. What I would suggest is that culturally tying up multiple disciplines into a thing called "marriage" is a formula for failure. Up to an including the combination of genitalia present in the relationship.

Crazed_Insanity

August 31st, 2015, 09:37 AM

http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/10-psychology-studies-every-lover-should-know.php

Check out #2 with regard to brain map of love and desire.

Love and sexual desire activate portions of the brain with remarkable overlap. That's why often times lovers can get jealous. This is also why sometimes you could accidentally fall in love with your fuck buddy.

Of course #7 sort of supports your point that modern marriages may demand self fulfillment more and more... with both partners working on having a successful career, we just might not have sufficient time invested with each other. Of course, you're view is more extreme... that in the event that sex life isn't too great, spouses should also be allowed to find fulfillment else where... and the lousy sex partner shouldn't feel sad or bad about it and just accept that. Anyway, I'd imagine only very few can mustard this. For sure we can't expect our partners to meet our every needs/desires/passions, but I think #7 also proves my point that the more we invest into each other, the more secure this relationship will be. If my wife just doesn't understand why I love Jesus, why I love my job..., why I love my hobbies, and even why I love sex with her so much, then why are we together again? Why does she even love me? Of course, reverse is also true. Particularly, if I don't really enjoy making love to my wife and would rather have sex elsewhere, it may be fulfilling for me, but I don't see how this add value to our relationship. There's gotta be a compromise between adding to self fulfillment and adding to this overall relationship. Can't have it both ways I don't think.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you seemed to hate 'marriage' just as Christian conservatives hate 'socialism/communism'. I used to find that odd for Christians because early Christians according to book of Acts were living that way. Sharing their personal wealth with each other freely. By purely observing actions of early Christians, they were practicing socialism/communism for sure. However, key difference back then is that in their hearts, they were practicing with an attitude of 'what I have is yours'. However, modern day socialism/communism tend to operate under the assumption of 'what you have is mine!'

That 'giver' mentality is the 'ideal' version. Which is difficult to maintain... that's why most Christians aren't doing that anymore.
The 'taker' mentality is the more practical version. Which is difficult to sustain... that's why socialism/communism doesn't quite work as well as capitalism.

I think there's a similar thing going on with 'marriage' as well. Are you marrying this person because you love him/her so much that you want to give him/her all you have? Or you're just in it to take stuffs from him/her for self fulfillment purposes?

The 'ideal' mutually giving type of marriages are definitely difficult to maintain as well.

The 'practical' taking type of marriages will also be difficult to sustain too. You can be Donald Trump or Elon Musk, if I hate you and want to divorce you, I will.

Back to the possibility of look for sex outside of marriage... in the ideal marriage, the better sex partner will want to continue to practice with the lousier sex partner so that they can both improve together. The lousier sex partner will also appreciate this so much and practice as much with his/her love as possible too. They're not being 'jailed' into exclusivity, but in it willingly. I'm for this form of 'ideal' marriage. I can agree that we all should aim for this ideal form of marriage... not just marry for the sake of being married. Without love, 2 people forcing themselves together can really be painful.

Lastly, we may impulsively want to hit this, bang that, but you have to agree not all of our impulses must be carried out, right? I just think it'd be like playing with fire. Why risk your primary relationship that way? I think even if 1 partner's addicted to porn can compromise a relationship, let alone allow one partner to have sex outside. Anyway, not saying it's impossible for everyone, just that it'll take incredible amount of discipline and trust. I also would like to bet that in a loving relationship, even if you offered your partner to have sex outside, he/she will decline such an offer... Unless if you're Bill Clinton. ;) Anyway, perhaps the Clintons are good examples of your version of marriage? However, that's just not the kind of marriage I'm shooting for.

I guess couples just need to take the time and talk about it before deciding to 'jail' themselves! :p

thesameguy

August 31st, 2015, 10:36 AM

I think you are applying a lot of what you believe about love, sex, and marriage to the things that I am saying. I don't hate marriage. I don't have anything against marriage whatsoever. I think that "traditional" marriage and its boundaries were conceived in a time period that did not have the same challenges that we have now, and those boundaries produce no benefit and likely create unnecessary conflict. Removing those boundaries from the social conscious - in the same way that we have broadly removed the hetero boundary - may produce happier, longer-lasting marriages.

The link that you posted largely supports my position. Read it carefully, it's not about marriage. It's about love. Marriage - monogamous marriage - is between two people. It's a commitment between them, a social contract that states "we're going to be together forever." While it will likely include love, it's obviously not an exclusive relationship with love. You can love a lot of people, but you can't marry a lot of people. That articles states not only can people fall in love instantly, but that love and sex overlap. That tends to suggest it's quite easy for people to come to desire those things outside of their marriage. These are obviously very primal forces and they obviously act against any sort of exclusivity.

I don't think there is anything wrong with or undesirable about getting two flawed people getting together and working tirelessly to improve one another. I think that's great, possibly even as you state ideal. But those are two very specific personality types that are probably in the minority and statistically unlikely to find each other. What about everyone else? Is "marriage" only available to these highly self-sacrificing types? Or, are you suggesting that the desire for self-sacrifice comes with love or with a marriage certificate? I'd maybe buy into that. Maybe. But self sacrifice isn't always "I'll wait for you," sometimes it's "I'll work harder so you don't have to." Those are not the same things. They may produce the same result but the journey is different. Meh... there are a million variables here, not worth discussing. The point is, that two people of very different personality types can have an excellent, long-lasting relationship if unnecessary, socially-enforced rules are removed.

You're final point - "Why risk your primary relationship that way" - is exactly my point. It *shouldn't* be a risk. You being happy shouldn't put off the other person. You being happy should be their entire mission in life. We are past doing things for survival, we have the opportunity to do all the things we want to because we want to. Marriage should be conducive to that, not hampering. Yes, ideally anything you want to do I want to do too, but that isn't always possible for a variety of reasons - from physical to temporal to emotional limitation. Don't let limitations for one affect both, work around them to a maximal degree. Neither party should feel bad or jealous or angry when one person finds joy. Both should be. There is nothing wrong with husband telling wife, "I would prefer not to do that" but that should come with "You go ahead," not "So I would prefer you don't do it either." Occasionally I hear a friend say "I can't, because s/he won't want to but that's fine" but 90% of the time it's "I can't, because s/he won't want to *sigh*" That sucks. Nobody should ever feel like that over something as trivial as a difference in wants. That's unnecessary strife.

This is obviously all fantasy. Nobody is going to give up this tradition in my lifetime or based on my words. But, I do practice what I preach. We do a lot together and we do a lot apart. We don't argue (well, we did once in 2007 when I let the cat outside) and we don't fight. We both have a lot of fun and we both cherish our time together. I can't think of a better way to live than knowing you are supported 100% and your answer can always be yes.

Crazed_Insanity

August 31st, 2015, 11:18 AM

Yes, it is about love. I'm not that hung up on 'marriage' like most Christians... that's why I have no issues with gay marriage provided that they really love one another. Marriage is pretty stupid without love.

Now, regarding our mission in life, I believe it's also about love too, rather than just personal happiness. Not that I'm against personal happiness. It's just that if I love you, I'd want you to be happy even if it comes at the expense of my own happiness.

Do you agree that a couple's in pursuit of their own happiness may become conflicting sometimes? Who should give in? Without love, resentment definitely will set in. With love, I can sacrifice my own happiness and still be happy because my lover is happy!

So I don't think we're in full disagreement, just that I do draw the line at having sex outside of primary relationship, because I think it can get risky. We also cannot possibly have a lot of sex together and also have a lot of sex apart, right? Something's gonna give. Until someday sex can become an Olympic event or some sort of legit profession that's widely accepted... to a point that even a young child can safely tell mommy and daddy that i want to be a world sex champion or something... and can be allowed to start 'training' early... then perhaps this traditional mold of marriage can be altered. :p

With all that said, your current relationship do sound like a lovely one. For sure better than most marriages. However, I can't help but wondering if you guys can really always answer each other with 'yes' no matter what questions are asked? (Or you guys understand each other enough that you know not to ask stupid quesitons? ;) ) You guys absolutely won't draw a line ANYWHERE?

thesameguy

August 31st, 2015, 01:56 PM

Marriage is pretty stupid without love.

