Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[A Troubled Man]

What can I say, my time is precious, I don't like wasting it. :beach:

Those who promote racism and bigotry don't like wasting their time explaining themselves, either.

 

[FearGod]

I have no idea where you got these numbers from but they are funny.
2009 Source:FASTSTATS - Deaths and Mortality
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

If your data is correct then there are 2.5 more people who commit suicide than die of AIDS. I mean really why don't you concentrate your efforts on preventing the depression created by religions?

That is your opinion about AIDS & homosexuality.

 

[crocusj]

I will offer an opinion. I believe homosexuality is wrong. The bible claims sexual sins are especially wrong

A man after my own heart. Of course homosexuality is wrong. And it is wrong on so many levels but particularly on the yucky level (the level we must judge on). And, of course, sexual sins are especially wrong. Much more so than any other sins. Praise the Lord that we have a book to guide us through the maze that is our baser instincts. Oft times I have found myself mid-coitus -as it were - and had to consult the good book itself to find out if I was doing it right (apparently not, too yucky...go figure).

That being said I am not to subject a homosexual to judgement with the exception of things like a vote on same sex marriage, or child custody. That is a judgment of a concept not an individual person.

Are you having a laugh? Specifically, are you having a laugh at someone else's pain? Then shame on you. In what way will these judgements not affect individuals? Your bible is either right or wrong on this. Is the bible wrong or is the bible right? And I think that we all know the answer to that question, the real question is: do you prevaricate for your bible? How on earth can we possibly allow different laws to prevail due to sexuality? How can that ever be right? You can call it a concept if you like but you will still be condemning an individual to less rights than yourself, I cannot see the right in this. Apparently you can, please enlighten me to how this is so on your own terms without your god.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I will offer an opinion. I believe homosexuality is wrong. The bible claims sexual sins are especially wrong.

Today we are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin.

You're free to believe in homophobic mythical and superstitious bigotry from bronze age thinking, and as long as you hate your own sins, that's fine, too. However, to force those beliefs and hatred onto others is not something anyone should be allowed to do.

 

[Viker]

Thread veered off topic, a little.

 

[beerisit]

That is your opinion about AIDS & homosexuality.

No this is my opinion of the things you read and write because of your limited understanding of English, I don't have a second language and so commend you, but mostly you fail to respond to the subject you are addressing. You respond to what you think is the subject. Not your fault but I do find it funny how you get upset at what you perceived as an attack, when none was forthcoming. Still I like talking with you trruth, I hope we can continue.

 

[beerisit]

I will offer an opinion. I believe homosexuality is wrong. The bible claims sexual sins are especially wrong. That being said I am not to subject a homosexual to judgement with the exception of things like a vote on same sex marriage, or child custody. That is a judgment of a concept not an individual person. The actions contained in the old testament were only for the Jews and for that time. They do not apply today. Today we are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Christ spoke more kindly to sinners and more harshly about sin than anyone in history.
As for the comparison to Hiroshima (how you came up with that is beyond me) there is none. Hiroshima happened because the Japanese were so psychotic they believed their emporer was a God and surrender dishonorable. They would have and did fight to the death. Our estimates of a conventional attack were our 500,000 casualties plus maybe a million or more for the Japanese. The bombs caused laround 200,000 casualties none our own. This is as close to a justified act as can be found in this broken fallen world. Your comparison is strange.

I needed to revisit this, 1robin are you claiming that the bombing of Hiroshima was GOOD and that homosexuality is EVIL? Do you also claim that the bombing of London was GOOD and Dresden and Nagasaki? And that this is OBJECTIVE GOOD? I look forward to your answer.

 

[1robin]

This from a man who believes in an objective morality, truth? So you agree with me that the bombing of Hiroshima, Dresden and London can be viewed as both evil and good depending on your subjective point of view?
Oh and what is the concept you are basing your judgement on...............LOVE?

This is not as simple as you are trying to make it. The Japanese forced their own problems, and Germany forced Englands as well as their own problems. Neither us nor the Bristish began the aggression so the damage done to people who were trying to kill them is justified but regretable. I am saying in this case I may only know the subjective truth but the objective still exists. However if God could be asked directly he would be able to provide an absolute objective judement. If you read the old testament God allowed Israel to win justified wars and he turned around and allowed them to lose unjustified wars. Just because there is an objective standard doesn't mean necessarilyI know what it was in this case. In ancient Israel prophets appealed to God to request these objective truths. Suppose that unjustified war v/s justified war is the objective standard in this case. USA, England, France (justified), Germany, Italy, Japan, Ireland (unjustified).

