http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Would Christianity be a vast improvement ... - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/6221dcf266417414?hl=en
* Religion and Genepool Co-Evolution - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/cfbc673ed4a80b73?hl=en
* Pickup artists preying on the religious :-P - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/f5e166c6b3edbd57?hl=en
* A Fair Trial For Islam - 10 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ec5b967ae518938e?hl=en
* Low Standards - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c093e2e3129684b9?hl=en
* Polygamy. Moral or Immoral - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/369d8c3e7d12f84c?hl=en
* Dear friend - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a8ed94bb2798656d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Would Christianity be a vast improvement ...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/6221dcf266417414?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 9:48 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 10:27 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 10:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ... over this:
>
> > >http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2319603620080423
>
> > I don't know, is stealing a penis better than denying a child a life-
> > saving blood transfusion?
>
> I haven't seen any reports of African Pentecostals doing this.
Jehovah's Witnesses do this regularly. You didn't specify a specific
sect.
> The
> following is among the most controversial I've seen but there are
> Christians supporting the law requiring the preservation of ancient
> artifacts.
>
> Pentecostal Christian Nigerians are destroying ancient artifacts in
> order to "break the covenant" with what they call "ancestral idols."
> Costumes, bronzes and carvings have all been targeted. Of course,
> there are forces in Nigeria that are fighting this trend. Some pieces
> have been sold to museums, and the National Commission for Museums and
> Monuments is conducting a campaign to explain to Christians that "they
> can't detach themselves from their past, that there is a beginning to
> their history." The commission is also asking for stricter enforcement
> of a law that prohibits the export of artifacts.http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/09/5389_african_pen...
>
> > > Or would most atheists prefer that these people's beliefs remain
> > > untouched?
>
> > > Given only 2 choices, that is - 1) their current beliefs or 2)
> > > Christianity (say, Pentecostal)
>
> > I'll take option 3, Bob:
>
> > 3) A rational world view based on placing observation ahead of
> > conclusions.
>
> Is #3 currently viable in that part of the world?
Is option 1 or 2 viable in that part of the world either?
> Who has had success
> advancing such a world view in rural Africa?
Has ANYONE had success in promoting a positive world view in rural
Africa?
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 9:54 am
From: "Keith MacNevins"
Everyone here has a choice to listen to me, a spiritual entity who promotes
the belief in a Supreme Being, intelligent design, and the ultimate
inevitable upward movement of humanity, or to listen to you, a demon.
On 4/27/08, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> That's because you're ignorant and you know nothing about the bullshit
> you perpetuate. Keith knows better, but he's stringing you along
> because you're helplessly retarded.
>
> On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, "prey yours" <preysi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > well done.......... i never heard such stories........
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > The dag yo (I call it hag ho) says that Christians tortured women to
> > > death. I think it is perfectly appropriate to remind hag ho that we
> are not
> > > masochists here at this group and we do not need to read hag ho's
> garbage.
> >
> > > On 4/27/08, prey yours <preysi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > i am not geting you dear
> >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Keith MacNevins <
> kmacnev...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > And so you feel it is incumbent upon you to torture us all with
> your
> > > > > inanity?
> >
> > > > > On 4/27/08, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > There current beliefs are just as stupid as Christianity. Don't
> > > > > > forget that Christians have a history of torturing women to
> death
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the same kind of shit.
> >
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 7:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > ... over this:
> >
> > > > > > >http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2319603620080423
> >
> > > > > > > Or would most atheists prefer that these people's beliefs
> remain
> > > > > > > untouched?
> >
> > > > > > > Given only 2 choices, that is - 1) their current beliefs or 2)
> > > > > > > Christianity (say, Pentecostal)
> >
> > > > > --
> >
> > > > > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--
Ambassador From Hell
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:26 am
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
On Apr 28, 9:48 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:27 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 10:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > ... over this:
>
> > > >http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2319603620080423
>
> > > I don't know, is stealing a penis better than denying a child a life-
> > > saving blood transfusion?
>
> > I haven't seen any reports of African Pentecostals doing this.
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses do this regularly. You didn't specify a specific
> sect.
I said Pentecostal.
> > The
> > following is among the most controversial I've seen but there are
> > Christians supporting the law requiring the preservation of ancient
> > artifacts.
>
> > Pentecostal Christian Nigerians are destroying ancient artifacts in
> > order to "break the covenant" with what they call "ancestral idols."
> > Costumes, bronzes and carvings have all been targeted. Of course,
> > there are forces in Nigeria that are fighting this trend. Some pieces
> > have been sold to museums, and the National Commission for Museums and
> > Monuments is conducting a campaign to explain to Christians that "they
> > can't detach themselves from their past, that there is a beginning to
> > their history." The commission is also asking for stricter enforcement
> > of a law that prohibits the export of artifacts.http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/09/5389_african_pen...
>
> > > > Or would most atheists prefer that these people's beliefs remain
> > > > untouched?
>
> > > > Given only 2 choices, that is - 1) their current beliefs or 2)
> > > > Christianity (say, Pentecostal)
>
> > > I'll take option 3, Bob:
>
> > > 3) A rational world view based on placing observation ahead of
> > > conclusions.
>
> > Is #3 currently viable in that part of the world?
>
> Is option 1 or 2 viable in that part of the world either?
Demonstrably so, given that there are substantial numbers of (1)
Africans who have retained their indigenous beliefs and (2) Africans
who have been converted to Pentecostal Christianity.
> > Who has had success
> > advancing such a world view in rural Africa?
>
> Has ANYONE had success in promoting a positive world view in rural
> Africa?
If #3 is not viable in the short term, why introduce it as one of the
options?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:44 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 12:26 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:48 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:27 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 10:28 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > ... over this:
>
> > > > >http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2319603620080423
>
> > > > I don't know, is stealing a penis better than denying a child a life-
> > > > saving blood transfusion?
>
> > > I haven't seen any reports of African Pentecostals doing this.
>
> > Jehovah's Witnesses do this regularly. You didn't specify a specific
> > sect.
>
> I said Pentecostal.
Oh, yes, you did, I apologize for misreading.
>
>
>
> > > The
> > > following is among the most controversial I've seen but there are
> > > Christians supporting the law requiring the preservation of ancient
> > > artifacts.
>
> > > Pentecostal Christian Nigerians are destroying ancient artifacts in
> > > order to "break the covenant" with what they call "ancestral idols."
> > > Costumes, bronzes and carvings have all been targeted. Of course,
> > > there are forces in Nigeria that are fighting this trend. Some pieces
> > > have been sold to museums, and the National Commission for Museums and
> > > Monuments is conducting a campaign to explain to Christians that "they
> > > can't detach themselves from their past, that there is a beginning to
> > > their history." The commission is also asking for stricter enforcement
> > > of a law that prohibits the export of artifacts.http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/09/5389_african_pen...
>
> > > > > Or would most atheists prefer that these people's beliefs remain
> > > > > untouched?
>
> > > > > Given only 2 choices, that is - 1) their current beliefs or 2)
> > > > > Christianity (say, Pentecostal)
>
> > > > I'll take option 3, Bob:
>
> > > > 3) A rational world view based on placing observation ahead of
> > > > conclusions.
>
> > > Is #3 currently viable in that part of the world?
>
> > Is option 1 or 2 viable in that part of the world either?
>
> Demonstrably so, given that there are substantial numbers of (1)
> Africans who have retained their indigenous beliefs and (2) Africans
> who have been converted to Pentecostal Christianity.
Are they actually VIABLE? Are these societies functional? Do they
place a premium on life? Are they war-strewn? Is there a serious
opportunity for economic advancement?
I think we have different definitions of "viable" that we're working
with.
>
> > > Who has had success
> > > advancing such a world view in rural Africa?
>
> > Has ANYONE had success in promoting a positive world view in rural
> > Africa?
>
> If #3 is not viable in the short term, why introduce it as one of the
> options?
If #1 or #2 is not viable in the short term, when introduce them as
one of the options?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Religion and Genepool Co-Evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/cfbc673ed4a80b73?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 9:53 am
From: Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God Machine
Two obvious examples of using religion to propagate genes in
advantageous ways.
1. Mormon-sect Polygamy
2. Islam polygamy
quote
What does being a Muslim mean? As you probably know, it starts with
a
profession of faith in one God, and that Muhammad, the self-
proclaimed
prophet of the 7th century, is "His messenger."
So what do you have to swallow in order to believe that Muhammad was
a
prophet?