I kinda disagree with you there. I'm not saying that's my situation, but even monogamous marriage has existed without love forever. Arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, marriage for the kids, beards, etc. All sorts of marriage exists without love, even many enduring, happy ones.

It's just that if I love you, I'd want you to be happy even if it comes at the expense of my own happiness.

That's an interesting premise... how long do you go sacrificing your happiness for the other? Do you alternate sacrifices? At what point do you say, "No, we're doing it my way this time." My premise is exactly the opposite of this pseudo-martyrdom. I want my relationships predicated on the idea that I am going to pursue my happiness and you are going to pursue yours, and it's our alignment that creates the relationship between us. We are both going in the same direction, trying to get to the same place, and the nature of that common struggle allows us the freedom to make both ourselves and each other happy without ever having to compromise the other's pursuit. We are self-sufficient people being self-sufficient together, not two halves of a whole each controlling one side of the body.

Do you agree that a couple's in pursuit of their own happiness may become conflicting sometimes? Who should give in? Without love, resentment definitely will set in. With love, I can sacrifice my own happiness and still be happy because my lover is happy!

That's not a question for me, that's a question for you. Your relationship is based on sacrificing what you want for what she wants. That's not my bag.

Until someday sex can become an Olympic event or some sort of legit profession that's widely accepted... to a point that even a young child can safely tell mommy and daddy that i want to be a world sex champion or something... and can be allowed to start 'training' early... then perhaps this traditional mold of marriage can be altered. :p

That's funny you say that, because that is precisely what I posited. Let's decouple physical animal needs from higher, human needs. It's an artificial grouping, contrary to how people are designed to work. I believe an intellectual construct like marriage should function on an intellectual level. Two people making an informed decision about approaching life together. Do it for the security, do it for the kids, do it for the tax benefits. Whatever reason it may be. Keep the other bullshit out of the equation. I'm not advocating loveless marriages, nor am I advocating sexless marriages. I am advocating deconstructing the modern definition of marriage and realigning what people should expect from the union. If you get unconditional love and faithful sex in your marriage that's superb, but there is nothing wrong with being excellent parents and responsible mortgage payers who may sleep around or engage in other unconventional activities.

However, I can't help but wondering if you guys can really always answer each other with 'yes' no matter what questions are asked? (Or you guys understand each other enough that you know not to ask stupid quesitons? ;) ) You guys absolutely won't draw a line ANYWHERE?

I say no all the time. But my point is my unwillingness to do something would never preclude her from doing it, and vice versa. I'm in control of me, and she's in control of her, and that's the foundation of us.

Crazed_Insanity

August 31st, 2015, 03:16 PM

Lots of marriages can certainly start off loveless, but in order for them to developed into a long term happy marriage, love must eventually happen, right?

Love can certainly be very dynamic. As she keeps on getting her way and never ever considers my feeling and needs, surely eventually I'll get fed up because it has developed into a not very mutually loving relationship. This then can't possibly remain a happy relationship. May not even be very long term.

Key is to be able to continue to foster this mutually loving feelings and repair hard feeling, then even a loveless marriages can eventually be filled with love(and happiness!)

As to whether if it's wrong for a loving parent and responsible mortgage payer to sleep around, i can't say, but it definitely could pose a risk to your family. Assuming it's pure sex and nothing else, how can you be certain your fuck buddy won't ever end up 'fatally' attracted to you later on? Human emotions and feelings sometimes can be difficult to control...

Lastly I totally agree we need to be in control of self. Love isn't about allowing others to control us. Jesus didn't get crucified just because his Dad wanted it and us sinners wanted it. Jesus himself also wanted it. So agree with you there. It's just that I also think we should try to spend/invest as much time together as possible in order to grow together. Otherwise the risk would be the couple gradually growing apart. If you always have more fun with somebody else, eventually you're gonna feel like to return to your mortgage and your annoying kids less...

Of course if you feel trapped in your mortgage and by your annoying kids, that's not good either.

It's up to us to strike a proper balance between the two. No 2 couples will be exactly alike.

21Kid

September 1st, 2015, 05:38 AM

Crazed_Insanity

September 1st, 2015, 08:57 AM

Kid, I think you're preaching to the choir there! :p

Plus, what better way to battle illegal immigrants with love! ;)

thesameguy

September 1st, 2015, 09:12 AM

If you always have more fun with somebody else, eventually you're gonna feel like to return to your mortgage and your annoying kids less...

If you always have more fun with someone else, then you should be with that other person. I don't know why or even how you could have it any other way without longterm resentment and regret. I've always said and still maintain that if someone in the party can do better, they should. Anecdotally, it's a somewhat funny aspect of my current relationship because a lot of people just don't understand how I can be okay with her being mostly naked on a stage and then sit by while people (guys and girls) pay a lot of attention post show. If she can do better, she should. I don't think she can. That's my wager, and I stand by it. But if she could, I'm not going to be the one to keep her away from a better future. I love her, I wouldn't want anything less. Keeping her means staying on my game, and we're both better off for it. I am *not* into getting fat and lazy because of a relationship I work hard to control by overseeing interactions and limiting activities. If I'm doing it right, that's not a role I should need to engage in. That's more about jailing. If you're not jailing, there's no reason to be jealous or concerned.

Crazed_Insanity

September 1st, 2015, 09:59 AM

Don't get me wrong. I personally think your relationship is probably better than most couples in the world.

However, if we're talking about have a 'secured (Not jailed) relationship' with that primary attachment figure, it means I will not leave her even if I do managed to find better. Likewise for her. This is the beauty of being with a supposed "true love". For better or for worse, we're going to stick together. I love you, not because you are better than rest of the population... sometimes there's just no reason for love! :p

But of course, I know this can create problems too... just as my communism example. In an ideal world, we should have the 'what I have is yours' mentality. But in reality, in the end, people are going to become more selfish with 'what you have is MINE' mindset. Similarly in marriages, couples might feel so "secured" then began to turn fat and sloppy as you stated! But this is absolutely not the kind of secured relationship I'm advocating. Obviously such relationship has degraded mostly into self fulfillment, not caring about the other person's feeling, yet expect others to uphold their marriage vows. That's not the BS any of us want.

Your current relationship is indeed more in line with reality. To continue with my political analogy, more like 'capitalism'... actually utilizing our selfish nature to enhance the relationship. If we can do better, by all means go for it. Of course in the process of self fulfillment, when you are together, you also do fulfill one another.

No question in the real world, capitalism does work a lot better than communism. I do suspect if society adopts your version of 'marriage', we probably can significantly lower divorce rates. I don't know, perhaps even happier too?

However, I just don't want to lose having a 'secured' relationship. Your proposed arrangement can help maintain 'marriages' easier, but the married couple also won't be as close...

Cops don't go out of their way to seek out the best guys as their partners, right? Often times they're just assigned together.
Cops also don't usually end up switching partners as they find new and better cops, right?

Anyway, my point is that this 'bond', once developed, will be very difficult to replace.
This 'bond' can also be hard to develop if we're always on the look out for a better partner.

Traditional marriage is definitely a wager as well. No way in hell can we possibly know another person that fully before we commit..., but if they love one another... if you're already willing to wager that she can't find better and you can't find better, why not just take the plunge and have 2 love birds stay together in the same bird house without having to fly around to other bird houses just to see if better birds can be found? ;)

Of course with that said, let's go back to theology again...

God mostly agrees with you actually. Eden is our original birdhouse. Tree of knowledge is the exit for humanity to go find better things if they think God's bird house sucks... True love really shouldn't be about jailing the ones you love, but allowing them to be happy and hopefully being happy with you, so that they actually want to stay with you out of their own free will. God definitely doesn't want to jail us.