 

[1robin]

A man after my own heart. Of course homosexuality is wrong. And it is wrong on so many levels but particularly on the yucky level (the level we must judge on). And, of course, sexual sins are especially wrong. Much more so than any other sins. Praise the Lord that we have a book to guide us through the maze that is our baser instincts. Oft times I have found myself mid-coitus -as it were - and had to consult the good book itself to find out if I was doing it right (apparently not, too yucky...go figure). I can't figure out what your saying here so I can't agree or disagree. Thanks a lot for a bunch of upleasant mental images.





[quot}Are you having a laugh? Specifically, are you having a laugh at someone else's pain? Then shame on you. In what way will these judgements not affect individuals? Your bible is either right or wrong on this. Is the bible wrong or is the bible right? And I think that we all know the answer to that question, the real question is: do you prevaricate for your bible? How on earth can we possibly allow different laws to prevail due to sexuality? How can that ever be right? You can call it a concept if you like but you will still be condemning an individual to less rights than yourself, I cannot see the right in this. Apparently you can, please enlighten me to how this is so on your own terms without your god.

I didn't say that they do not effect individuals, I said I am not to directly judge individuals, I am only allowed to judge concepts. I do not support any kind of Gay criminalisation and civil unions might be supportable. Democracy alone gives me that right. I think marriage like it says is a holy institution and should not by given to an unholy purpose. Well aparently by your logic no one has a basis on which to judge anything. Modern nihilistic, materialist morality will eventually self destruct because it does not contain the basis to judge anything. There is no right, no wrong, only relative value based on a insuffecient subjective point of view.

 

[beerisit]

This is not as simple as you are trying to make it. The Japanese forced their own problems, and Germany forced Englands as well as their own problems. Neither us nor the Bristish began the aggression so the damage done to people who were trying to kill them is justified but regretable. I am saying in this case I may only know the subjective truth but the objective still exists. However if God could be asked directly he would be able to provide an absolute objective judement. If you read the old testament God allowed Israel to win justified wars and he turned around and allowed them to lose unjustified wars. Just because there is an objective standard doesn't mean necessarilyI know what it was in this case. In ancient Israel prophets appealed to God to request these objective truths. Suppose that unjustified war v/s justified war is the objective standard in this case. USA, England, France (justified), Germany, Italy, Japan, Ireland (unjustified).

So now there is no "objective" good and evil except in the bible, a book written thousands of years ago by goatherds who were trying to understand the world around them?
And believe me it is absolutely as simple as you are trying to make it. I can see the good and evil in all of the cases I mention, you with your closeness to an all GOOD god can't.

 

[1robin]

You're free to believe in homophobic mythical and superstitious bigotry from bronze age thinking, and as long as you hate your own sins, that's fine, too. However, to force those beliefs and hatred onto others is not something anyone should be allowed to do.

Sin is sin, in the bronze age, stone age, wooden age, plasma age, or the quantum age. If it is wrong then it's wrong. To try to cast it as irrelevant because you associate it with a time you consider more ignorant is meaningless. I hate my own sins far more than I care about someone elses. I have the right given by the constitution and God to judge those concepts I mentioned. On no basis can you say I am unjustified.

 

[FearGod]

I will offer an opinion. I believe homosexuality is wrong. The bible claims sexual sins are especially wrong. That being said I am not to subject a homosexual to judgement with the exception of things like a vote on same sex marriage, or child custody. That is a judgment of a concept not an individual person. The actions contained in the old testament were only for the Jews and for that time. They do not apply today. Today we are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Christ spoke more kindly to sinners and more harshly about sin than anyone in history.
As for the comparison to Hiroshima (how you came up with that is beyond me) there is none. Hiroshima happened because the Japanese were so psychotic they believed their emporer was a God and surrender dishonorable. They would have and did fight to the death. Our estimates of a conventional attack were our 500,000 casualties plus maybe a million or more for the Japanese. The bombs caused laround 200,000 casualties none our own. This is as close to a justified act as can be found in this broken fallen world. Your comparison is strange.

i tend to agree with you.

 

[1robin]

I needed to revisit this, 1robin are you claiming that the bombing of Hiroshima was GOOD and that homosexuality is EVIL? Do you also claim that the bombing of London was GOOD and Dresden and Nagasaki? And that this is OBJECTIVE GOOD? I look forward to your answer.