Start with the rather curious interest that Allah had in Muhammad's
quest for sex and power. In fact, whenever Muhammad had a hedonistic
or violent craving, Allah was right there to satisfy it with a divine
revelation generously in step with the desires of his "prophet." (As
one of his wives wryly put it, right after God "told" Muhammad to
take
another object of lust as his wife, "Truly Allah seems to be very
quick in fulfilling your prayers.")
Muhammad's sex life was a matter of great concern for the God of
Islam, who ordered Muhammad to marry eleven women in the span of
about
a dozen years, including a 9-year-old girl and his own daughter-in-
law. In addition to this, he was explicitly told to have unmitigated
sex with his many slaves. In fact, the commands that concern the
prophet's personal sex life are preserved for eternity in the holy
Qur'an, where they exist to be memorized by countless generations.
So busy was God with Muhammad's sexual desires, that he didn't have
time to say things in the Qur'an like, "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you," or "Don't take fellow human beings as
slaves,"
end quote
A perfect example of gene-culture co-evolution. Religions are
naturally selected for that propagate the in-groups genes over the
out-
groups....
(also behind why Catholics are against abortion....,etc)
If you can have many wives and rape your slaves, your genes prosper
tremendously, and if you are in power, those of the women propagate
as
well......... it works... it's primitive, its barbaric, but it serves
the selfish genes very well...
We tend to create fantasy/delusional worldviews that are ideal for our
own survival and selfish gene propagation, and then try to make the
real world as much like them as possible.
Our imagination, social group formation, long childhood for
enculturation, and our tool making abilities make us the most dominant
primate....
Have fun....
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pickup artists preying on the religious :-P
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/f5e166c6b3edbd57?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 9:56 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 11:15 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, EGreg <heyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 12:32 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > At worst, this guy may be duping her and not being truthful about his
> > > intentions. Is that sleazy, if indeed the case? Yeah, a little.
> > > Nothing I haven't seen from a hundred Christians in the last decade
> > > and a half. However if she has sex with him, she knew what was coming,
> > > and wanted it to happen.
>
> > You must not know much about pickup artists, then. What you say is
> > absolutely not the case. The whole point of their activities is to
> > take a woman who does not want to have sex with them initially, and
> > make her want it quite badly, and -- in this case -- then manipulate
> > her into betraying what she believes in, to do this.
>
> Get a chuckle out of making her feel like shit, as it were. Not
> everyone takes it as benignly as Rappoccio puts it; I know a gent who
> was more or less expelled from his circle of friends for bragging
> about getting a single mother of one into the sack by leading her to
> think she was entering into a relationship.
You are as guilty of conflating lying with consenting sex between two
adults as Greg is. Lying is not moral. Lying to someone to say she is
getting into a relationship is wrong. Being up front with her and
saying he was only interested in a short term physical relationship is
not.
So let's stop trying to paint a picture that I haven't painted, shall
we?
>
> > And by the way, there are many other threads on that board where lying
> > is advocated, but mostly it's in the context of psychological tricks
> > to play with a woman's mind. ...
>
> It gets worse. There are those who lead her to believe a relationship
> will get somewhere when what is really their idea of a relationship is
> a few months of fun. A few times through such a cycle will have her
> thinking she's born to be treated like shit.
>
> How about a relationship not including sex, that leads to marriage?
Oh, and THOSE never go wrong and lead to devastating mental anguish
and complications. It NEVER happens that Christianity and it's
insistence on divorce being immoral leads to abusive relationships
(physically, mentally, and emotionally) which should end in a hasty
divorce settlement. Those relationships that don't include premarital
sex ALWAYS lead to healthy, well-adjusted children, non-abusive
relationships, no physical or mental anguish on the parties involved.
Right?
Right?
Fucking hogwash. I've seen it happen dozens of times. The parties
involved always think they are doing "God's will" and are even
sanctimonious about it, claiming it is somehow a "moral" viewpoint.
It's a bunch of bullshit, though. I've seen premaritally chaste
couples degenerate into an openly abusive relationship that is
detrimental to the children involved, and yet the couple stays
together because they find divorce to be immoral. Yet somehow abusing
the woman, and his children, is not seen as sufficient grounds for
divorce.
On the other hand, all the couples I personally know in my age group
except for ONE have had premarital sex, openly respect each other, are
not abusive, and love each other very much.
So this whole "sex before marriage is immoral" crap is just nonsense.
So let's be truthful for just one moment, shall we?
Sex before marriage is not immoral.
Casual sex is not immoral.
Rape IS immoral.
Lying IS immoral.
Now that we have all the issues laid out plainly and there are no
straw men involved, does anyone want to tackle any of the issues
individually?
> It's apparently very difficult to get married with an insistence on
> such an arrangement. I know a lady who divorced her first husband
> after giving up on reforming his penchant for adulterous affairs and
> in due course started involving herself in singles groups at churches.
> It took her about 10 years to find a man who didn't insist on sex
> before marriage. Carefully note that these were Christian singles
> groups, so the men were probably not atheists.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:06 am
From: Drafterman
Well I guess he figures that if she believes in religion then she's a
pretty gullible mark.
On Apr 27, 1:56 pm, EGreg <heyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I come from a different perspective than many atheists here,
> because I see a lot of people without faith lose moral values and
> focus on other things. I find it sad. I am all for the value of
> honesty, integrity and being true to yourself. But I don't think
> there's a panacea in embracing atheism.
>
> Here's a thread I recently was involved in, with pickup artists
> entitled "how do seduce a religious fanatic girl?". Names are omitted
> for privacy...
>
> ----
> I want to prey on her innermost carnal desires, they are there - it
> may be difficult. I anchored a day2 in her mind, got her myspace etc..
> now I will avoid setting off her 'creep alarm' by not adding her or
> messaging her for like 3 days. in 2 weeks this girl moves to the east
> coast. I think she should put out before she goes, make california
> memorable, what do you guys think? I got her to agree to a harmless
> picnic on the lake :P Where could we take this? How can we escalate
> this? etc..
>
> She may have reservations because she's religious but I know deep
> inside there is always a way to manipulate off her inner desires :)
>
> I found this, seems pretty damn nice.http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=79...
> edit: fuck 3 days thats too long fo a girl thats leaving in 2 weeks.
> ill add her tommorow morning and write her saying hi.
> ----
>
> dress up as Mary Magdalene, see where it takes you; and maybe THAT
> theory will be proven correct...
>
> but in all seriousness. I ran into this problem about a week ago and I
> must be honest, the Jesus shield is not the easiest to break. It is
> however breakable if youre damn good and you are consistent.
> unfortunately for myself, i wasnt good enough and had to next her back
> to her pew. In short, its difficult, but good luck.
> ---
>
> Why do you want to mess up someone's life who clearly wants to lead a
> good
> Christian life?
>
> On 4/23/2008 12:56:40 AM, **** wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >I want to prey on her
> >innermost carnal desires, they
> >are there - it may be
> >difficult. I anchored a day2
> >in her mind, got her myspace
> >etc.. now I will avoid setting
> >off her 'creep alarm' by not
> >adding her or messaging her
> >for like 3 days. in 2 weeks
> >this girl moves to the east
> >coast. I think she should put
> >out before she goes, make
> >california memorable, what do
> >you guys think? I got her to
> >agree to a harmless picnic on
> >the lake :P Where could we
> >take this? How can we escalate
> >this? etc..
>
> >She may have reservations
> >because she's religious but I
> >know deep inside there is
> >always a way to manipulate off
> >her inner desires :)
>
> >I found this, seems pretty
> >damn nice.
> >http://www.fastseduction.com/d
> >iscussion/fs?action=9&boardid=
> >2&read=79377&fid=23
> >edit: fuck 3 days thats too
> >long fo a girl thats leaving
> >in 2 weeks. ill add her
> >tommorow morning and write her
> >saying hi.
>
> Be cool.
>
> ---------
>
> >Why do you want to mess up
> >someone's life who clearly
> >wants to lead a good
> >Christian life?
> ...
> >Be cool.
>
> Hi ****
>
> We don't normally deal much in moral judgements or discussions around
> here. Just so you know. But in this case I need to know:
>
> Why would sex "mess up her life"? (*ass*uming she's not getting
> preggars, std or her anus torn). Will a broken hymen reduce her chance
> of getting traded for 50 oxen or will her frivolous slutty lifestyle
> bring shame to her family and gods wrath on the harvest?
>
> What is a "good Christian life"? "Good" in the sense that she lives
> true to the bible or "good" in the sense that her life is somehow
> better than the chick who will be getting whipped, eaten and fucked by
> me tonight?
>
> ------
>
> Well, he's calling her a "religious fanatic girl" because he's so out
> of touch with what her views and values are. I think it's important to
> care about the consequences to the other person, emotional and
> otherwise, and not just your own sexual conquests.