Maybe someday you 2 love birds will decide to cease wagering and just call each other's card and decide to take the plunge to just get marry...

or maybe not. :p

thesameguy

September 1st, 2015, 10:24 AM

I think the flaw in your assertion is that if we're talking about conventional definitions, you *can't* do better than true love. There is no upgrade. No matter what initially seem attractive elsewhere, to quote the great Taylor Dane, love will lead you back. So if she screws the mailman or you kiss your secretary or you both take separate vacations to all-inclusive resorts, no matter what happens out there it was just an experiment and you'll end up happily back together. Right? If jealousy or envy is enough to destroy the relationship, was it really true love? Personally, I don't think so. I believe the way you know how something works and what it's capable of it testing it. Any relationship (friends, lovers, or otherwise) where limitations have been established are untested, and when an expected scenario unfolds that poses an unexpected test it's subject to failure. I don't think that's a great way to live from a variety of perspectives. My friend Cody is in love and happily married, but he's got wandering eyes and Amy is, frankly, a jealous bitch. They go everywhere together, because she doesn't trust him. Would he actually cheat on her? Nobody knows, because she is unwilling to test it. Someday, years, commitments, and kids in, he'll end up alone in a room with someone else. That's when they get to find out what he's capable of and exactly how much she is willing to forgive. That is too much time to put in before the answers present themselves. I've been testing my scenario since Day 1. You know?

Crazed_Insanity

September 1st, 2015, 02:05 PM

In engineering, we definitely can learn a LOT more in a failed test than a successful test. However, it's much easier to redesign and rebuild a better part after a test to failure, but not so easy with a broken and injured heart though.

You're right, if it's true love, by definitely you won't be able to find anyone better! And if one lives by that 'definition', one would stop bothering with wanting to find someone better. God is a jealous God too. God also will take back whoever wants to come back to Him. God is love. So I don't think we can blame Amy for being a jealous bitch because not even God can do better. Still I hope Amy's going everywhere together with Cody because she loves being with him rather than just to make sure he doesn't stray! If she's really not trusting him at all, marriage certificate won't really help them form a 'secured' relationship. If they continue on such a unable to trust path, surely it'll be a miserable marriage.

Anyway, in general, I agree with you true love should be able to withstand any test. Maybe during dating stages I'd test her before I go all in with her, but after I've decided she's the one, I'd rather not put her on the test any more. If anything, I'd need to look at myself and see if MY wandering eyes can pass the test and practice what I preach... and to see my marriage vows thru. For sure I know my wife is not better physically than Playmates decades younger than her and my eyes can definitely wonder around too... heck even my heart perhaps could stray when horny enough..., but I'm gonna try my hardest to pass this marriage test! May God help me! If God is love... then He will! :)

thesameguy

September 1st, 2015, 02:19 PM

Trust me when I say I received and observed a lot of failure along the way. The current revision product is the result of years and years of refinements.

G'day Mate

September 1st, 2015, 03:15 PM

So, Kim Davis. I kind of feel sorry for her "it's a heaven vs. hell decision" reasoning - she's clearly indoctrinated beyond reason.

G'day Mate

September 1st, 2015, 03:25 PM

Then again, if the allegations of her multiple marriages are true ... maybe she's just a bitch?

21Kid

September 2nd, 2015, 06:18 AM

They like to pick and choose what is against their "beliefs". :smh:

Crazed_Insanity

September 2nd, 2015, 10:30 AM

She should get a job working for God/church if she really wants to use such 'reasoning' to refuse to do her job.

Otherwise even I'd agree that she should be fired for the simple fact that she's not doing her job. In fact, she should quit the day her employer decided to allow something she believes is immoral.

It's like a vegan complaining and refusing to do her job as a butcher. Hey, you can quit if you want. Don't expect to get paid for a job that you don't want to do. If God is pleased with your high moral standards, surely He'll open doors for another better job for you.

Dicknose

September 2nd, 2015, 01:28 PM

She should be thrown out of office.
There is a job to do, which is NOT deciding which laws are right or wrong.
Her job is to do the paperwork.

If a court has told her she has to do it, then contempt of court and possible punishment above losing her job.

If you don't agree with the law, protest on your own time.
But while you are working you do so following the law and without bitching about it.

(Edit)
And religious freedom!?
She is free to follow her own religion, what she is doing is pushing her religion on others.
If she doesn't believe in marrying someone of the same sex, then she shouldn't get married to someone of the same sex.
But if your job is for the govt or even a non-religious company, then you do your job without imposing your religion on it. Or you find a new job.

MR2 Fan

September 2nd, 2015, 02:02 PM

George

September 2nd, 2015, 02:05 PM

She must have some agenda that I certainly don't understand. Risking JAIL/PRISON time for this is INSANE.

G'day Mate

September 2nd, 2015, 03:13 PM

https://hrexach.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/pharisee.jpg?w=463&h=568

G'day Mate

September 2nd, 2015, 03:23 PM

PS. I've read that because she is an elected official she can't be fired, and that an impeachment is unlikely.

So ... "elected official"? How does that work in the USA?

Crazed_Insanity

September 2nd, 2015, 03:32 PM

That doesn't make any sense. I thought she's just a clerk. We elect clerks?

Anyway, a Supreme Court justice has already weighed in on this. I kinda doubt this clerk's job is impossible to be terminated one way or another.

This is really no longer about freedom of religion... freedom of religion can't be used as an excuse to break existing laws and be immune to consequences.

Another that bothers me is that is she the ONLY clerk available? There are no other clerks who can help gay couples get their certificates over there? How can this make national headline? One crazy Christian is enough to cripple the legal system over there? Amazing.

Crazed_Insanity

September 2nd, 2015, 03:40 PM

Trust me when I say I received and observed a lot of failure along the way. The current revision product is the result of years and years of refinements.

I believe you and I think you're obviously doing a hulluva lot better than most. Probably even better than me! :p

My wife and I do have arguments and fights..., but I think this is normal for most couples... surely we can get frustrated with one another sometimes, we're only human and can make mistakes and can become overly emotional at times, but key for long term happiness is how we repair the mess afterwards. Growing pains are sometimes inevitable, what doesn't kill us, should make us stronger, right? ;)

Dicknose

September 3rd, 2015, 04:59 AM

PS. I've read that because she is an elected official she can't be fired, and that an impeachment is unlikely.

So ... "elected official"? How does that work in the USA?
The U.S. has a lot more officials at the "city" and "county" level, the equivalent of our local councils.
They handle things that we do at state level. So you have local police, fire brigade and even officials like clerks.
Most of these are elected positions.
So you get to vote for your police chief!
Or your clerk in charge of the registrations office.

Crazed_Insanity

September 3rd, 2015, 11:57 AM

That clerk's been jailed for contempt of court.

Isn't this getting way too out of hand? You can't just fire the clerk but actually need to jail her for her belief?

Issues really should be resolved easily rather than escalating into a circus like this.

thesameguy

September 3rd, 2015, 12:58 PM

She can't be fired as she is an elected official. She is basically The Person unless she is recalled, so there was no way to get her out of her job if she failed to do it. Fortunately for everyone, judges do not like being disregarded and now she's in jail.

thesameguy

September 3rd, 2015, 01:01 PM

The U.S. has a lot more officials at the "city" and "county" level, the equivalent of our local councils.
They handle things that we do at state level. So you have local police, fire brigade and even officials like clerks.
Most of these are elected positions.
So you get to vote for your police chief!
Or your clerk in charge of the registrations office.

The issue in this case is timing. She could be removed from office pretty readily by the state legislature, but they are out of session right now. That means either calling a special session (unlikely) or waiting until they are back in session.

Crazed_Insanity

September 3rd, 2015, 01:29 PM

She's the ONLY clerk authorized to sign marriage certificates?

If she goes on vacation for weeks or if God loves her so much that He take her to heaven, nobody else will be able to take over her job?

Something is wrong with the system if she's doing a job that nobody else could do?

Or perhaps jailing her for now is the only way some other deputies clerks can take over?

Anyway, what a crazy mess.

Dicknose

September 3rd, 2015, 03:27 PM

The subordinate clerks said they would sign same sex marriage licenses, except her son.
But she told them not to.

Maybe being in jail will allow the other clerks to perform their job.
And jail for contempt is not for a set time. It's suppose to be till the person agrees to comply with the order.
She can end it anytime, agree to process the license, agree to let others do it, or resign.
She has plenty of choices, she is choosing the "go to jail to stick by my principles". But unfortunately her principles (that she can use her religion to over rule the law) does not agree with the law and how govt officials should act.

thesameguy

September 3rd, 2015, 03:37 PM

Yep. :up:

Edit: Contempt in a Federal court carries a maximum sentence of six months, so I guess she could wait it out. Of course, after a day of disregarding the order she can be thrown right back in. Heh.