Didn't you just ask this? Good is not the right word, justified is more accurate. Nagasaki was justified, Dresden was justified. It's objectively justified. There is a saying that "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". In this fallen world evil men will try to destroy others. Good men are justified in their efforts to stop this. Evil and Good in this context are relative not absolute.

 

[beerisit]

Sin is sin, in the bronze age, stone age, wooden age, plasma age, or the quantum age. If it is wrong then it's wrong. To try to cast it as irrelevant because you associate it with a time you consider more ignorant is meaningless. I hate my own sins far more than I care about someone elses. I have the right given by the constitution and God to judge those concepts I mentioned. On no basis can you say I am unjustified.

SIN is a word used by believers in some of the gods believed in by mankind. Sin has no absolute. That is why your morality is so flawed. You claim that two men or two women who fall in LOVE are EVIL and then claim the destruction of millions of lives GOOD. Do you ken at all the abomination of your beliefs?

 

[FearGod]

Sin is sin, in the bronze age, stone age, wooden age, plasma age, or the quantum age. If it is wrong then it's wrong. To try to cast it as irrelevant because you associate it with a time you consider more ignorant is meaningless. I hate my own sins far more than I care about someone elses. I have the right given by the constitution and God to judge those concepts I mentioned. On no basis can you say I am unjustified.

Thats true.sin is sin,regardless of time.
Thats obvious and clear for the open minded men,but not for the brainwashed who
can see the sin as a modernized act.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Sin is sin, in the bronze age, stone age, wooden age, plasma age, or the quantum age.To try to cast it as irrelevant because you associate it with a time you consider more ignorant is meaningless.

Sin is irrelevant as it is disobedience against a gods laws. Since gods have never been shown to exist, sin is meaningless.

I hate my own sins far more than I care about someone elses. I have the right given by the constitution and God to judge those concepts I mentioned. On no basis can you say I am unjustified.

You have no right to judge anyone by your beliefs other than yourself.

 

[beerisit]

Didn't you just ask this? Good is not the right word, justified is more accurate. Nagasaki was justified, Dresden was justified. It's objectively justified. There is a saying that "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". In this fallen world evil men will try to destroy others. Good men are justified in their efforts to stop this. Evil and Good in this context are relative not absolute.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Now we have objective justification and objective non-justification. One of the problems I see with that is that JUSTIFICATION is COMPLETELY subjective. Maybe you would like to try again and answer the question of the London bombings while your at it?

 

[1robin]

SIN is a word used by believers in some of the gods believed in by mankind. Sin has no absolute. That is why your morality is so flawed. You claim that two men or two women who fall in LOVE are EVIL and then claim the destruction of millions of lives GOOD. Do you ken at all the abomination of your beliefs?

All this assumes that the biblical God doesn't exist. This is why non-believers can't ever arrive at truth. You start your evaluation with the idea it isn't true, it colors everything you see. Dr Ravi Zacharias says it this way "Intent determines content" If God is real then there is nothing inconsistent with my views. You are the only one who has used Good in connnection with Hiroshima. I said justified. However should we have just let the psychotic Japanese run over us. Since they would have enslaved, killed, and raped their way across the U.S. the same as they did with China, and the south pacific. Since your solution seems to be nothing then it's absolutely evil. You need to read a little more history, there were not millions of deaths from both atomic bombs put together. Sin is absolute if God is real. What is your moral framework? I guarantee you it is insuffecient to deal with these issues.

 

[1robin]

Thats true.sin is sin,regardless of time.
Thats obvious and clear for the open minded men,but not for the brainwashed who
can see the sin as a modernized act.

With modern moral relativeism there is no suffecient basis to declare anything wrong or right. It's a completely impotent system. Thank God it isn't true.

 

[1robin]

Sin is irrelevant as it is disobedience against a gods laws. Since gods have never been shown to exist, sin is meaningless.

Well if that were true and thank God it isn't, whats left in his absence is completely insuffecient for the moral needs of human civilization.

You have no right to judge anyone by your beliefs other than yourself.

Great let's let everyone out of jail. People make silly statements like this until something actually effects them and then they always appeal to concepts that don't exist without God. Since you believe human sacrifice is wrong (hopefully) and the aztecs believed it devine, would you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs or stop them from cutting the hearts out 20,000 victums a year. If you do choose to stop them that decision can not be justified in the absence of an objective standard. An objective standard only exists if God exists. If he doesn't exist then all morality is subjective, and no ones views are more valid than anothers. You system is impotent and there for evil.