>
> Besides, there is nothing special about this girl. Why this girl, and
> not a girl for whom sex does not create problems later? Why break down
> the defenses of someone whose community frowns upon those defenses
> being broken? It's like stripping a muslim man... might not mean much
> to you, but in his belief system it might be much more of a big deal.
> Just because you might not believe in the Bible, does not mean it's
> not true, and does not mean it's okay to manipulate the other person
> into betraying their way of life for you.
>
> If you don't deal with moral judgments, what's the point of saying
> "leave her better than you found her", and so forth? This is the
> reason pickup artists are often being portrayed negatively by the
> media. I know there are so many different types out there, but I'm the
> type that cares about people and doesn't want to cause needless
> suffering.
>
> Be cool.
>
> ------
>
> Game her like any other chick. The sex drive is much stronger than her
> moral inhibitions. Just ask a bunch of Catholic priests :)
>
> Be the flame, not the moth. -- Giacomo Casanova
>
> ----
>
> someones going to fuck her eventually... i might as well take that
> place :)
>
> -------
>
> To Rappoccio and others... the reason you and I have different mental
> maps of atheism and Christianity and the relative morality of the two
> is because of our different experiences. I think that the university
> students you knew on a day to day basis were cool moral people, and
> scientists, and they would have been that way regardless of whether
> they were religious or not. However, they happened to be atheists
> because of their education.
>
> Actually, I have to qualify that ... yeah, a scientific education
> leads to higher rates of atheism and ALSO leads to more pacifist
> behavior (usually). Although that might not be the case with these
> pickup artists :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:18 am
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
On Apr 28, 9:56 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 11:15 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, EGreg <heyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 12:32 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > At worst, this guy may be duping her and not being truthful about his
> > > > intentions. Is that sleazy, if indeed the case? Yeah, a little.
> > > > Nothing I haven't seen from a hundred Christians in the last decade
> > > > and a half. However if she has sex with him, she knew what was coming,
> > > > and wanted it to happen.
>
> > > You must not know much about pickup artists, then. What you say is
> > > absolutely not the case. The whole point of their activities is to
> > > take a woman who does not want to have sex with them initially, and
> > > make her want it quite badly, and -- in this case -- then manipulate
> > > her into betraying what she believes in, to do this.
>
> > Get a chuckle out of making her feel like shit, as it were. Not
> > everyone takes it as benignly as Rappoccio puts it; I know a gent who
> > was more or less expelled from his circle of friends for bragging
> > about getting a single mother of one into the sack by leading her to
> > think she was entering into a relationship.
>
> You are as guilty of conflating lying with consenting sex between two
> adults as Greg is. Lying is not moral. Lying to someone to say she is
> getting into a relationship is wrong. Being up front with her and
> saying he was only interested in a short term physical relationship is
> not.
Ah, but he didn't lie. She wasn't one to put out just for the sake of
it and she got the erroneous impression that he wasn't either.
According to you, this was at worst a *little* sleazy. Also, according
to you, if she had sex with him, she wanted it to happen and according
to you, it was consensual. As for the bragging, the pickup artists
EGreg wrote about were braggarts too and you didn't take issue with
that.
> So let's stop trying to paint a picture that I haven't painted, shall
> we?
The picture I gave is not very different from ones EGreg gave, so it
doesn't seem that I was extrapolating very much by applying your
comments on his case study to my case study.
> > > And by the way, there are many other threads on that board where lying
> > > is advocated, but mostly it's in the context of psychological tricks
> > > to play with a woman's mind. ...
>
> > It gets worse. There are those who lead her to believe a relationship
> > will get somewhere when what is really their idea of a relationship is
> > a few months of fun. A few times through such a cycle will have her
> > thinking she's born to be treated like shit.
>
> > How about a relationship not including sex, that leads to marriage?
>
> Oh, and THOSE never go wrong and lead to devastating mental anguish
> and complications. It NEVER happens that Christianity and it's
> insistence on divorce being immoral leads to abusive relationships
> (physically, mentally, and emotionally) which should end in a hasty
> divorce settlement. Those relationships that don't include premarital
> sex ALWAYS lead to healthy, well-adjusted children, non-abusive
> relationships, no physical or mental anguish on the parties involved.
> Right?
I didn't say that.
> Right?
>
> Fucking hogwash. I've seen it happen dozens of times. The parties
> involved always think they are doing "God's will" and are even
> sanctimonious about it, claiming it is somehow a "moral" viewpoint.
It is THEIR moral viewpoint. That it is not your moral viewpoint
doesn't mean that it can't be anybody's moral viewpoint.
> It's a bunch of bullshit, though. I've seen premaritally chaste
> couples degenerate into an openly abusive relationship that is
> detrimental to the children involved, and yet the couple stays
> together because they find divorce to be immoral. Yet somehow abusing
> the woman, and his children, is not seen as sufficient grounds for
> divorce.
Whether divorce is permissible is a different issue. Those who are
opposed to pre-marital sex are not necessarily opposed to divorce.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:33 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 12:18 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:56 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 11:15 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, EGreg <heyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 12:32 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > At worst, this guy may be duping her and not being truthful about his
> > > > > intentions. Is that sleazy, if indeed the case? Yeah, a little.
> > > > > Nothing I haven't seen from a hundred Christians in the last decade
> > > > > and a half. However if she has sex with him, she knew what was coming,
> > > > > and wanted it to happen.
>
> > > > You must not know much about pickup artists, then. What you say is
> > > > absolutely not the case. The whole point of their activities is to
> > > > take a woman who does not want to have sex with them initially, and
> > > > make her want it quite badly, and -- in this case -- then manipulate
> > > > her into betraying what she believes in, to do this.
>
> > > Get a chuckle out of making her feel like shit, as it were. Not
> > > everyone takes it as benignly as Rappoccio puts it; I know a gent who
> > > was more or less expelled from his circle of friends for bragging
> > > about getting a single mother of one into the sack by leading her to
> > > think she was entering into a relationship.
>
> > You are as guilty of conflating lying with consenting sex between two
> > adults as Greg is. Lying is not moral. Lying to someone to say she is
> > getting into a relationship is wrong. Being up front with her and
> > saying he was only interested in a short term physical relationship is
> > not.
>
> Ah, but he didn't lie. She wasn't one to put out just for the sake of
> it and she got the erroneous impression that he wasn't either.
Then he lied. I fail to see why this is controversial. He
misrepresented the truth. That isn't honesty. That's lying.
> According to you, this was at worst a *little* sleazy. Also, according
> to you, if she had sex with him, she wanted it to happen and according
> to you, it was consensual.
If he forced her to have sex with him, it was rape. Whether or not he
held a gun to her head, or held a gun to someone else's head, it
wouldn't matter. It's still rape.
If she had consenting sex with him, then she wanted to have consenting
sex with him. This isn't hard to grasp.
> As for the bragging, the pickup artists
> EGreg wrote about were braggarts too and you didn't take issue with
> that.
I didn't see anyone bragging. I read a whole lot about strategies to
get a religious woman to have sex with him. I don't see any indication
that this person was being dishonest. If he was dishonest, then he was
being immoral. If he was not dishonest, then he was not.
So what exactly is the problem?
>
> > So let's stop trying to paint a picture that I haven't painted, shall
> > we?
>
> The picture I gave is not very different from ones EGreg gave, so it
> doesn't seem that I was extrapolating very much by applying your
> comments on his case study to my case study.
You were extrapolating quite a bit, and making errors in doing so.
Perhaps you might just ASK me what my opinion of your scenario would
be instead of pretending to know the answer?
>
>
>
> > > > And by the way, there are many other threads on that board where lying
> > > > is advocated, but mostly it's in the context of psychological tricks
> > > > to play with a woman's mind. ...
>
> > > It gets worse. There are those who lead her to believe a relationship
> > > will get somewhere when what is really their idea of a relationship is
> > > a few months of fun. A few times through such a cycle will have her
> > > thinking she's born to be treated like shit.
>
> > > How about a relationship not including sex, that leads to marriage?
>
> > Oh, and THOSE never go wrong and lead to devastating mental anguish
> > and complications. It NEVER happens that Christianity and it's
> > insistence on divorce being immoral leads to abusive relationships
> > (physically, mentally, and emotionally) which should end in a hasty
> > divorce settlement. Those relationships that don't include premarital
> > sex ALWAYS lead to healthy, well-adjusted children, non-abusive
> > relationships, no physical or mental anguish on the parties involved.
> > Right?
