The evil troll that is organised religion
twoshots wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Someone who demands you sacrifice your first born child in honour to them would typically be described as a psychopath and locked up. So add that to God's resume (CV) too.
Refresh my memory, when did that actually happen? The Abraham and Isaac story doesn't count because God didn't really demand the sacrifice. Or are we just getting Baal and God mixed up again (it's ok, everyone does it every now and then)?
OK, I'll strike that off God's rap sheet. However, what about flooding the world and drowning everyone apart from Noah. I'm adding genocide to the list. I think God's heading for death row on that one
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
In terms of the prefixes homo-, hetero, and the suffixes phobic and philic, you have four permutations:
homophobic, "afraid of the same"
homophilic, "lover of the same"
heterophobic, "afraid of the opposite"
heterophilic, "lover of the opposite."
homophobic, "afraid of the same"
homophilic, "lover of the same"
heterophobic, "afraid of the opposite"
heterophilic, "lover of the opposite."
well, I get that definitions may have been changed from their original meaning due to social/political changes, especially when it comes to pop culture, so it could be said that some definitions which have originated long ago, their intent to their meaning would have been adapted to go along with contemporary views, however the term homophobia seem to have been originated in the 50's and first used in the 70's, which seem to fit in some cases, given some views about the term:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm
Quote:
Psychologist George Weinberg invented the word "homophobia" in his book "Society and the Healthy Individual," published in 1972 or 1975 (sources differ). He defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." He offered a fuller definition:
"a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does."
The term evolved to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior." But the English language is in a continuous state of flux. Words develop different meanings as people develop new consensuses on their definition. This is why older translations of the Bible (e.g. the King James Bible of 1611 CE) are difficult for many people to read.
"a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does."
The term evolved to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior." But the English language is in a continuous state of flux. Words develop different meanings as people develop new consensuses on their definition. This is why older translations of the Bible (e.g. the King James Bible of 1611 CE) are difficult for many people to read.
However, I don't deny that any term may have different uses, not always properly, as in ad hominem attacks.
This page is also interesting
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Welcome back by the way.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
TallyMan wrote:
OK, I'll strike that off God's rap sheet. However, what about flooding the world and drowning everyone apart from Noah. I'm adding genocide to the list.
From all the population, children and babies were included in the massacre, really, taking the account from the Genesis story, no child at all seem to have survived the flood, the only 8 survivors, were adults, if I'm correct, at least from the literal interpretation.
Quote:
I think God's heading for death row on that one
He'd better have a good lawyer. I understand satan is supposed to be the best advocate, but not sure he'd represent God. 
Hussein or Bush.
I think it was a mistake to have left the witnesses alive in the massacre, if no one would have survived, no one would have known about the incident and a lot of trouble, repercusions and controversy would have been avoided.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Kilroy wrote:
well did you know in the Jewish Bible, God is refeared to as a she half the time
a divine being wouldn't have a simple creature thing like gender
I think God is more, divine, then a Grasshopper lol
a divine being wouldn't have a simple creature thing like gender
I think God is more, divine, then a Grasshopper lol
I have a JPS translation Tanakh here if you would like to provide some references.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kilroy wrote:
well did you know in the Jewish Bible, God is refeared to as a she half the time
a divine being wouldn't have a simple creature thing like gender
I think God is more, divine, then a Grasshopper lol
a divine being wouldn't have a simple creature thing like gender
I think God is more, divine, then a Grasshopper lol
I have a JPS translation Tanakh here if you would like to provide some references.
well i am sure they changed it in the translation
twoshots wrote:
Tantybi wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Tantybi wrote:
Do religions evolve for social cohesion? Well, wolves have no moral code, yet they are a tighter social group than people.
Did flight feathers evolve for flight? Well, dragonflies have no feathers, yet they are better at flying than birds.
Exactly, you don't need feathers for flight obviously, which is what I was saying...you don't need a moral code for social cohesion. The difference is morality is a choice we make whereas birds having feathers is not.
But birds do need feathers to fly.
Dragonflies do not need feathers. You are obviously now arguing to argue. Either way, morality again is a CHOICE whereas wings (with or without feathers) is NOT.