George

September 3rd, 2015, 03:43 PM

She must have a bigger motive for this.

Hoping to get a lucrative job with some big Evangelical Christian church or organization, perhaps?

thesameguy

September 3rd, 2015, 03:48 PM

Book deal!

Movie deal?

Tossed salad?

21Kid

September 4th, 2015, 05:28 AM

She should resign, if her beliefs prevent her from doing the job she was hired to do.

I mean... really she should update her stupid beliefs, but that wouldn't happen.

G'day Mate

September 7th, 2015, 08:42 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html?ir=Australia

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

21Kid

September 8th, 2015, 09:41 AM

:up:

Crazed_Insanity

September 8th, 2015, 09:50 AM

I think for USA, all 10 points are covered now. We were probably lagging a bit behind on #2, but at least gay couples should be able to marry now as long as we don't have any monkeys throwing wrenches into the system...

However, out of those 10 points, I don't see one that applies to businesses.

For example, do you guys think a bigoted hateful Christian baker who doesn't believe in gay marriages absolutely must bake wedding cakes for gay couples otherwise it's discrimination?

thesameguy

September 8th, 2015, 09:56 AM

Well, legally it is.

Crazed_Insanity

September 8th, 2015, 10:16 AM

So opening up a business means one can expect to lose their religious liberty? Discrimination law trumps freedom of religion in a business setting?

speedpimp

September 8th, 2015, 02:58 PM

And Kim Davis has been released from jail.

thesameguy

September 8th, 2015, 03:18 PM

So opening up a business means one can expect to lose their religious liberty? Discrimination law trumps freedom of religion in a business setting?

You cannot practice religion at work, it's that simple. If you don't want to serve blacks gays women don't open a business where they might show up.

Although I love idea of Hobby Lobby being a bunch of dickwads and then people stop shopping there and they go out of business, history has shown that's not reliably how things unfold so the gubment has to step in and adjust the attitude.

21Kid

September 8th, 2015, 04:48 PM

Yeah, crazies actually lined up at Chick fil-A to support their douchebagery. :smh:

Dicknose

September 8th, 2015, 11:31 PM

Discrimination law trumps freedom of religion in a business setting?
Yes and no.

Yes - you cant discriminate based on your religion
No - this is not restricting your religion

Your religion applies to YOU, not your customers.

LHutton

September 9th, 2015, 01:47 AM

Well, legally it is.
But is it discrimination when some hairdressers only cut male hair, or only female hair? I can't really see a reason why marriage services shouldn't be able to specialise in purely heterosexual or purely homosexual marriage services.

Mr Wonder

September 9th, 2015, 07:46 AM

I can't really see a reason why marriage services shouldn't be able to specialise in purely heterosexual or purely homosexual marriage services.For the same reason you don't see whites only signs outside businesses, separate but equal isn't equal.

tigeraid

September 9th, 2015, 08:44 AM

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

Alarming kind of title, but appropriate to the conversation. This sums it up nicely:

The Kim Davis story raises a basic question: To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it? It’s possible to take that question to an extreme that even Senator Paul might find absurd: imagine, for example, a jihadist whose interpretation of the Koran suggested that he should be allowed to behead infidels and apostates. Should he be allowed to break the law? Or—to consider a less extreme case—imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.

The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.

thesameguy

September 9th, 2015, 09:07 AM

But is it discrimination when some hairdressers only cut male hair, or only female hair? I can't really see a reason why marriage services shouldn't be able to specialise in purely heterosexual or purely homosexual marriage services.

You can specialize, but if someone shows up and says "give me a haircut" you gotta do it regardless of whether it's your specialty or not.

Crazed_Insanity

September 9th, 2015, 09:29 AM

Davis' case is pretty straight forward I think.

If you're the ONLY baker in town and people just cannot get their wedding cakes else where, that certainly is problematic.

Anyway, let's just go to the extreme and allow a private businesses the 'luxury' of serving rich white males only. All other genders and colors will be refused service.

Personally, I don't think government need to waste tax money interfering with that business as long as they're not acting as KKK and doing harm to people. If anything, such business will most likely fail because most will find it offensive... and even its clients will probably want to distance themselves with such business. In the unlikely event that such business does extremely well making huge profits..., hey, so what? So I'm not white and I'm not rich they don't want my business. So what? Just because I find it offensive, I need to have my government shut that establishment down or force them to serve middle class Asians as well?

Also, I personally find it stupid when people from both side all of a sudden support or boycott businesses like ChickFilet or whatever. Hey, com'on. If you like their chicken sandwich, then buy it. If you don't, then don't. Why must you drag gay marriage into chicken sandwiches? Business is business. Must we do business with people we agree with?

If I can't buy my cake from this baker, surely there are plenty of other bakers who've love my business that's all I'm saying. I just think it's wasteful to use tax money to tell business owners how to run their business. This is how political correctness creeps into our society. We won't see anymore signs that states 'white only' because that's against the law, but deep in some people's hearts, racism is still rampant and we won't be able to see any of it.

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:11 AM

You can specialize, but if someone shows up and says "give me a haircut" you gotta do it regardless of whether it's your specialty or not.

I don't think haircuts are restricted on sex, more on the services provided.
Male haircuts probably means no tints, perms. The cost is usually lower, because it is a quicker job.

They are advertised in a gender way, but I don't think they are restricted.

Gyms are one place that have been given permission to discriminate and offer "women only".
But this has been shown to be for the benefit of the customer, not due to the beliefs of the owner. This is because there is forced interaction between customers.
Hard to say it's the same for a bakery.

LHutton

September 9th, 2015, 10:16 AM

You can specialize, but if someone shows up and says "give me a haircut" you gotta do it regardless of whether it's your specialty or not.
So a male can go into a female salon and say, "give me a fucking haircut, or else lawsuit."?

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:16 AM

Personally, I don't think government need to waste tax money interfering with that business as long as they're not acting as KKK and doing harm to people. If anything, such business will most likely fail because most will find it offensive...
Yeah that bus company would go broke if it made coloured people sit in a special section.

The govt should look after the rights of minorities because capitalism probably won't.

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:22 AM

So a male can go into a female salon and say, "give me a fucking haircut, or else lawsuit."?

I don't think you would even need to threaten.
Walk in, pay your money and get a haircut.
You are probably paying more for that cut.

I've seen plenty of places that advertise different prices for men's and women's haircuts, with men's being cheaper.
Could a women walk in and ask for a men's cut?
I think she probably could, but not sure if she would be happy with short back and sides.

thesameguy

September 9th, 2015, 10:40 AM

Gyms are one place that have been given permission to discriminate and offer "women only".
But this has been shown to be for the benefit of the customer, not due to the beliefs of the owner. This is because there is forced interaction between customers.
Hard to say it's the same for a bakery.

I am aware of more than a few traditionally male-only places that have recently been invaded by women, with varying degrees of threats and lawsuits and whatnot and invariably the women (rightfully, though maybe not ethically) win. I am aware of fewer, but a few, female only establishments that have been invaded by men - notably a couple gyms. I think the "customer comfort" aspect is probably valid, but the law doesn't protect comfort. If a man wants to enroll in a women's gym, nothing can stop him. I think the difference is, and coincidentally someone on the radio agreed, that as a result of history women tend to perceive places they aren't encouraged to be as a rights issue whereas men tend to perceive places they aren't encouraged to be as a gender issue. That makes sense to me. It's the difference between "I have every right to be here" and "Why would I want to be there?" We sorta did that to ourselves. Personally, I regard women suing their way into businesses with less contempt than I do the opposite. I feel like women have earned the respect for asserting themselves, and men who do the same are mostly just being asses and trying to make a point. Mostly.

So a male can go into a female salon and say, "give me a fucking haircut, or else lawsuit."?

Given you want a cut they offer, sure. Like DN said, why would they take the energy to refuse you?

Walk in, pay your money and get a haircut.
You are probably paying more for that cut.