>
> I didn't say that.
>
> > Right?
>
> > Fucking hogwash. I've seen it happen dozens of times. The parties
> > involved always think they are doing "God's will" and are even
> > sanctimonious about it, claiming it is somehow a "moral" viewpoint.
>
> It is THEIR moral viewpoint. That it is not your moral viewpoint
> doesn't mean that it can't be anybody's moral viewpoint.
It is not a valid moral viewpoint. It is demonstrably negative. It has
demonstrably worse consequences. I don't really care if they think
divorce is worse than physical and mental abuse... it isn't.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Fair Trial For Islam
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ec5b967ae518938e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:17 am
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>
On Apr 27, 4:36 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stop lying Xeno. You are justifying it by saying that the cause of
> Islamic Extremism and Terrorism is the West.
for starters, look at the history of afghanistan. the US supported 7
islamic fundamentalist afghan groups based in pakistan to fuck with
the soviets. that's where bin Laden comes into the picture. don't
bother saying how i support the soviets in their imperialist agendas
in afghanistan. the fact is, the US does bear responsibility for a
whole lot of fundamentalist garbage in afghanistan for the last 25 odd
years. & now they have a puppet government with a lot of drug dealers
& warlords.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:19 am
From: Trance Gemini
Here's your quotes thewayoftruth1. That names a misnomer by the way,
it should thewayoflies.
Oh and by the way, I'll let the objective and honest people on this
site judge my debating skills not a bigoted person like you.
I think these quotes summarize your attitude quite nicely and they
quite accurately expose your position.
Unlike your post of my quotes which removed all the content and as a
result misrepresented my position.
Anyone can go back and look at my posts though and you'll just be
exposed for the liar you are.
I think you shot yourself in the foot on that one but, hey, it works
for me. Keep up the good work exposing yourself.
thewayoftruth1 said:
1 The message is: Laa elaha illa lah (none has the right to be
worshipped except Allah).
Trance: Islam. The religion of peace.
2 "fitnah" in the same verse denotes: "Engage them in combat, even
killing them, until the state of "fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists
in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."
Trance: Islam. The religion of peace.
3 where is your freedom of speech when dealing with the exaggerated
holocaust ?
4 Islam permits fighting in defense of religion. It lays down strict
rules of combat
The Quran says:
"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you (Quran 2:190)
"And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all
things." (Quran 8:61)
Trance: Islam. The religion of peace.
5 NO COMMENT
Trance: Good explanation here thewayoftruth1.
6 Trance: In reference to the murders of Producer Van Gogh as a result
of an Islamic Fatwa.
"and you sir you have no right to talk to me about 3 or 4 person
killed in this tragic accident"
Trance: Accident? Van Gogh was shot then slaughtered with a butcher
knife for producing the film, Submission which was critical of Islam's
attitude towards women.
7 i emphasized the need to activate international resolutions that
condemn and punish such crimes as defamation of religions and
prophets.and i think that any type of art that portrays the image of
any prophet is an offense...we can observe and note the behavior that
follows after such act.
Trance: Yes we can observe violent riots and fatwahs against innocent
people expressing their right to free speech.
8 in any circumstances we should not allow any type of mockery of any
prophet (pbuh and Allah 's mercy) and i belive also that Western
countries and organizations were adopting double standards on the
issue of Danish cartoons allowing abuse of Muslim sanctities and their
Prophet by claiming that this the freedom of speech but where is this
freedom when dealing with the holocaust not by denying it by just
saying that the number of people killed in this sad accident is
exaggerated !!!
Trance: The Holocaust was an Accident? The number of people killed was
exaggerated?
9 the problem is within the muslim world here in arabic country or at
least in my country we are ruled by dictatorship alliances with the
american govermant for example:
they forbad us from making a peaceful march they are afraid that it
became against them and in the other hand
if we succeed to give this poor people some money or even some weapons
i mean Kalashnikov and things like that to defand their self against
the most powerful state in the area we became TERRORIST
Trance: Giving Kalashnikov's to people doesn't constitute Terrorism?
On Apr 28, 11:38 am, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> xeno im so proud of you because you represent here the TYPICAL clever
> and honest western people
>
> in the other hand i read the powerful argument of TG and this a list
> of these argument that she used to defend her case :
>
> 3 Support your claims Xeno or shut the fuck up
> 4 If you want to lay claim to the truth prove it.
> Put up or Shut Up, Xeno.
>
> 5 You are full of shit in the form of empty communist rhetoric and
> dogma.
>
> 6 Grow a fucking brain
>
> 7 He's a "chicken-shit" atheist to use his own terms
>
> 8 Oh please, you just never stop fucking lying
>
> 9 It's very relevant Asshole
>
> 10 Why don't you go away, practice, and then come back when you're
> learned to read and write.
>
> 11 I've seen it and you're a liar
>
> 12 Canada is not an imperialist country asshole
>
> 13 Feel free to provide some or shut the fuck up
>
> 14 Look how the asshole distorts things
>
> 15 Lucky you, asshole. You can divert this thread into one where you
> spew
> your shit without getting banned.
>
> 16 I've been objecting to your misrepresentations, lies and rhetoric,
> asshole.
>
> 17 Seriously. You need to learn to fucking read
>
> 18 Gee this could explain why some of us have sheer contempt for you
>
> and the list goes on ...
>
> so you see how her arguments are so powerful and by the way TG i
> advise you to learn how to debate ( typical atheist) because this
> reveal how you point of view is so weak lol
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:27 am
From: Trance Gemini
On Apr 28, 1:17 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 4:36 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stop lying Xeno. You are justifying it by saying that the cause of
> > Islamic Extremism and Terrorism is the West.
>
> for starters, look at the history of afghanistan. the US supported 7
> islamic fundamentalist afghan groups based in pakistan to fuck with
> the soviets. that's where bin Laden comes into the picture. don't
> bother saying how i support the soviets in their imperialist agendas
> in afghanistan. the fact is, the US does bear responsibility for a
> whole lot of fundamentalist garbage in afghanistan for the last 25 odd
> years. & now they have a puppet government with a lot of drug dealers
> & warlords.
Hmm. Please explain all the Islamic Terrorist attacks that occur
everywhere else in the world then.
I guess that's Americans fault too?
I provided a list. Did you bother looking at it?
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:41 am
From: thewayoftruth1
"
This is quite shameless on your part but doesn't surprise me at all,
because you too are an Apologist for Islamic Terrorism. "
again you ignore what i said we the muslim refuse terrorism and i give
you verses from the quran that said so but you take some verses that
talk about killing enemies in the battlefield or in the time of war
and you said islam is a religion of violence if someone occupies your
country and you defand your land and then you became a terrorist i
will accept that but if refuse to defand your land and honor this your
problem i said to you 9:11 is a terroristic act and we refuse it but
when dealing with your terrorism for muslim by killing not thousands
of muslim you said NO THIS NOT TERRORISM THIS A POLITICAL ACT
"Why? Because you refuse to accept that the Religious doctrine that
you
follow actually advocates Lying, Violence, Abuse of the Rights of
Women and Children, and many more heinous crimes. "
i advise you to look at your society first ... lol
"As does Christianity and most other religious doctrines.
You are all the same. One religion is no better than the other. You
all advocate the same unethical and immoral doctrines"
you always claiming that religion is the source of violance but i will
give you an example the majority of the troops in irak don't belive in
god and so they have no morals and we see their crimes against the
iraki civilians
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:42 am
From: thewayoftruth1
i think that i will give you the same answer that XEBO did
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:56 am
From: thewayoftruth1
The Quran says:
>
> "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you (Quran 2:190)
yes this is true and please read WHO FIGHT YOU WHO FIGHT YOU WHO FIGHT
YOU ... it's called self defence guaranteed by all the laws in the
world
"
Trance: Giving Kalashnikov's to people doesn't constitute Terrorism?"
wow good argument and giving israeal F16 and all kind of MISSILEs and
modern weapons and helping it to have nuclear weapon is what ?
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:03 am
From: Trance Gemini
On Apr 28, 1:41 pm, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "
> This is quite shameless on your part but doesn't surprise me at all,
> because you too are an Apologist for Islamic Terrorism. "
>
> again you ignore what i said we the muslim refuse terrorism and i give
> you verses from the quran that said so but you take some verses that
> talk about killing enemies in the battlefield or in the time of war
You deliberately lied, misrepresented, and posted things taken out of
context of my posts to make me look bad.
Why are you so threatened by my condemnation of Islamic Terrorism?
The only reason you would be so threatened that you would do such a
thing is if you support it.
If you didn't you wouldn't care if exposed it.
