• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Everything you say is true, however, I know that if there had been no easy money to be had in the practice of owning slaves, then no one would have owned any.
Nevertheless, if the Bible didn't endorse racism and slavery it would not have been the easy money that it was.

Christians were interpreting the Bible in horribly self-serving ways for centuries. It wasn't until the Enlightenment brought secular values that things really started improving. A rational moral code, intended to improve the world for the Family of Mankind, instead of the old moral code intended to appease a God(who just happened to agree with the religious and aristocratic elite of the day).
Tom
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Bro, this isn't news. Well, it's "fake news" so I guess its a kind of "news".

I have been telling you and others on this thread the same thing, but none of you seem to be listening.

In my initial response to your questions (post #326) immediately after I mentioned a list of weaknesses that included "an attraction to children" I said,

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

I was explicitly clear that I was not comparing an attraction to children with same-sex attraction.

The only reason I mentioned an attraction to children was to bring up the idea of an inappropriate sexual attraction.

Please face the facts.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Nevertheless, if the Bible didn't endorse racism and slavery it would not have been the easy money that it was.
Would you mind quoting the portions of the Bible you believe "endorse" both racism and slavery?

Also, this argument is ridiculous considering that slavery existed long before the Bible ever did.

Many contend that there has been more white slaves in North America's history than black slaves.

Sure, a minority of white people in the U.S. tried to use the Bible to help them sleep better at night, but that is not enough to blame the Bible for slavery.
Christians were interpreting the Bible in horribly self-serving ways for centuries.
They falsely did so, yes.
It wasn't until the Enlightenment brought secular values that things really started improving.
The Enlightenment, which was brought about by other Christians applying their own interpretations of life and the Bible.

The Bible has been used for both good and evil. I'm glad good won out.
A rational moral code, intended to improve the world for the Family of Mankind, instead of the old moral code intended to appease a God(who just happened to agree with the religious and aristocratic elite of the day).
Yes, thank Christians and the Bible for that moral code.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Also, this argument is ridiculous considering that slavery existed long before the Bible ever did.

Yes, thank Christians and the Bible for that moral code.
Don't you find a little incongruity between these two statements?

After-all, morality existed long before the Bible did, so why should we thank the Bible for it? Most of its moral ideas are borrowed from earlier philosophers.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
They can't handle straight sex usually. That would really put a knot in their stomachs. One suggestion. From what I have heard it is wise to totally avoid the giraffes if one has a problem with homophobia:

A giraffe same-sex relationship? - Africa Geographic

And not just with one giraffe:
giraffe-bull-bachelor-herd.jpg

Don't look:eek:
Now you're really sticking your neck out!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
God claimed that He has given to Men their weaknesses so that they would be humble and come to Him. He then promised that He would make our weaknesses into strengths.
So, iyo, does God also plan miscarriages and also serious birth defects?

I believe in God, but I don't believe God planned every little thing. If that were to be the case, then we'd have no free will, and with no free will why are we even here at RF posting?
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Don't you find a little incongruity between these two statements?

After-all, morality existed long before the Bible did, so why should we thank the Bible for it? Most of its moral ideas are borrowed from earlier philosophers.
columbus was trying to claim that the Enlightenment inspired a new "rational moral code" that was superior to the "old moral code" contained in the Bible.

I simply pointed out that most (if not all) of the Enlightened Thinkers were themselves Christians and that this new "rational moral code" that he was praising was also inspired by Christianity and the Bible.

I don't understand the inconsistency of people who try to blame Christianity and the Bible for all of the world's problems, yet they refuse to recognize any of the good generated by Christianity and the Bible.

I never claimed that morality did not exist before the Bible. I was not thanking the Bible for all morality ever. I specifically thanked the Bible for "that moral code", the "rational moral code" that columbus mentioned had been inspired by the Enlightenment.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I also see it as very similar to teaching impressionable youngsters that black people are Hamitics, cursed by God to perpetual servitude, not too smart or moral.
Tom
I never did any of that, so why are you bringing this up?

Are you again attributing actions and teachings of others to me?

You also forget, because you seem to be in "perpetual servitude" to intellectual inconsistency, that it was other Christians (inspired by the Bible) that ended slavery in the West.

Those who owned slaves and attempted to justify it with the Bible were an insignificant minority of Christians in the United States.

The vast majority of Christians in the country never owned any slaves.

You see only what you want to see. No wonder you are one of those that claimed that I compared pedophilia to homosexuality when I never did.

Your inability to be intellectually consistent may also be what led you to claim that my sharing my opinion about sin and homosexuality on a religious forum website was "similar" to raping children.