I know I do. I go to the same place my girlfriend goes. Any time I am in there (which is rarely, because lumberjack) I am the only guy. I am reassured that men come in, but I never see them. However they do offer beer as well as wine, so who knows? I go there because I like Sarah a lot, she's a friend of a friend, and she swears like a sailor. I get what I want there and nobody hassles me.

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:41 AM

Google... Denmark made it illegal to price discriminate on hair cuts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265959/Denmark-rules-men-womens-haircuts-cost-SAME-PRICE.html

Not sure how they advertise prices, but it can't be by sex.

thesameguy

September 9th, 2015, 10:42 AM

Sure, but what else does Denmark have to do? Legislate haicuts, lego, and... ?

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:58 AM

Re gyms, here they are allowed to be women only and refuse men.
They have to apply for an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, to show that there is a compelling reason. The reason can be based on the customers wishes or the business staff (eg sole proprietor who is female offering massages only to females). This can then also lead to legally discriminating on employees, eg a female only gym employing on females in customer facing roles.

The gyms could get tricky when it comes to transgenders, as they legally should be treated as their chosen gender.

Back to religion, you can't discriminate based on the clients religion or on your religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason. Such as being a religious based service.
I guess a bakery could attempt to claim it's a Christian bakery. But I'd wonder how they would argue the service provided is different to a secular bakery, other than the staff being Christians. If all they made was Christmas or Jesus themed items, then fair enough. Even then they couldn't refuse to sell them to people of other religions, but could refuse to make special orders (no pentagram devil cookies)

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 10:59 AM

Sure, but what else does Denmark have to do? Legislate haicuts, lego, and... ?

Lead the world in equality and quality of life!

thesameguy

September 9th, 2015, 11:35 AM

Isn't that Sweden? Plus, Sweden also has booze.

speedpimp

September 9th, 2015, 11:58 AM

Another reason Kim Davis isn't stepping down is her $51k/yr salary. In eastern Kentucky that is pretty much like being a millionaire.

Crazed_Insanity

September 9th, 2015, 01:02 PM

I thought she made $80k/yr from some article I read.

Anyway, obviously it's wrong to discriminate and rely purely on capitalism to deliver justice, but nowadays, I'm beginning to think govt are going overboard with this and think they can tell hair dressers how much they should charge for hair cuts and stuff.

You guys really think Denmark did the right thing?

thesameguy

September 9th, 2015, 01:26 PM

I used to think the government went overboard in telling people what to do, but nowadays I'm beginning to think people are stupid and they need to be told what to do.

speedpimp

September 9th, 2015, 01:44 PM

I thought she made $80k/yr from some article I read.

I heard that too but the $51k is the first thing that came up on a Google search.

Freude am Fahren

September 9th, 2015, 03:17 PM

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11219227_10153811406257985_2105254798042124576_n.j pg?oh=a18e832f55309c2f9a97a5c317835857&oe=56662409

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 05:18 PM

Anyway, obviously it's wrong to discriminate and rely purely on capitalism to deliver justice, but nowadays, I'm beginning to think govt are going overboard with this and think they can tell hair dressers how much they should charge for hair cuts and stuff.

You guys really think Denmark did the right thing?

Definitely a good move by Denmark.

They arent saying how much you can charge.
Just saying you cant base your price on the gender of your customer.

You could advertise
- simple cut $10
- style cut $20
- tint/extra services $30

then its up to the customer to decide what sort of cut they want.
This is probably not much different to most places, except they describe the simple cut as "mens cut"

Pay for what you get, not who you are.

Crazed_Insanity

September 9th, 2015, 07:39 PM

What's next? Dresses cannot cost more than a tuxedo?

Are women really being ripped off without govt intervention? Surely there are bigger fish to fry than bakers and hairdressers... I still think it's ludicrous.

Dicknose

September 9th, 2015, 08:13 PM

That you think its ludicrous doesnt mean others think its unimportant.

You can price clothes however you want. What you cant do is, have the same item of clothing and charge a different price based on the sex of the customer.
Now that doesnt stop you from marketing and selling equivalent products at different prices - eg "deodorant for him" and "for her" being the same actual contents, but sold at different prices (and yes this does happen). But you cant change the price if a female picks up the "for him"

The baker is far more important.
Thats not some different price, thats refusing service.
There is no practical reason (unless they argue the figures on top only come as a pre-made set)
Saying "I dont want to sell to them because they are gay" is discrimination and is illegal.
Doesnt matter what your reasons are, its not your religious right to impose your morals on others and refuse service to those you dont like.

LHutton

September 10th, 2015, 12:31 AM

I don't think you would even need to threaten.
Walk in, pay your money and get a haircut.
You are probably paying more for that cut.
I'm pretty sure you can't here. They'll simply say, we only do female hair.

Crazed_Insanity

September 10th, 2015, 06:57 AM

DN, I don't disagree with you, just that I don't think it's worth it for govt to step in on mom and pop stores. I do believe in most cases, capitalism will take care of outrageous pricing and inappropriate refusal of service because there are plenty of other competitors.

It's those too big to fail companies or monopolizing companies that need to be watch out for...

Maybe Denmak govt is so effective/efficient that the biggest fish for them to fry are the barbers/hairdressers...

Seriously, equal pay doesn't ensure justice. Hair dressers could just jack up men's pricing to satisfy the law.

tigeraid

September 10th, 2015, 07:22 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't here. They'll simply say, we only do female hair.

Well that's absurd. I get my hair cut at the same one as my wife.

21Kid

September 10th, 2015, 10:34 AM

I'm sure there are quite a few men's barber shops that wouldn't even know how to cut women's hair. They are different products offered to different groups of people So, it's kind of meaningless to ask a barbershop if they can style, color, perm your hair if they don't know how.

Dicknose

September 10th, 2015, 11:32 AM

DN, I don't disagree with you, just that I don't think it's worth it for govt to step in on mom and pop stores. I do believe in most cases, capitalism will take care of outrageous pricing and inappropriate refusal of service because there are plenty of other competitors.

What if the store is the only one in a town?
What if you walked to the store expecting service and can't easily get to another store?

It's worse if it's a big chain and especially if it's a dominant player or monopoly.
But it can still be important even if it's a single store.

The "but I'm only tiny" doesn't mean you can break the law.
Ditto Kim Davis, she is only one county, you could go to another. Still doesn't mean she is right to do it.

Crazed_Insanity

September 10th, 2015, 12:40 PM

Davis is a public servant.

I just question whether by opening up a private store in my neighborhood also automatically makes me a 'public servant'. Why can't I decide who I do business with? If I don't like your face and don't want to do business with you, why couldn't I do that? If I refuse to believe in the 'customer's always right motto' and if my business can survive, why should it be government's business?

If I'm the only store in town(monoply), then perhaps I can agree with you. But after you sue me, I refuse to budge, and the story closes, we're back to square one, right? With no store town! Is that better? And in most cases, there will be plenty of other stores around competing for the same business. This is the area where capitalism can work for us and we don't need big govt intervention nor wasting tax resources... tying up courts, etc.

Laws aren't always perfect. We're not just discussing laws here. "Because you're breaking the law" is equivalent of 'because bible said so!'

Highly sought after hair dresser will continue to charge outrageous pricing for women. Thanks to Denmark govt, he'll be able to charge the same outrageous price for men as well. Law won't work as intended for that hairdresser.

Law can also work against a conservative christian baker and force him to shut his doors. Hey, if you refuse to serve the 10% of the market(assuming 90% are heteros), then you deserve to be shut down you bigots!

Anyway, I just think it's unreasonable for business owner to unable to lawfully refuse service. Is it really our God given right to have services done for us at whatever businesses to go to? We certainly shouldn't have businesses ripping us off. However, I also think it's stupid to grant 'minorities' so much power that can shut down businesses or force them to do what they don't want to do.

I just don't think we've struck the proper balance yet. I also think mutual consent is important as well. In the event of mutual consent and one side is secretly ripping the other off, then I can understand govt intervention. But I just think govt forcing mutual consent is going a bit too far.

thesameguy

September 10th, 2015, 01:27 PM

You can not like my face and not do business with me, but you can't not like my religion, sexual orientation, race, or gender [identity]. My face isn't a protected class, those other things are.