You keep saying that you don't agree with terrorism and then you turn
around and apologize for it by blaming everyone else for why it
occurs.
You as a Muslim can contribute to ending Islamic Terrorism, Fatwas,
the Murder of Innocents and what do you do instead?
Run around whining about how everything is the fault of the Americans.
It's your fault too. Live with it and it makes you an Apologist for
Islamic Terrorism.
> and you said islam is a religion of violence if someone occupies your
> country and you defand your land and then you became a terrorist i
What about the people who are holding the Danes, Norwegians and the
Canadians hostage with their threats of terrorist attacks?
Shouldn't the Danes, Norwegians, and Canadians defend their lands from
Islamic Terrorists who come and murder innocent civilians?
You ask us to go the UN and block the US Veto and advocate on your
behalf because of some stupid cartoons yet Why don't you stop these
Islamic Terrorists from coming here and committing terrorist attacks?
The quotes I posted from your previous posts says it all.
> will accept that but if refuse to defand your land and honor this your
> problem i said to you 9:11 is a terroristic act and we refuse it but
> when dealing with your terrorism for muslim by killing not thousands
> of muslim you said NO THIS NOT TERRORISM THIS A POLITICAL ACT
Are you aware that most of the Muslims being murdered in the Middle
East now are being killed by other Muslims in Suicide Bombing and
Other Terrorist attacks?
Do you care about these Muslims? If so, put an end to Islamic
Terrorism.
>
> "Why? Because you refuse to accept that the Religious doctrine that
> you
> follow actually advocates Lying, Violence, Abuse of the Rights of
> Women and Children, and many more heinous crimes. "
> i advise you to look at your society first ... lol
Really? Well we're not perfect but we don't stone our women and burn
our children or cut off their limbs.
>
> "As does Christianity and most other religious doctrines.
>
> You are all the same. One religion is no better than the other. You
> all advocate the same unethical and immoral doctrines"
>
> you always claiming that religion is the source of violance but i will
> give you an example the majority of the troops in irak don't belive in
> god and so they have no morals and we see their crimes against the
> iraki civilians
Actually like I said before, more Muslims are being murdered by
Islamic Terrorists right now than US Troops.
End Islamic Terrorism and you'll save a lot of Muslim lives.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:07 am
From: Trance Gemini
On Apr 28, 12:27 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So you're back. Good.
>
> Now, maybe you would like to answer the questions I have asked you (a
> _long_ time ago), fairtrial and xeno but that _none_ of you have been
> willing (or able) to answer. It's a very simple question:
>
> Do you find it appropriate that a group of people can restrict the
> actions of people of a different group if the first group feel
> offended by certain these actions? By "offended", I do of course not
> mean physically harmed.
Looks like they're both too chickenshit to respond to you ZtB.
The unholy of alliance of communism and islam here for all to see ;-)
>
> On 28 Apr, 17:38, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > xeno im so proud of you because you represent here the TYPICAL clever
> > and honest western people
>
> > in the other hand i read the powerful argument of TG and this a list
> > of these argument that she used to defend her case :
>
> > 3 Support your claims Xeno or shut the fuck up
> > 4 If you want to lay claim to the truth prove it.
> > Put up or Shut Up, Xeno.
>
> > 5 You are full of shit in the form of empty communist rhetoric and
> > dogma.
>
> > 6 Grow a fucking brain
>
> > 7 He's a "chicken-shit" atheist to use his own terms
>
> > 8 Oh please, you just never stop fucking lying
>
> > 9 It's very relevant Asshole
>
> > 10 Why don't you go away, practice, and then come back when you're
> > learned to read and write.
>
> > 11 I've seen it and you're a liar
>
> > 12 Canada is not an imperialist country asshole
>
> > 13 Feel free to provide some or shut the fuck up
>
> > 14 Look how the asshole distorts things
>
> > 15 Lucky you, asshole. You can divert this thread into one where you
> > spew
> > your shit without getting banned.
>
> > 16 I've been objecting to your misrepresentations, lies and rhetoric,
> > asshole.
>
> > 17 Seriously. You need to learn to fucking read
>
> > 18 Gee this could explain why some of us have sheer contempt for you
>
> > and the list goes on ...
>
> > so you see how her arguments are so powerful and by the way TG i
> > advise you to learn how to debate ( typical atheist) because this
> > reveal how you point of view is so weak lol
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:10 am
From: Trance Gemini
On Apr 28, 1:56 pm, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Quran says:
>
>
>
> > "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you (Quran 2:190)
>
> yes this is true and please read WHO FIGHT YOU WHO FIGHT YOU WHO FIGHT
> YOU ... it's called self defence guaranteed by all the laws in the
> world
>
> "
> Trance: Giving Kalashnikov's to people doesn't constitute Terrorism?"
>
> wow good argument and giving israeal F16 and all kind of MISSILEs and
> modern weapons and helping it to have nuclear weapon is what ?
I think that statement speaks for itself as does yours. I don't think
I even need to comment on it Lol
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:37 am
From: student13
On Apr 28, 5:25 pm, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> student13,
> "Christians in India live in a social and political atmosphere similar
> to that of the Jews who lived in Germany during the 1930s. Just as
> those Jews were every bit German but following a different religion
> than Christianity, Christians in India are every bit Indian but
> following a different religion than Hinduism. Both Jews in Germany
> then, and Christians in India now, are perceived as following an alien
> faith from that of the majority and therefore do not belong in the
> state unless they joined the majority religion. A similar atmosphere
> of hate and potential violence is being generated against Christians
> in India which needs to be closely watched by the international
> community."
TLC,
Right now I am in mid-east. And what I saw on TV on 27th April 2008
was something, you need to read what
you have written above and then relate it with what I am writing below
and reply.
on 27th April 2008, some of the Indian TV Channels reported that of
all the people on earth, Mr L.K.Advani - leader of Opposition -
belonging to the BJP which is the Hindu party - was the chief Guest at
a function organized by none other than the Syrian Christian Church
as a chief guest.
Just imagine, you write " Christian in India live in a social and
political atmosphere similar to that of the jews who lived in Germany
during 1930s."
Seems you neither know the situation in India today nor you knew
anything about the Germany in 1930. Else, you would not have ventured
to make such comparison.
You are free to close your eyes and say that everything around you is
total darkness. But then you have no choice but to see the light when
you open your eyes - if other conditions of sight is fine with you.
Learn to think to grow to maturity.
cheers
student13
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Low Standards
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c093e2e3129684b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:28 am
From: 4praise
>people in Hollywood are unwilling to even
>WHISPER a criticism of religion for
>fear of being sued
WHAT? I just saw "There will be blood" yesterday - it critisized
religion pretty heavily, but I guess that it critisized human nature
even more. I saw a film a few years ago called "Saved" - it was a
pretty clear criticism of Christianity (and pretty funny too).
It is often very subtle - in the film "3:10 to Yuma" it seems that
Russell Crowe is an Atheist (?) and Peter Fonda is a Christian (he
gets pushed off a cliff by the Atheist - yea!). The interesting thing
about that film is that Christian Bale (the hero) is perhaps a
believer and perhaps not. But he is a man of conviction and that is
what makes him the hero.
Many films and TV shows portray a Christian as a "nutter". But some
of them have backed off. For example, the blond accountant in "The
Office" was portayed as a nutty Christian during the first season but
now they emphasize nutty and don't talk about her faith. The reason
(I think) is not fear of a law suit, it is fear of losing their
audience.
I watched a few moments of "Saving Grace" but I was offended by the
gratuitous sex scenes. It's hard to figure out where they are going
to find an audience if they are offending both Christians and
Atheists.
On Apr 28, 7:42 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 1:14 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > So your best move would be to join a church and learn our "secret
> > mumbo jumbo". See you next Sunday :-)
>
> > WARNING: Many have been converted somewhere between the mumbo and the
> > jumbo - your best bet is to send a different person each week to
> > collect the data - extended exposure can be hazardous to your Atheism.
>
> > My feeble attempt at humor aside.. are you serious? Christians have
> > endured torture, maiming, burning, etc... About 50% of the
> > entertainment currently out there attempts to bash Christianity to
> > some degree. Do you really think it's working? Bashing Christians in
> > movies has the same affect that throwing us to the lions did - it
> > increases our convictions and often provides a reason to organize and
> > come together with a unity that we otherwise find difficult to
> > maintain.
>
> > BTW, you can catch all the "mumbo jumbo" that you want on Christian
> > TV. I have attended church and also watched Christian TV for about 25
> > years and I have never heard or seen anything in church that I have
> > not also seen and heard on Christian TV and radio. Christianity is
> > not a "secret society".