For someone who was praising the Enlightenment and it's Thinkers, you are acting a lot like their contemporary detractors.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
columbus was trying to claim that the Enlightenment inspired a new "rational moral code" that was superior to the "old moral code" contained in the Bible.

I simply pointed out that most (if not all) of the Enlightened Thinkers were themselves Christians and that this new "rational moral code" that he was praising was also inspired by Christianity and the Bible.
But those morals pre-existed the Bible, in much the same way slavery did, so surely the same logic applies if you believe it's wrong to blame slavery on the Bible, you also cannot claim that said enlightenment rationality is inspired by the Bible either.

The Bible is a collection of philosophies and ideas, and enlightenment thinkers drew from it in the same way that the Bible drew from earlier philosophies. Each step of the process is kind of like editing - cutting out the parts deemed to no longer be moral, and keeping the parts that are.

I don't understand the inconsistency of people who try to blame Christianity and the Bible for all of the world's problems, yet they refuse to recognize any of the good generated by Christianity and the Bible.
I'm not sure I've met anybody, on these forums or elsewhere, who blames Christianity for ALL the world's problems, nor refuses to acknowledge ANY good generated by Christianity. I'm certain such people exist, though, and I would stand by you in disagreeing with them on both points.

I never claimed that morality did not exist before the Bible. I was not thanking the Bible for all morality ever. I specifically thanked the Bible for "that moral code", the "rational moral code" that columbus mentioned had been inspired by the Enlightenment.
But by the same logic, the claim isn't that the Bible CREATED the institution of slavery, so much as it provided justification for slave owners that can be considered to have perpetuated the slave trade.

Do you understand?
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
So, iyo, does God also plan miscarriages and also serious birth defects?

I believe in God, but I don't believe God planned every little thing. If that were to be the case, then we'd have no free will, and with no free will why are we even here at RF posting?
Are any of us perfect? Why not? Why didn't God make us all perfect?

Did God give us our physical bodies? Don't these bodies come with various limitations and weaknesses?

I never claimed that God planned out every little detail, although I am in no position to rule it out, but it is evident that if God gave us our strengths then He also gave us our weaknesses.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I specifically thanked the Bible for "that moral code", the "rational moral code" that columbus mentioned had been inspired by the Enlightenment.
Nevertheless, those Enlightenment values aren't Scriptural and were generally opposed by traditional, Bible Believing, Christians.

I've often wondered.
Suppose The Declaration of Independence had been put to a referendum, a free and fair vote, of all the colonists? I'm not at all sure it would have won. One can easily find Scriptural support for "The Divine Right of kings to rule". Representative government, not so much. So while the Founding Fathers had a strong inclination towards Deism and Enlightenment values, due to their wealthy liberal and education, traditional Christians would unlikely be too supportive.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I never did any of that, so why are you bringing this up?
I'm pointing out a pervasive Christian teaching, that hasn't entirely gone away. Racism is still a problem in this country, despite the efforts of decent folks to distance themselves from that interpretation of Scripture.

And you didn't need to actually own slaves to believe the teachings of Christian leaders. Most people did accept the teachings, even though they personally couldn't afford a slave.
Tom
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Are any of us perfect? Why not? Why didn't God make us all perfect?

Did God give us our physical bodies? Don't these bodies come with various limitations and weaknesses?

I never claimed that God planned out every little detail, although I am in no position to rule it out, but it is evident that if God gave us our strengths then He also gave us our weaknesses.
Questions don't answer questions, but I tend to think we're maybe on track to agree with each other.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Nevertheless, those Enlightenment values aren't Scriptural and were generally opposed by traditional, Bible Believing, Christians.
Wait a minute. Not all Christians agree on everything? This is new to me. (Note sarcasm)

Enlightenment values are indeed scriptural and follow the teachings of Christ.

The only reason those "traditional" (Catholic) Christians opposed them is because they called the authority of the Catholic Church into question.

Enlightenment values opposed the false and dogmatic views of the Catholic Church, not the Bible.
Suppose The Declaration of Independence had been put to a referendum, a free and fair vote, of all the colonists? I'm not at all sure it would have won.
Probably because that is a dumb way to decide things.
One can easily find Scriptural support for "The Divine Right of kings to rule".
No, you can't, because there isn't any.

The Bible records that ancient Israel obviously did not believe in this concept because they revolted against their king. Remember that the Kingdom split into Judah and Israel?

That's not even to mention all the revolts against monarchs and ruling leaders throughout Christian European nations over the centuries.