Crazed_Insanity

September 10th, 2015, 01:31 PM

That's where laws fall apart, right?

Couldn't a racist just claim that he doesn't like your face?

thesameguy

September 10th, 2015, 02:08 PM

Sure, but:

1. If you always don't like the faces of Chinese people, eventually someone is going to call you on it
2. I've never met an -ist of any type, including atheists, who isn't REALLY FUCKING EXCITED TO TELL YOU THAT HE HATES YOU. I doubt a racist could calmly say "I don't like your face, please leave" without letting you know why.

JoshInKC

September 10th, 2015, 05:47 PM

I just question whether by opening up a private store in my neighborhood also automatically makes me a 'public servant'.
If you open up a store to serve the public, then yes - that does make you a diluted version of a public servant. Now, if you were to open up a business that functions as a private club, which services members only, then I think you'd get a little more leeway (though you'd still not be able to discriminate against protected classes, as tsg said).

Why can't I decide who I do business with? [...] why should it be government's business?.
Because the government (and by extension, the people) have decided that certain types of intolerance in the public sphere are functionally civil/human rights violations and that that is unacceptable and needs to be punished. Now, you can say "Well, if I run a bakery and don't want to serve gays, they can go somewhere else and I'll happily kiss the money goodbye." This example doesn't seem too bad, very few people might get hurt or denied service, etc, etc. However - What if you're the only grocer in a small town and you refuse to do business with gays, now you can functionally starve them? The same law covers both instances.- This saves everyone the trouble of having to determine whether anyone is really getting hurt, and it makes for a better, more inclusive society.

Dicknose

September 10th, 2015, 05:50 PM

If I refuse to believe in the 'customer's always right motto' and if my business can survive, why should it be government's business?

Because the govt is representing society and we dont want people to be able to do that.

Laws aren't always perfect. We're not just discussing laws here. "Because you're breaking the law" is equivalent of 'because bible said so!'

Laws can (and do) get changed.
They are what we as a group agree are the rules.
So it is perfectly fine to say "because law".
If you dont like it, you can campaign to have the law changed.

Highly sought after hair dresser will continue to charge outrageous pricing for women. Thanks to Denmark govt, he'll be able to charge the same outrageous price for men as well. Law won't work as intended for that hairdresser.

And that is perfectly fine - they can charge any crazy price they want.
They just cant change the price based on your gender, race, marital status and a number of other things.

Law can also work against a conservative christian baker and force him to shut his doors. Hey, if you refuse to serve the 10% of the market(assuming 90% are heteros), then you deserve to be shut down you bigots!

And you make that sound like its a bad thing.
Doesnt matter if its 10% or .0001%
We as a society have said you cant discriminate, if you do then you are breaking the law and will suffer the punishment.
I see that as the system working as designed.

Anyway, I just think it's unreasonable for business owner to unable to lawfully refuse service.
However, I also think it's stupid to grant 'minorities' so much power that can shut down businesses or force them to do what they don't want to do.

The minority is not using the power.
Its the majority that decided to protect minorities from discrimination by making it law.

But I just think govt forcing mutual consent is going a bit too far.

So anyone should be allowed to discriminate for any reasons they like?
That type of system has been so open to abuse and harm that we are a society have said that it shouldnt happen.

We have swung to the other extreme, but I think the "harm" in this position is much less than the other way around.
If your religion makes your so intolerant of other people - maybe you need to have a good hard look at your religion.

Here is a Q for you...
what if this christian baker hires someone, is happy with their work, then a month later finds out that they are not christian, should they be able to fire them?
would if be ok to fire them if they are athiest? muslim? gay?

Billi - I see the "evil of religion" when people apply their religion to others.
Your beliefs should be between you and your god. Any religious morals from that should apply only to you.
If you start using these morals to judge other people, discriminating against them, refusing to serve or employee them - they you are blot on society and the exact reason we need laws to protect people from this sort of bigotry.

LHutton

September 11th, 2015, 02:08 AM

You can not like my face and not do business with me, but you can't not like my religion, sexual orientation, race, or gender [identity]. My face isn't a protected class, those other things are.
Except if you're a car insurance company in the UK.

Well that's absurd. I get my hair cut at the same one as my wife.
And there are unisex salons here too but there are also male-only and female-only salons. It's also not even a big town where I live. I think the point is that there's always somewhere else you can go, so the whole refusal of service thing is a non-issue that some people with too much time on their hands have blown out of proportion. Forcing someone who doesn't like you to take your money is also just plain dumb.

FaultyMario

September 11th, 2015, 05:43 AM

I do not condone violence against anyone except on the grounds of crimes against humanity, but, but, a big big but, going to The Isthmus of Tehuantepec and choosing to eat at a Subway instead of a local (http://www.noticiasnet.mx/portal/sites/default/files//styles/gfotonodo/public/fotos/2014/08/15/la_cocina_istmena_es_muy_diversa_e_importante.jpg? itok=0B1yBz5z)kitchen (http://ciudadania-express.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/libroconcinaoax2.jpg)is, in the words of the poet laureate Robyn Rihanna Fenty, a "you just bought a shot" (http://fox13now.com/2015/09/08/lds-mission-president-shot-during-attempted-armed-robbery-in-mexico-officials-confirm/) moment.

Crazed_Insanity

September 11th, 2015, 10:33 AM

DN, I don't disagree with you regarding the evils of religion. Christians definitely got things wrong at times. I'm not here arguing FOR the evils of religion. Just evils in general. For example, govt doesn't always represent society. Even if it does represent the majority, is that really all the justification it needs to do things? Majority of conservative Christians mean we can justifiably ban gay marriages again? Yes, I know that laws are usually passed by majority rule in democratic societies. I understand we need to live by the law. Just as Christians live by the bibles. It's perfectly fine to say, because it's the law. And it's perfectly fine for Christians to believe because the Bible told me so. But can we go deeper than that?

Besides religions, people will have other fundamentally different beliefs and values. Must the majority always force the minority into doing something. Our views of what's good and what's evil may differ too. Must the majority shove what they think is good down the throats of the minority? Worse yet, must govt be able to tell us how to run our businesses?

That's the other issue I have problem with is I just don't trust governments and I don't think we can safely rely on them to always do the right things. Besides meddling with foreign affairs that's not their business or engage in bogus wars or sleeping with the bankers, frankly why should I trust them with the haircut business? Do you really believe a male client and a female client are equally demanding with their hair? For little things that can be easily settle by market economics, why does govt or the people need to weigh in using legal maneuvers? Just go find a better hairdresser or baker to your liking and do business with them and surely the bigots will eventually die out. If we do somehow end up with an entire town or state of bigots, then I'd agree perhaps then we need to have some sort of intervention.

I'm not trying to apply my religion anywhere here. Just trying to find the right balance for everyone. Are hairdressers in Denmark really that sexist? Should a conservative Christian baker really quit the idea of becoming a baker? If you're a Christian or racist or sexist, you better not flaunt your stupid beliefs or else society will weigh in and crush you. Best if you go find a closet and stay in there. Is that really the right approach to take?

I know most on this board don't like Christians, so forget about Christians for now... as for racists and sexists..., com'on. Who in this world isn't a bit of a racist or sexist?

I just don't think laws will cure these things and it's a tremendous waste of resources. Court/lawyer fees, fines... or shutting down of bakery... after all that, is the baker less discriminating against the gay couple? I honestly also don't think having a cake from a specific baker is a fundamental right we all should have.

Might as well just let market forces to eventually shut down that bigoted bakery... or who knows, someday the baker may have gay friends/sons/daughters and will eventually change his mind over time too. I can't convert DN by shoving bible down your throat, similarly, secular law also won't make Davis change her mind. I just think we should avoid forceful intervention if at all possible for such reasons. (Of course in Davis' case, she's a public servant and the single path to failure, courts definitely need to weigh in and intervene. I'm just saying people's minds usually won't be swayed by force.)

You didn't like the majority hardcore Christians coming down hard on you, I think we've safely removed the 'hardcore Christian' part now... and I'm not sure what do we have in place now..., but do you really believe authority/majority should continue to come down hard on the disagreeable miniorities?