>
> Yeah, and some of that stuff is just plain ridiculous. Sorry. People
> "praying out demons" and "faith healing" and all this nonsense is
> beyond ridiculous. The only difference between the KKK/Superman
> example and religious fundamentalist nutters is that people in
> Hollywood are unwilling to even WHISPER a criticism of religion for
> fear of being sued. You need to get mavericks like the teams from
> South Park, the Simpsons, and the Family Guy who can get away with it
> because it's satirical comedy (and even THEN there is a cacophony of
> complaints), but hardly anyone dares vilifying religious figures or
> religion in general. Look at the hoopla over a (very very forgettable)
> movie, "The Da Vinci Code". All of a sudden the religious groups
> mobilize because someone made a work of fiction. But daily, on any
> given television show, the "immoral atheist" is portrayed as a
> drunken, spouse-abusing, drug-dealing, prostitute until he/she "finds
> Jesus" and starts believing in MAGIC, and then all of a sudden they're
> deemed worthy again.
>
> Look at a TV show like the Holly Hunter show "Saving Grace". It is
> FUCKING INSULTINGLY ridiculous. The underlying theme is: If you're an
> atheist, you're a horrible person unless you start to believe in magic
> and get right with Jesus, and if you don't, you're going to hell.
>
> Try that in the opposite direction. Try to make a TV series where
> every religious person is portrayed as a spouse-beating, self-
> flagellating, altar-boy raping, church fund embezzling, blood
> transfusion denying, child-brain-washing, evolution denying, science-
> hating, drunken adulterer until they stop believing in neolithic
> superstition to become a happy, well-adjusted, functional member of
> society as an atheist and what would you get? A lawsuit, condemnation
> from a host of religious figures that you're going to hell and
> responsible for at LEAST one natural disaster (if not all of them), a
> hasty retraction from the networks, and the cessation of the careers
> of the parties involved. But with the "evil atheist turned Jesus-is-
> magic Bible thumper?" Oh, then it's acceptable to make up ridiculous
> straw men and parade them about like it's truth.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 12:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect
> > > definition of the word "atheism". And the clinging truly is pathetic--
> > > the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply
> > > lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional
> > > characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted
> > > where it belongs--on them, for making the outrageous assertions in
> > > question--they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot
> > > carry out a debate honestly--and let's be honest with ourselves, none
> > > of them can--they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy
> > > they can't bear to part with.
>
> > > If there was one rule that theists should have enough discretion to
> > > place upon themselves in a debate it would be this: if the same
> > > argument for God could apply to pink unicorns, The Flying Spaghetti
> > > Monster, Harry Potter or Spongebob Squarepants it is best left alone.
> > > Nonetheless, they can't seem to live with this limitation. So they
> > > give an argument equivalent to saying Stalin didn't believe in Harry
> > > Potter, therefore not believing in Harry Potter makes you an evil
> > > dictator. When the religious right tries to argue that a movie, band
> > > or video game inspired a kid to blow his head off just because he or
> > > she was exposed to it they aren't moved by all the violence caused by
> > > people not exposed to the same alleged motivation factor. The strange
> > > thing about religion, in this situation, is that it is _explicitly_
> > > the motive for so much needless bloodshed that these same "people"
> > > convince themselves that any atrocities that _aren't_ explicitly the
> > > fault of theism are somehow an airtight case that theism is a good
> > > thing. They all, as I've said before, think they deserve a cookie for
> > > the people they _didn't_ kill.
>
> > > This trend recurs in pro-theism literature. Rodney Stark's _One True
> > > God_ was a fairly good, and recommended, book on the history of the
> > > three central monotheisms--but it was interesting how Stark's
> > > collection of the facts did nothing but support the antitheistic
> > > arguments he seems to reject as unnecessarily intolerant. I expected
> > > the last section, "God's Grace", to offer a case for all the good
> > > religion has done in the world--to provide a counterpoint to earlier,
> > > longer sections like "God's Wrath". But the whole chapter was simply
> > > about the recent cases, particularly in the West, where religions have
> > > learned _not_ to kill each other in pluralistic environments.
> > > Likewise, Vox Day's book _The Irrational Atheist_--very bad, and _not_
> > > recommended unless you've read the source material (most of the
> > > religion books of The Four Horsemen) and feel like running through an
> > > obstacle course of logical fallacies, hypocrisy and
> > > misrepresentations--basically said that Sam Harris had no right to
> > > whine about religious violence because _theists have so far allowed
> > > him to live_.
>
> > > So let's clarify what this is about. Theistic ideas, from a rational
> > > perspective, are the epitome of stupid. When it comes to
> > > irrationality, they are rarely paralleled. This is not an opinion but
> > > the only logical conclusion: if religious beliefs aren't stupid, then
> > > stupidity--from a rational perspective--_does not exist_. So here is
> > > the standards that theists hold to themselves: it is noble to hold the
> > > stupidest beliefs possible as long as there's still some evil in the
> > > world that isn't obviously their fault.
>
> > > Fucking brilliant.
>
> > > The best we can do for now is humiliate the theists by exposing them
> > > for what they truly are. The worse they feel about themselves for
> > > believing what they do, the better--they only believe in God out of
> > > preference anyway, so it stands to reason that we should make it as
> > > unpleasant and difficult for them as possible. I'll leave you with
> > > another analogy from the great Sam Harris, in a TruthDig interview:
>
> > > "I think this is a war of ideas that has to be fought on a hundred
> > > fronts at once. There's not one piece that is going to trump all
> > > others. But I think we should not underestimate the power of
> > > embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku
> > > Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man
> > > named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the
> > > prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then
> > > leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people
> > > who were writing 'The Adventures of Superman' radio show. Week after
> > > week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real
> > > Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to
> > > laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front
> > > lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish;
> > > and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate
> > > organization with tens of millions of members--many of whom were
> > > senators, and even one president--to a world in which there are now
> > > something like 5,000 Klansmen. It's basically a defunct organization."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:42 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 12:28 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> >people in Hollywood are unwilling to even
> >WHISPER a criticism of religion for
> >fear of being sued
>
> WHAT? I just saw "There will be blood" yesterday - it critisized
> religion pretty heavily, but I guess that it critisized human nature
> even more.
Does it criticize the NOTION of religion? I don't think so whatsoever.
It seems to me that it's blatantly obvious that the "religious" people
were masquerading only (although this is gleaned from reviews of the
material, I might be wrong). It seems to me that it's the specifically
NON-RELIGIOUS people who pretend they are religious that are the
trouble.... not religion itself.
> I saw a film a few years ago called "Saved" - it was a
> pretty clear criticism of Christianity (and pretty funny too).
Comedy is different (as I've noticed). Comedy is somehow exempt
because people think that it doesn't represent reality. What ISN'T
exempt is, say, instances like "The Da Vinci Code" where there was the
mere suggestion that the Catholic Church was systematically covering
up a bunch of lies.
> It is often very subtle - in the film "3:10 to Yuma" it seems that
> Russell Crowe is an Atheist (?) and Peter Fonda is a Christian (he
> gets pushed off a cliff by the Atheist - yea!). The interesting thing
> about that film is that Christian Bale (the hero) is perhaps a
> believer and perhaps not. But he is a man of conviction and that is
> what makes him the hero.
I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on this at all.
> Many films and TV shows portray a Christian as a "nutter". But some
> of them have backed off. For example, the blond accountant in "The
> Office" was portayed as a nutty Christian during the first season but
> now they emphasize nutty and don't talk about her faith. The reason
> (I think) is not fear of a law suit, it is fear of losing their
> audience.
And again, comedy is the exception. But it's good that people can
finally say "The Emperor has no clothes" at least in satire.
Historically this has always been true, though. The court jester could
get away with saying things that portrayed the king in an unsavory
light, but only because it was done in jest. To suggest such a thing
in reality?
Suicide.
> I watched a few moments of "Saving Grace" but I was offended by the
> gratuitous sex scenes. It's hard to figure out where they are going
> to find an audience if they are offending both Christians and
> Atheists.
It's the point that without belief in God, the main character is
intrinsically immoral. That she couldn't be convinced of her immoral
actions through a rational examination of them... it had to take a
magic spirit to come and tell her. The underlying tones of this are
beyond ridiculous.
> On Apr 28, 7:42 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 1:14 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > So your best move would be to join a church and learn our "secret
> > > mumbo jumbo". See you next Sunday :-)
>
> > > WARNING: Many have been converted somewhere between the mumbo and the
> > > jumbo - your best bet is to send a different person each week to
> > > collect the data - extended exposure can be hazardous to your Atheism.