Tantybi wrote:
Dragonflies do not need feathers.
well, I think the question at hand would be if dragonflies don't need feathers, should that apply to birds as well?
it seems to illustrate the wolves vs humans thing, from my perspective, but I could be wrong as I am just meddle in
Quote:
you don't need a moral code for social cohesion
Animals don't seem to need it, but for humans, it seems to be a different thing.
Quote:
Either way, morality again is a CHOICE whereas wings (with or without feathers) is NOT.
well, if you mean that morality is not a natural process as wings and feathers, I would say yes, however, human cognition is a natural process and I believe that to be very related to the existence of moral codes for behaviour, something that wolves wouldn't be able to because of their nature, IMHO.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
greenblue wrote:
Tantybi wrote:
Dragonflies do not need feathers.
well, I think the question at hand would be if dragonflies don't need feathers, should that apply to birds as well?
it seems to illustrate the wolves vs humans thing, from my perspective, but I could be wrong as I am just meddle in
That is precisely what I am getting at.
Anyway, even if people don't need religion for social cohesion, it does not follow that religion did not evolve for this purpose, which is how this all began.
The human mind and its psychology is an apparatus shaped by evolution; we cannot expect unlimited flexibility from it.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Religion tends to bring out the best and the worst of human nature. For religious reasons, people do some very bad things but also some very good things.
Last edited by slowmutant on 19 Jan 2009, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
twoshots wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Tantybi wrote:
Dragonflies do not need feathers.
well, I think the question at hand would be if dragonflies don't need feathers, should that apply to birds as well?
it seems to illustrate the wolves vs humans thing, from my perspective, but I could be wrong as I am just meddle in
That is precisely what I am getting at.
Anyway, even if people don't need religion for social cohesion, it does not follow that religion did not evolve for this purpose, which is how this all began.
The human mind and its psychology is an apparatus shaped by evolution; we cannot expect unlimited flexibility from it.
I never said that I didn't think religion evolved. I think it did. It's very obvious, even from the Old Testament to the New Testament, it evolved. That's what some people refer to as Progressive Revalations meaning God introduces things to our level (from eye for an eye to turn the other cheek). I personally think it's really a lot like what Catholicism has been teaching me on it, that basically man is stupid and that's why God keeps forgiving us (whereas angels, like Satan, know everything, the beginning, the end, every aspect of their decisions, etc., and God cannot forgive them when they sin if that makes sense).
What I was saying is that I don't think IMO that morality could be introduced naturally. There had to be some sort of supernatural intervention just to introduce the concept because it goes against human nature and instinct. Whether it be God or the aliens that helped designed the pyramids, whatever, something larger than life had to introduce it. You can't tell me in a matter of 5-10,000 years, we evolved this way completely naturally when it takes a hell of a lot longer for us to evolve otherwise. It just sounds to me that it's got to be something more like the story of Moses introduced moral law to the people, and it took thousands of years before those laws got into place and organized. Maybe the reason why we have so many "ethical" based laws is because of the church's influence in history. It wasn't like it is today, back then, the Pope ruled the world. Religion evolved in the same way civilization has as well as technology, human brain type thing, which isn't evolution as much as we just kept upping the bar every century as we still only use a very small percentage of the brain, and there's a lot more to it than that, but I'm not trying to write too much as I get many complaints for it. But it's more like we chose that evolution as opposed to nature choosing for us. Nature chose two legs, two arms, and that we walk and not crawl or fly or anything. We choose to fly in the aircraft we designed and built. We choose civilized society (which is more of us pretending not to be the vicious savages we are by lying about it, and I mean that like people legally die everyday, and corporate america legally steals from me everyday, etc.). I just don't see it as the same evolution process it took us from apes to man. I see it more as our brains are a muscle, and we chose to work it and that's what we got now. Part of it was the church ruling the world, and then a part of it is also us taking the power away from the church and the reformation and all that jive (or we'd still be paying indulgences which isn't exactly moral). Yeah it's kinda natural, but not in the sense of evolution as much as just as natural as a team of people getting together and evolving into getting to know each other and being an actual team rather than a group of strangers.
And my hubby just walked in, and I don't have time to edit or even check if this made any freaking sense, so sorry but I'm posting, but I hold the right to change anything in this post.