If you answer 'yes', you're falling into the same 'evils of religion' trap..., just that we can replace the word religion with 'secular law' or whatever 'popular majority opinion'. If you don't like me applying my religion onto you, why is it okay for you to apply your moral standards onto me? Just because your morals are superior and backed by popular/majority opinion?

overpowered

September 14th, 2015, 09:46 PM

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11947469_1020701267982378_5495568093082862191_n.jp g?oh=67b65c3dafc8b4b44e423c4b29f70969&oe=565D0745

LHutton

September 15th, 2015, 12:31 AM

Actually the holes were most likely in the wrists, because nails in hands wouldn't support the weight of a human.

Freude am Fahren

September 15th, 2015, 06:53 AM

And there you go, trying to make a point in a religious discussion with "Facts" :smh:

sandydandy

September 15th, 2015, 09:03 AM

I watched Four Blood Moons on Netflix last night, and by end of it my head was hurting. Don't really know why I watched it...I usually don't watch religious programming, but it implied something about marrying religion and science in the description, so I gave it a shot. It started off interesting, but grew more and more bizarre as it went on.

This is a documentary that tries to establish a direct correlation between lunar tetrad events, and Israel. It points to various tetrad occurrences in the past which seemingly coincide with significant events affecting the Jewish people, before and after the formation of the state of Israel. The hosts vehemently point to this as indisputable evidence of God's explicit love and preference of Jews over the rest of us. They cite Israel's victories against hopeless odds over her enemies in 1949, and the Six Day War of 1967, and chalk them up to divine intervention - reenacting the battles with scenes that can only be described as supernatural. :eek:

Of course they conveniently ignore the tetrad events which occurred in 1985/86 and in 2003/04. I'm guessing because nothing significant happened related to Israel. Hmm.

Let me make it clear that I have nothing against Israel or Jews. In fact, a couple of my mentors, whom I respect greatly, are Jewish and are very supportive and important parts of my life. I also strongly support Israel in‎ the ongoing conflict in the middle east, even recently during their bombardment of Hamas, which left a lot of Palestinian casualties. I chose Israel's side because of the principle behind their struggle for the right to exist. But ugh, this "God's chosen people" thing really rubs me the wrong way. It comes across as "na-na-na-na-naa-naa, we're better than you, hah!"

But anyway, back to the movie...there's another lunar eclipse coming up on the 28th of this month, which will complete yet another four blood moon cycle, and these people in the film are anxiously preparing for something monumental to happen in relation to Israel. What will happen? Will Israel destroy ISIS? Will Iran launch a nuclear strike on Israel, which will magically diffuse in mid-air? :lol: Who knows.

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens.

Crazed_Insanity

September 15th, 2015, 10:12 AM

overpowered

September 23rd, 2015, 10:16 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKT4hrBTuk

Dicknose

September 23rd, 2015, 10:43 PM

God chose them not because they're better than us, but only because of the promises made to their faithful ancestors.

Anyway, I do believe one has to be very foolish to mess with the Jewish people. History has shown that time and time again.

History has shown not to mess with a lot of people.
If a group of people/culture are still around today then they have survived.

Clearly god has favoured atheists - they have prospered recently, their numbers are increasing, and now have the blessing of the deity that they deny!
Thanks god for supporting us.

Dicknose

September 23rd, 2015, 10:52 PM

The mormon stuff is not that much crazier than most other religions.
Most claim they are the only true religion. Have lots of ideas and practives that seem wacky to non-followers. Not eat some food, or eat some other food and pretend it is part of your deity.
And differing from other christian religions in some core ideas doesnt mean they are not christian. Some christian branches obsess over the virgin mary, name people as saints because a human representative appoints them to this semi-deity position. How is becoming a saint any crazier than these mormons wanting to become gods?

Crazed_Insanity

September 24th, 2015, 07:19 AM

DN, Jews got the bible and secular history and their special nation behind them. Not sure if atheists have anything to show for. But I do agree that if there's really no god, atheists should win in the end.

LHutton

September 24th, 2015, 07:45 AM

Crazed_Insanity

September 24th, 2015, 09:31 AM

For brand new religions such as Scientology, yeah.

However, for new branches of religion, it is possible for God to send new prophets and direct folks to new directions. Both Christianity and Islam branched out. Exactly where does the God of Abraham want us to go? Well, it's up to you to decided if such prophets are for real or bogus.

Anyway, if God wants me to be a Mormon, He better send somebody convincing to me just as He has reached out to me to get me to believe in Jesus. For now, I'll see Mormon's as brothers in Christ and leave it at that. :p

MR2 Fan

September 24th, 2015, 12:40 PM

In other news, 700+ people have died in a stampede during a pilgrimage near Mecca....but it's ok though, because if you die on your pilgrimage you go to heaven...so who needs logic and safety?

LHutton

September 25th, 2015, 01:38 AM

Not the first time either.

sandydandy

September 25th, 2015, 12:55 PM

God chose them not because they're better than us, but only because of the promises made to their faithful ancestors. It bugs me because it sounds exclusionary. I even read on a Jewish website once the stringent requirements for one to convert to Judaism. It doesn't help that they frown on the whole idea of anyone else joining their religion to begin with.

Crazed_Insanity

September 25th, 2015, 01:47 PM

According to Jews' own scripture, God's stringent requirements are for us to act justly, love mercy and humbly follow Him. (Micah 6:8)

If you act unjustly, show no mercy, and stubbornly refuse to follow God, then yeah, you'll be excluded.

Whether being included or excluded, it'll be up to us. We don't need Jews' permission to follow God. The world's most famous Jews (Jesus Christ) has cleared a way to make it easy for the rest of us to get to know God better.

overpowered

October 2nd, 2015, 05:37 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxX2qFjGHw

FaultyMario

October 3rd, 2015, 05:59 AM

In other news, 700+ people have died in a stampede during a pilgrimage near Mecca....but it's ok though, because if you die on your pilgrimage you go to heaven...so who needs logic and safety?

That is kind of an unfair statement, the organizers there are considered world leaders in planning and safety for massive events. It's not like rock festivals in Europe haven't had any casualties in the last ten years.

Crazed_Insanity

October 6th, 2015, 08:17 AM

This just in! Scientists have discovered God's universal healthcare for all. You only need to believe that He loves you and would forgive your sins in order to sign up.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2015/10/the-type-of-spirituality-linked-to-healthier-mind-and-body.php

Of course this could all be placebo effect at work. But then again, maybe God designed our mind body to work under the 'placebo effect'! :p

Lastly, if only that Oregon shooter isn't so anti-Christian, therefore most likely doesn't believe God loves him and probably couldn't care less whether to forgive his sins... maybe his mental condition could be reversed?

If we can't change gun laws and can't increase healthcare for the mentally troubled, the best solution is probably the gospel.

overpowered

October 12th, 2015, 01:15 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbmdV8NCzNM

G'day Mate

October 12th, 2015, 05:09 PM

I like Betty Bowers (or whoever she really is) - she normally takes quite a clever angle.

overpowered

October 12th, 2015, 05:20 PM

Her in real life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deven_Green

overpowered

October 24th, 2015, 11:34 AM

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12107121_927945920594748_22138223650797272_n.jpg?o h=2c9c4a601b516b5ad41ab17c8734435e&oe=56862EC6

MR2 Fan

October 25th, 2015, 09:56 PM

I know that I had started an un-religion thread at one time, but it didn't seem to do much beyond the main religion thread...so I'm going to do some un-religious thoughts here :)

Basically as you may recall, I have become mostly atheist...though I do like buddhism for practical purposes. In my mind, whether there is or was a supreme being that created all of us has practically nothing to do with humans feeble attempt to create a belief system around it.

One problem I've had is trying to date women, and trying to find non-religious ones. Sometimes when I tell them I am no longer religious, they ask why.

I have often tried to come up with some simple, quick rationalizations about why I'm not religious without being too abstract and making people upset, etc.

So if I may, I wanted to post some thoughts about how to explain my un-religiousness in an easy way. It's still a work in progress.

Humans are not bound as much by logic as they should be. There are currently billions of people in the world who believe in things that are ENTIRELY untrue. So if I was to ask someone, what religion do you believe in, and it falls into one of the 5 major religions, Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist.