There is no rational reason to assume this. You are just flailing around. Grasping at straws. Anything to try and make Christians and the Bible look bad.
Representative government, not so much. So while the Founding Fathers had a strong inclination towards Deism and Enlightenment values, due to their wealthy liberal and education, traditional Christians would unlikely be too supportive.
You can't cope with the fact that Christians made the most prosperous and free nation that has ever existed.

Ridiculous.
I'm pointing out a pervasive Christian teaching, that hasn't entirely gone away.
Ok. Should I then point out a pervasive stereotype about homosexuals and attribute it to you?
Racism is still a problem in this country, despite the efforts of decent folks to distance themselves from that interpretation of Scripture.
I don't believe that racism is a problem in this country (except against white people) and I also don't believe that Christianity or the Bible are the sources of racism.
And you didn't need to actually own slaves to believe the teachings of Christian leaders. Most people did accept the teachings, even though they personally couldn't afford a slave.
I'm sure you have evidence that supports this claim?

Like the evidence you presented that proved that sharing an opinion is "similar" to raping a child?

Oh wait....you never presented anything to support that nonsensical position.

Sorry Tom.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I want to address your comments, but you keep voting "Like" and "Winner" for comments that make the false claim that I had compared pedophilia to homosexuality. (Not to mention the one comment where someone claimed that my sharing my opinion did as much damage as raping a child)

So, I don't think I'm going to waste my time and effort because you are unwilling to be honest in any discussion with me on this topic.
So instead, you're going to accuse me of being dishonest. About what?

Look, I took away what I did from reading your post and it turned out to be the same thing several other posters took away from your post. I see you'd like to believe that we are all in error, and that your post could not possibly be interpreted in the way we intrepreted it. Rather than blowing us off as liars (not sure what makes me a liar here anway :shrug:), why not, just for a few minutes, take some time for some introspection, and maybe read over your own posts again and our responses to them, including our explanations as to why we interpreted your post in the way we did. That's what I would do if I were in your shoes (and have done); rather than lashing out at others for reading the words you typed. We do not always convey our feelings and arguments as perfectly as we may think we have. And especially in a situation such as this, where several posters have interpreted your posts in the same way.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You asked me to share my beliefs and I did. I never said that they were anything more than my beliefs.

It would be impractical of you to demand that I say, "I believe..." at the beginning of every sentence, especially when the entire premise of my response was based on your questions regarding my beliefs.

If you mistook my sharing my beliefs and my desire that everyone adopt them as "pronouncements" then you are an idiot.

Plain and simple.
So every single other person is an idiot, despite the fact that we all walked away from your post with the same impression.
Okay then.
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, I guess.
o_O
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Wait a minute. Not all Christians agree on everything? This is new to me. (Note sarcasm)

Enlightenment values are indeed scriptural and follow the teachings of Christ.

The only reason those "traditional" (Catholic) Christians opposed them is because they called the authority of the Catholic Church into question.

Enlightenment values opposed the false and dogmatic views of the Catholic Church, not the Bible.

Probably because that is a dumb way to decide things.

"The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment)[1][note 1] was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th to 19th century.[3]

The Enlightenment emerged out of a European intellectual and scholarly movement known as Renaissance humanism. Some consider the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) as the first major enlightenment work. French historians traditionally date the Enlightenment from 1715 to 1789, from the death of Louis XIV of France until the outbreak of the French Revolution that ended the Ancien Regime. Most end it with the beginning of the 19th century. Philosophers and scientists of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffeehouses and in printed books, journals, and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and the Church and paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neoclassicism, trace their intellectual heritage to the Enlightenment.[4]

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the sovereignty of reason and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge and advanced ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[5][6] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by Immanuel Kant's essay Sapere aude (Dare to know).[7]

.....

Science played an important role in Enlightenment discourse and thought. Many Enlightenment writers and thinkers had backgrounds in the sciences and associated scientific advancement with the overthrow of religion and traditional authority in favour of the development of free speech and thought. Scientific progress during the Enlightenment included the discovery of carbon dioxide (fixed air) by the chemist Joseph Black, the argument for deep time by the geologist James Hutton and the invention of the condensing steam engine by James Watt.[25] The experiments of Lavoisier were used to create the first modern chemical plants in Paris and the experiments of the Montgolfier Brothers enabled them to launch the first manned flight in a hot-air balloon on 21 November 1783 from the Château de la Muette, near the Bois de Boulogne.[26]"

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


:shrug:
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Well, that kinda settles that.
Tom
People on this site are unbelievable.

When I fail to say "I believe..." in a statement about my beliefs they accuse me of making declarations.

When I do say "I believe..." in a statement about my beliefs they accuse me of making declarations.

There's just no such things as reasonable discussion on the internet anymore.
 
Top