>
> > > My feeble attempt at humor aside.. are you serious? Christians have
> > > endured torture, maiming, burning, etc... About 50% of the
> > > entertainment currently out there attempts to bash Christianity to
> > > some degree. Do you really think it's working? Bashing Christians in
> > > movies has the same affect that throwing us to the lions did - it
> > > increases our convictions and often provides a reason to organize and
> > > come together with a unity that we otherwise find difficult to
> > > maintain.
>
> > > BTW, you can catch all the "mumbo jumbo" that you want on Christian
> > > TV. I have attended church and also watched Christian TV for about 25
> > > years and I have never heard or seen anything in church that I have
> > > not also seen and heard on Christian TV and radio. Christianity is
> > > not a "secret society".
>
> > Yeah, and some of that stuff is just plain ridiculous. Sorry. People
> > "praying out demons" and "faith healing" and all this nonsense is
> > beyond ridiculous. The only difference between the KKK/Superman
> > example and religious fundamentalist nutters is that people in
> > Hollywood are unwilling to even WHISPER a criticism of religion for
> > fear of being sued. You need to get mavericks like the teams from
> > South Park, the Simpsons, and the Family Guy who can get away with it
> > because it's satirical comedy (and even THEN there is a cacophony of
> > complaints), but hardly anyone dares vilifying religious figures or
> > religion in general. Look at the hoopla over a (very very forgettable)
> > movie, "The Da Vinci Code". All of a sudden the religious groups
> > mobilize because someone made a work of fiction. But daily, on any
> > given television show, the "immoral atheist" is portrayed as a
> > drunken, spouse-abusing, drug-dealing, prostitute until he/she "finds
> > Jesus" and starts believing in MAGIC, and then all of a sudden they're
> > deemed worthy again.
>
> > Look at a TV show like the Holly Hunter show "Saving Grace". It is
> > FUCKING INSULTINGLY ridiculous. The underlying theme is: If you're an
> > atheist, you're a horrible person unless you start to believe in magic
> > and get right with Jesus, and if you don't, you're going to hell.
>
> > Try that in the opposite direction. Try to make a TV series where
> > every religious person is portrayed as a spouse-beating, self-
> > flagellating, altar-boy raping, church fund embezzling, blood
> > transfusion denying, child-brain-washing, evolution denying, science-
> > hating, drunken adulterer until they stop believing in neolithic
> > superstition to become a happy, well-adjusted, functional member of
> > society as an atheist and what would you get? A lawsuit, condemnation
> > from a host of religious figures that you're going to hell and
> > responsible for at LEAST one natural disaster (if not all of them), a
> > hasty retraction from the networks, and the cessation of the careers
> > of the parties involved. But with the "evil atheist turned Jesus-is-
> > magic Bible thumper?" Oh, then it's acceptable to make up ridiculous
> > straw men and parade them about like it's truth.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> > > On Apr 27, 12:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect
> > > > definition of the word "atheism". And the clinging truly is pathetic--
> > > > the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply
> > > > lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional
> > > > characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted
> > > > where it belongs--on them, for making the outrageous assertions in
> > > > question--they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot
> > > > carry out a debate honestly--and let's be honest with ourselves, none
> > > > of them can--they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy
> > > > they can't bear to part with.
>
> > > > If there was one rule that theists should have enough discretion to
> > > > place upon themselves in a debate it would be this: if the same
> > > > argument for God could apply to pink unicorns, The Flying Spaghetti
> > > > Monster, Harry Potter or Spongebob Squarepants it is best left alone.
> > > > Nonetheless, they can't seem to live with this limitation. So they
> > > > give an argument equivalent to saying Stalin didn't believe in Harry
> > > > Potter, therefore not believing in Harry Potter makes you an evil
> > > > dictator. When the religious right tries to argue that a movie, band
> > > > or video game inspired a kid to blow his head off just because he or
> > > > she was exposed to it they aren't moved by all the violence caused by
> > > > people not exposed to the same alleged motivation factor. The strange
> > > > thing about religion, in this situation, is that it is _explicitly_
> > > > the motive for so much needless bloodshed that these same "people"
> > > > convince themselves that any atrocities that _aren't_ explicitly the
> > > > fault of theism are somehow an airtight case that theism is a good
> > > > thing. They all, as I've said before, think they deserve a cookie for
> > > > the people they _didn't_ kill.
>
> > > > This trend recurs in pro-theism literature. Rodney Stark's _One True
> > > > God_ was a fairly good, and recommended, book on the history of the
> > > > three central monotheisms--but it was interesting how Stark's
> > > > collection of the facts did nothing but support the antitheistic
> > > > arguments he seems to reject as unnecessarily intolerant. I expected
> > > > the last section, "God's Grace", to offer a case for all the good
> > > > religion has done in the world--to provide a counterpoint to earlier,
> > > > longer sections like "God's Wrath". But the whole chapter was simply
> > > > about the recent cases, particularly in the West, where religions have
> > > > learned _not_ to kill each other in pluralistic environments.
> > > > Likewise, Vox Day's book _The Irrational Atheist_--very bad, and _not_
> > > > recommended unless you've read the source material (most of the
> > > > religion books of The Four Horsemen) and feel like running through an
> > > > obstacle course of logical fallacies, hypocrisy and
> > > > misrepresentations--basically said that Sam Harris had no right to
> > > > whine about religious violence because _theists have so far allowed
> > > > him to live_.
>
> > > > So let's clarify what this is about. Theistic ideas, from a rational
> > > > perspective, are the epitome of stupid. When it comes to
> > > > irrationality, they are rarely paralleled. This is not an opinion but
> > > > the only logical conclusion: if religious beliefs aren't stupid, then
> > > > stupidity--from a rational perspective--_does not exist_. So here is
> > > > the standards that theists hold to themselves: it is noble to hold the
> > > > stupidest beliefs possible as long as there's still some evil in the
> > > > world that isn't obviously their fault.
>
> > > > Fucking brilliant.
>
> > > > The best we can do for now is humiliate the theists by exposing them
> > > > for what they truly are. The worse they feel about themselves for
> > > > believing what they do, the better--they only believe in God out of
> > > > preference anyway, so it stands to reason that we should make it as
> > > > unpleasant and difficult for them as possible. I'll leave you with
> > > > another analogy from the great Sam Harris, in a TruthDig interview:
>
> > > > "I think this is a war of ideas that has to be fought on a hundred
> > > > fronts at once. There's not one piece that is going to trump all
> > > > others. But I think we should not underestimate the power of
> > > > embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku
> > > > Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man
> > > > named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the
> > > > prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then
> > > > leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people
> > > > who were writing 'The Adventures of Superman' radio show. Week after
> > > > week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real
> > > > Klan's
>
> ...
>
> read more >>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Polygamy. Moral or Immoral
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/369d8c3e7d12f84c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:36 am
From: Trance Gemini
On Apr 28, 12:42 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 11:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 11:12 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 7:14 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > However, isn't it discriminatory to prevent people from marrying
> > > > whoever they want?-
>
> > > LL:It isn't discriminatory for any society to enforce a rule that no
> > > one can be married to more than one person at a time. There is nothing
> > > discriminatory in that as long as it applies to everyone, and as far
> > > as I can see, it does. Even the polygamous sects a man legally can be
> > > married to only one woman. There is no discrimination there.
>
> > We could make the same argument about same sex marriage that you have
> > made here about polygamous marriage.
>
> LL: Yes, that's right, and I've often made that argument.
>
>
>
> > Just because it's legal doesn't make it right or not discrimination,
> > in my opinion.
>
> LL: IMO, it is discrimination to not allow people to marry whom they
> want as long as both are of age, mentally competent, and not married
> to other people. Their sex shouldn't matter.
If their sex doesn't matter why should one to one matter?
>
>
>
> > > However, there is no law that says a man cannot have more than one
> > > sexual partner and impregnate them. It happens all the time inside and
> > > outside of polygamous sects. Again, it isn't the polygamous lifestyle
> > > itself that is under attack in Texas, it's the potential child abuse.
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 1:08 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 27, 9:18 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Please note that this is a shameless and purely selfish troll on my
> > > > > > part to see if I can suck Simpleton into coming back since he was the
> > > > > > one who originally commented on this issue in Obs recent thread.
>
> > > > > > If it doesn't work, that's okay, I wish Simpleton the best. Love ya,
> > > > > > Simp! :-)
>
> > > > > > There's been a lot of discussion on the news recently about Jeff
> > > > > > Warren's Polygamist FDL sect.