Let's say they choose Islam, the fun one right now. I would then say, so if you believe in Islam, then you don't believe in hinduism right? or buddhism? etc.?

So your religion is correct and those ~4 Billion people are believing in a lie...falsehoods, a divine power that doesn't actually exist?

I'm sure you've heard of these other religions, right? If you heard more evidence about them, would you switch? No? why not?

- This is dealing with the fundamental flaw in humans, trusting our upbringing and "instincts" vs. hard facts, logic and reason. Even if there was another religion, let's just say for argument that had more evidence of it being the correct one...honestly how many people would actually switch?

I wonder what the number of people changing religions is...it has to be very low in my assumption, especially if we talk about Jewish/Christian/Islam, it's not a huge jump anyway. If you jumped from, say Judaism to Hinduism, that would be weird.

My point is, religion is deeply entrenched in people's lives...often from birth. Imagine if we didn't have any religion until we turned 18 or 21 and were told, here are the most popular belief systems, see which one is most fitting for you.....sounds a lot different doesn't it?

I realize someone had a quote about most people stopped believing in many gods, and atheists just went one god further.

21Kid

October 26th, 2015, 05:35 AM

Thanks for sharing.

That's a very good point, about asking if they'd switch if there were more evidence to support other religions. Considering how much more global information we have access to now. I didn't even know that other religions existed until I was well into my teens.

Freude am Fahren

October 26th, 2015, 07:26 AM

Crazed_Insanity

October 26th, 2015, 08:17 AM

That won't work.

I wasn't raised in a Christian environment(Taiwan from age 0~12) and I even became hateful of Christianity because of George W Bush..., but somehow God got a hold of me and then I became a Christian at the ripe old age of 33. You guys laughed at my face, but I still laugh in anyone's faces.

tigeraid

October 26th, 2015, 08:29 AM

Later-in-life Conversions-to-Crazy such as yourself are a very insignificant minority, compared to the overwhelming number indoctrinated in their youth.

http://i.imgur.com/rNOET.jpg

Freude am Fahren

October 26th, 2015, 08:31 AM

Also, you had exposure to it, and other religions and the entire concept of gods and such.

Crazed_Insanity

October 26th, 2015, 09:54 AM

I was agnostic, then Buddhist, then Christian.

If you could go back to visit my 30 yr old self and predict I'll be Christian, 30yr old billi would laugh so hard at you.

shakes

October 26th, 2015, 10:54 AM

I've thought about your point about hiding religion until a certain age. I think even if you take that age to early teens. Imagine if no one under 15 had any concept of religion or gods. Imagine trying to explain it to them and not having them laughing in your face.

I think that humans have an almost built-in need to rationalize and finding meaning in things. Given that there are still things in this world that we don't fully understand, I don't think the concept of a God or Gods would be that hard for people to buy into. I wouldn't expect a 100% opt-in rate but I don't think it'd be zero either.

21Kid

October 26th, 2015, 11:06 AM

Seeing how so many things have been proven to be inaccurate. I would expect that number to continue to fall.

Crazed_Insanity

October 26th, 2015, 12:25 PM

Another thing about humanity's sinful nature is that once you begin to 'hide' or prohibit it until certain age...

Then all the cool and rebellious kids would begin to secretly pray to God! ;)

Anyway, as long as there are still unknowns about this universe and our origin, there will always be room for God to exist.

Humanity are also not Vulcans or computers. Not suggesting that we abandon logic or rational thoughts, but we also shouldn't abandon the emotional side of humanity as well. Emotional pains for example can be just as real as physical pain. Pain killers can numb emotional pains as well. We need to learn to use our emotional abilities to our advantage and not see them as baggage.

Humans can be more than computers and we can be better than Vulcans.

Organized religions for sure can be problematic at times. However, IMHO, to deny God is as foolish as denying the existence of love.

Yeah, we don't really need 'love' to live our lives, but life can be so much fuller with it.

G'day Mate

October 27th, 2015, 04:13 AM

Crazed_Insanity

October 27th, 2015, 05:46 AM

MR2 Fan

October 27th, 2015, 06:11 AM

Didn't see the whole thing, but specifically to question at 5:16, if we can someday conclusively prove with 99.9% certainty that Jesus never existed, I would have no problems abandoning my christian faith and chalk up lots of my prior 'religious experiences' as simply coincidences I suppose.

But of course the only way to prove Jesus never existed is for us to invent a time machine and be able to go back in time during that particular time in Israel and not being able to find him.

Now the interesting question..., if we were able to conclusively prove Jesus really did exist thanks to Doc inventing the flux capacitor... will you really believe and follow Jesus? Or will you cheer along with the crowd and be happy to see the Son of a G.. crucified?

I think there's records that Jesus DID exist...that doesn't mean he was anything more than a super nice person. Was he "resurrected" or was his grave just robbed? That's the big question.

Crazed_Insanity

October 27th, 2015, 07:22 AM

Yes, we'll never be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty until we have a time machine.

Throw another monkey wrench here... the placebo effect. Let's say Jesus is indeed purely just a placebo. Just a sugar pill with no medicinal effects.

However, mind over matter. By 'faith', our bodies got healed anyways.

If you are a doctor and you know your illness has no cure, naturally placebo effect won't work for you.

However, to an average Joe, by simply trusting of his Doc, a sugar pill could have significant effect in speeding up his recovery.

So do you see the power of 'faith' alone that's based on nothing but a sugar pill?

Would you rather remain sick and possibly die knowing that you have no cure... or would you rather recover by placebo, by having some faith?

Why must we succumb to the hopeless knowledge and refuse to have hopeful faith?

Now, imagine if God/Jesus is real. When one bases his/her faith on God, the possibilities are endless.

LHutton

October 27th, 2015, 08:05 AM

Didn't see the whole thing, but specifically to question at 5:16, if we can someday conclusively prove with 99.9% certainty that Jesus never existed, I would have no problems abandoning my christian faith and chalk up lots of my prior 'religious experiences' as simply coincidences I suppose.

But of course the only way to prove Jesus never existed is for us to invent a time machine and be able to go back in time during that particular time in Israel and not being able to find him.

Now the interesting question..., if we were able to conclusively prove Jesus really did exist thanks to Doc inventing the flux capacitor... will you really believe and follow Jesus? Or will you cheer along with the crowd and be happy to see the Son of a G.. crucified?
Jesus definitely existed, that's an historical fact. He was also crucified, another historical fact. Whether he was the Son of God is far less provable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically

Scholars consider Jesus' crucifixion to be factual

21Kid

October 27th, 2015, 08:19 AM

I think there's records that Jesus DID exist...that doesn't mean he was anything more than a super nice person. Was he "resurrected" or was his grave just robbed? That's the big question.
That's what I've thought also. There probably was a Jesus, and he probably was a good guy. OR maybe he was a street performer. Turning water into wine and other various "miracles". It would explain why he had such a cult-like following.
The stories made up about him have no doubt been exaggerated, since there was no snopes.com back then. People chose, or invented, certain stories that went well with the narrative and put it all in one nice book, which is now a #1 Bestseller. Just because it's in a book, doesn't make it any more real than other books (http://smile.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-Henderson/dp/0007231601/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1445961887&sr=1-1).

Crazed_Insanity

October 27th, 2015, 09:08 AM

When God introduced the New Deal with humanity, He closed shop with the Old Deal. When the Lamb of God was sacrificed once and for all, there are no longer needs for animal sacrifices in God's temple in Israel. When Jews rejected Jesus, Israel along with their temple was destroyed.

Paul was also instrumental at spreading this 'New Deal' around the world. He never met Jesus prior to crucifixion. Claiming to have met a shiny Jesus that blinded him temporarily. Converting him from a persecutor of Christians to becoming a Christian himself.

He had 'super powers' as well. Just as Jesus did. However, he didn't start his own religion, but just a follower of Jesus.

If Jesus were just another street performer and you have learned similar powers, why be a follower? And follow Jesus without any financial/political incentives and following his Lord to eventual death as well.

What happened with early Christianity is beyond logic and reason. It should not have caught on... for this long.