>
> > > > > > Much of the discussion has focused on the sexual exploitation of young
> > > > > > girls and the physical and psychological abuse of young boys.
>
> > > > > > A segment of this sect exists here in Canada as well, in Bountiful,
> > > > > > BC, and there is some concern that the children who were removed from
> > > > > > the sect in the US may be Canadian.
>
> > > > > > This has rightly caused a lot of outrage because of the child abuse
> > > > > > component.
>
> > > > > > However, it seems to have also resulted in the conflation of child
> > > > > > abuse with polygamy.
>
> > > > > > This, in my opinion, is wrong.
>
> > > > > > They are two very separate issues and should be dealt with as such.
>
> > > > > > This post is to look at Polygamy (not child abuse) and explore whether
> > > > > > it is moral or immoral.
>
> > > > > > Now just to stir up the theists a bit, and make this interesting,
> > > > > > please note that I'm not referring to Polygamy as necessarily one man,
> > > > > > multiple women which has been the standard and which is considered
> > > > > > acceptable in the doctrine advocated by the Bible for Jews, Christians
> > > > > > and Muslims.
>
> > > > > > I'm referring to Any combination of Adults engaging in consensual sex
> > > > > > in a Polygamous relationship.
>
> > > > > > That is, One man, multiple women or One woman, multiple men or
> > > > > > Multiple men or Multiple women involved in a long term sexual
> > > > > > relationship.
>
> > > > > > It's also known as Polyamourism these days ;-).
>
> > > > > > Essentially, in my opinion, there is no difference between Polygamist
> > > > > > and Plyamourist relationships.
>
> > > > > > There are, in my opinion, two approaches that can be taken here.
>
> > > > > > 1. Individual. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for you
> > > > > > personally and that you would want to engage in a Polygamous marriage?
>
> > > > > > My answer. No. I would find such a relationship personally offensive,
> > > > > > degrading and demeaning to me as a woman.
>
> > > > > > 2. General. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for others?
> > > > > > Therefore is it moral or immoral generally speaking and Why?
>
> > > > > > My answer. Yes. Generally speaking there is nothing intrinsically
> > > > > > immoral about Polygamy and if all parties who are involved in the
> > > > > > relationship are consenting adults and engage in the polygamous
> > > > > > relationship knowingly and freely, they are not engaging in an immoral
> > > > > > act.
>
> > > > > > There might, in certain types of relationships, be an issue of
> > > > > > parentage but with DNA technology it would not be a problem in terms
> > > > > > of asserting parental rights as long as all the parties are known.
>
> > > > > > What do other atheists and theists think?
>
> > > > > Frankly, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do with their
> > > > > free time, so long as it is not a negative psychological effect. So I
> > > > > agree completely that polygamy isn't necessarily "immoral" if it is
> > > > > done with fair distribution among the sexes.
>
> > > > > Now, to give them all tax benefits and force insurance companies to
> > > > > pay for them? That's another story :). I'm not thrilled at the
> > > > > prospect of "married filing jointly, and jointly, and jointly, and
> > > > > jointly" so they can get away with paying no taxes because one out of
> > > > > six people is actually working.
>
> > > > Yes I agree and it's true all the benefits of marriage can complicate
> > > > the whole thing if those relationship were allowed to become legal
> > > > marriages.
>
> > > > However, isn't it discriminatory to prevent people from marrying
> > > > whoever they want?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:47 am
From: rappoccio
On Apr 28, 9:55 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 1:08 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> Now, to give them all tax benefits and force insurance companies to
>
> > pay for them? That's another story :). I'm not thrilled at the
> > prospect of "married filing jointly, and jointly, and jointly, and
> > jointly" so they can get away with paying no taxes because one out of
> > six people is actually working.-
>
> LL: I'm not sure that the the individuals are getting any special tax
> benefits. The church gets the same tax benefits as other churches. The
> individuals pay few or no taxes because their actual reportable
> income is so low that they fall under the poverty line. Imagine
> yourself having to support several wives and 10 or more children. you
> probably wouldn't pay much in taxes either. I assume they pay sales
> taxes, however, though they might have found a way around that, as
> well.
That's kinda what I meant, because one person could claim three
spouses and 12 children to pay no taxes.
>
> Where the group crosses the line, however, is in their eligibility for
> welfare payments and food stamps, which all taxpayers fund. The women
> are considered by the state to be single mothers (because, except for
> the first wife, they are not legally married to anyone). They are
> single mothers with no means of support. They will refuse to even
> identify the father. Despite this, the state apparently considers them
> eligible for welfare payments. I don't know why this should be.
Agreed. That's silly.
> I
> worked with many women who were truly destitute and they could not
> receive welfare payments or food stamps without identifying the father
> of their children and also producing valid birth certificates for
> their children. Somehow, this appears to not be an issue with the
> polygamous groups and I don't know why this is so. Most states also
> have a limit on how long anyone can receive welfare payments and most
> mothers are expected to work outside the home sooner or later (these
> are federal rules),. I don't know why these rules are not applied to
> the polygamous sects, as it is to everyone else seeking welfare
> relief.
Religious exemptions? I don't know. Good question.
>
> *************************************************************************** ************
>
> (
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:18 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please note that this is a shameless and purely selfish troll on my
> > > part to see if I can suck Simpleton into coming back since he was the
> > > one who originally commented on this issue in Obs recent thread.
>
> > > If it doesn't work, that's okay, I wish Simpleton the best. Love ya,
> > > Simp! :-)
>
> > > There's been a lot of discussion on the news recently about Jeff
> > > Warren's Polygamist FDL sect.
>
> > > Much of the discussion has focused on the sexual exploitation of young
> > > girls and the physical and psychological abuse of young boys.
>
> > > A segment of this sect exists here in Canada as well, in Bountiful,
> > > BC, and there is some concern that the children who were removed from
> > > the sect in the US may be Canadian.
>
> > > This has rightly caused a lot of outrage because of the child abuse
> > > component.
>
> > > However, it seems to have also resulted in the conflation of child
> > > abuse with polygamy.
>
> > > This, in my opinion, is wrong.
>
> > > They are two very separate issues and should be dealt with as such.
>
> > > This post is to look at Polygamy (not child abuse) and explore whether
> > > it is moral or immoral.
>
> > > Now just to stir up the theists a bit, and make this interesting,
> > > please note that I'm not referring to Polygamy as necessarily one man,
> > > multiple women which has been the standard and which is considered
> > > acceptable in the doctrine advocated by the Bible for Jews, Christians
> > > and Muslims.
>
> > > I'm referring to Any combination of Adults engaging in consensual sex
> > > in a Polygamous relationship.
>
> > > That is, One man, multiple women or One woman, multiple men or
> > > Multiple men or Multiple women involved in a long term sexual
> > > relationship.
>
> > > It's also known as Polyamourism these days ;-).
>
> > > Essentially, in my opinion, there is no difference between Polygamist
> > > and Plyamourist relationships.
>
> > > There are, in my opinion, two approaches that can be taken here.
>
> > > 1. Individual. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for you
> > > personally and that you would want to engage in a Polygamous marriage?
>
> > > My answer. No. I would find such a relationship personally offensive,
> > > degrading and demeaning to me as a woman.
>
> > > 2. General. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for others?
> > > Therefore is it moral or immoral generally speaking and Why?
>
> > > My answer. Yes. Generally speaking there is nothing intrinsically
> > > immoral about Polygamy and if all parties who are involved in the
> > > relationship are consenting adults and engage in the polygamous
> > > relationship knowingly and freely, they are not engaging in an immoral
> > > act.
>
> > > There might, in certain types of relationships, be an issue of
> > > parentage but with DNA technology it would not be a problem in terms
> > > of asserting parental rights as long as all the parties are known.
>
> > > What do other atheists and theists think?
>
> > Frankly, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do with their
> > free time, so long as it is not a negative psychological effect. So I
> > agree completely that polygamy isn't necessarily "immoral" if it is
> > done with fair distribution among the sexes.
>
> > Now, to give them all tax benefits and force insurance companies to
> > pay for them? That's another story :). I'm not thrilled at the
> > prospect of "married filing jointly, and jointly, and jointly, and
> > jointly" so they can get away with paying no taxes because one out of
> > six people is actually working.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dear friend
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a8ed94bb2798656d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:43 am
From: nice girl
Dear Friend
Hope you have a wonderful day
Visit my blogs
http://fashionarab.blogspot.com/
http://comeauto.blogspot.com/
http://lose5pounds.blogspot.com/
http://insurancevip.blogspot.com/
thank you
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.
To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment