Good Samaritan Knifed Trying To Stop Gay Attack

[mattskramer]

1. Please with yet another straw man.

It is not a straw man. I merely paraphrased your comment. We agree that in some cases speech may lead to violence against the speaker for which the speaker is partially to blame – being that a judge probably will not order full compensation to the injured speaker. Yet, there are instances in which a speaker is not to be blamed at all for violence made against him. As I asked, is a smoker to be blamed at all for being violently attacked if he were to say that it is okay to smoke.

2. Ditto. The Bible codifies sins.

So what is your point? Let us pretend that I agree with that statement. Should be make it illegal for people to sin? Will you answer my questions?

3. Please with the pure logic: this is politics, and perception is the reality.

If you can’t back up your position with relevant facts, statistics, and logic, then you have noting.

 

[glockmail]

[1] It is not a straw man. I merely paraphrased your comment. We agree that in some cases speech may lead to violence against the speaker for which the speaker is partially to blame – being that a judge probably will not order full compensation to the injured speaker. Yet, there are instances in which a speaker is not to be blamed at all for violence made against him. As I asked, is a smoker to be blamed at all for being violently attacked if he were to say that it is okay to smoke.

[2] So what is your point? Let us pretend that I agree with that statement. Should be make it illegal for people to sin? Will you answer my questions?

[3] If you can’t back up your position with relevant facts, statistics, and logic, then you have noting.

This discourse goes back to my post 49. Please refer to it to see how far out of whack you have attempted to take this discussion.

1. In post 49, item 1 I stated: “I don’t think violence is called for if someone lies, unless the lie causes severe consequences…” What part of that are we in disagreement?
2. In post 49, item 1 I also stated “One could argue that the consequences of telling someone the lie that homosexuality is not a sin can set up far more severe consequences, like an eternity in hell. In such case, best to let Satan do the ass kickin’.” That clearly indicates my position on your subject: we have an obligation to warn people about sin, but let Satan deal with these sinners. As a conservative, I do not believe that morality can be legislated.
3. Of course: this is exactly why, since the discussion is political in nature, it requires an evaluation of the statistics on how the population perceives the facts.

 

[mattskramer]

This discourse goes back to my post 49. Please refer to it to see how far out of whack you have attempted to take this discussion.

1. In post 49, item 1 I stated: “I don’t think violence is called for if someone lies, unless the lie causes severe consequences…” What part of that are we in disagreement?

I guess that we disagree on what constitutes severe consequences. Since I think that it is okay to be gay, I don’t see that violence is called for if one were to say such things. If I say that it is okay to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes each day, should I get my but kicked? If I do get beaten up for stating my opinion, am I partially to blame?

In post 49, item 1 I also stated “One could argue that the consequences of telling someone the lie that homosexuality is not a sin can set up far more severe consequences, like an eternity in hell.

All that you can conclude is that an old book says that homosexuality is a sin and that hell exists. That does not mean that, in reality, homosexuality is a sin and that hell exists. I think that hell is a fictional place or condition. It has yet to be proven that hell exists. In fact, some people might believe that hell exists, that homosexuals go to hell, and choose to go there. People have the right to state their views and give their warnings (as correct or incorrect as they may be) and let people decide for themselves. It is up to each individual to take what he hears and to decide for himself.

I might tell someone that it is okay to be gay. That person will take my comments and listen to you say that it is not okay to be gay. That person will take your comments and then he will make up his own mind. Am I partially to blame if I get beaten up for expressing my opinion based on what information I give? Are you partially to blame if you get beaten up for expressing your opinion based on what information you give?

In such case, best to let Satan do the ass kickin’.” That clearly indicates my position on your subject: we have an obligation to warn people about sin, but let Satan deal with these sinners. As a conservative, I do not believe that morality can be legislated.

The notion that Satan even exists is based on imagination, theory, and myth. Anyway, Yes. You have an obligation to warn people about dangers that you think are real and the consequences that you think will result. I have an obligation to inform people on my views on subjects and to warn people of what I think is wrong and dangerous. By the way morality (what people think should be moral and immoral behavior) is legislated all of the time. Legislation is practically the same as codified morality accompanied by legal consequences. When a law says that it is illegal to murder and that a murder may serve many years in jail, a moral statement is established. Legislatures decided that it is wrong to murder.

Of course: this is exactly why, since the discussion is political in nature, it requires an evaluation of the statistics on how the population perceives the facts.

No. The issue is not perception. Perception is perception and reality (facts) is reality. You do a disservice when you give people myths and present them as reality. Positions should be backed up with facts, statistics, and logic. This has nothing to do with statistics on how the population perceives the information (facts) to reach their conclusion. The issue is on establishing theories and (through logic, science, and statistics) seeing them evolve into facts from which individuals within a population can then apply to their own lives (correctly or incorrectly) as they see fit.

 

[glockmail]

…..

The notion that Satan even exists is based on imagination, theory, and myth. ….
….. The issue is not perception. …..

Both premises incorrect.

 

[mattskramer]

Both premises incorrect.

Okay. Prove that Satan exists. Where does he live? What is his address? Where is the scientific or logical proof that Satan exists? I’m sorry but he is only a myth – perhaps a superstition. Perhaps he is a construct made by early societies in an attempt to convince people to conform to conventional notions or right/wrong good/bad.

 

[glockmail]

Okay. Prove that Satan exists. Where does he live? What is his address? Where is the scientific or logical proof that Satan exists? I’m sorry but he is only a myth – perhaps a superstition. Perhaps he is a construct made by early societies in an attempt to convince people to conform to conventional notions or right/wrong good/bad.

You've really taken this obsession with me to an extreme, thiking that I can somehow conjure up Satan, have him sit on your lap and convince you that he's real. :duh3:

Perhaps he is a consruct, but most people believe that he's real, and the cause of real evil in this world. In any case, are you willing to take the chance that all these people are wrong? OK for you to decide for yourself, but not for society, or a subgroup of society.:cof:

 

[mattskramer]

Perhaps he is a consruct, but most people believe that he's real, and the cause of real evil in this world. In any case, are you willing to take the chance that all these people are wrong? OK for you to decide for yourself, but not for society, or a subgroup of society.:cof:

People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth and that when a god named Zeus became angry, he would throw lightning at people. Anyway, for more in depth information (including statistics) about people's belief in Satan check out:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat4.htm

 

[Kagom]

No surprise the LDS church has the highest percent in the belief of Satan as real. They believe Jesus and Satan are brothers.

 

[glockmail]

People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth and that when a god named Zeus became angry, he would throw lightning at people.....

Yet neither of these are written in the Bible, which has never been proven wrong.

 

[jillian]

Yet neither of these are written in the Bible, which has never been proven wrong.

It hasn't? Of course it has. We did not descend from two people and the earth isn't 6,000 years old.

Shall we go on?

 

[glockmail]

It hasn't? Of course it has. We did not descend from two people and the earth isn't 6,000 years old.

Shall we go on?

I'm afraid you will have to:

1. Even your theory of evolution asserts that the human race is from a single set of parents.
2. The scientific age of the earth is by no means inconsistent with the Biblical record. Your "big bang" theory closely resembles the story of Genesis.

 

[mattskramer]

2. The scientific age of the earth is by no means inconsistent with the Biblical record. Your "big bang" theory closely resembles the story of Genesis.

I doubt that jillian is disputing the sequence of events mentioned in Genesis. I think that she is trying to draw your attention to the young earth / old earth debate. If you carefully study the time spans mentioned in the Old Testament (It takes much time and trouble.) you will come to the conclusion that the Earth is between 6000 and 10000 years old.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/young_earth_age.html

The following presents a timeline for "young earth" believers. The key is that it is based primarily on ages and lineages described in the Bible. There are many variations in understanding of the Biblical details, but most timelines end up with Earth's age somewhere near 6,000-10,000 years. (Please don't bother me with trivial age differences unless they result in an age of the Earth near it's true age of approximately 4.6 billion years.)

 

[mattskramer]

Yet neither of these are written in the Bible, which has never been proven wrong.

Read this and get back with me after a few weeks of study.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

 

[glockmail]

I doubt that jillian is...

Why not let her speak for herself? She's probably thinking up excuses for John Kerry, and very busy right about now.

 

[glockmail]

Read this and get back with me after a few weeks of study.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Took about 15 seconds. Moses was not given, nor did he record, a date for these events.

 

[mattskramer]

Took about 15 seconds. Moses was not given, nor did he record, a date for these events.

Huh? What does this have to do with Moses? I never said that he recorded dates for events. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html merely lists over 200 examples of how the Bible contradicts science and history. It includes absurdities from the Old and New Testament.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/young_earth_age.html shows a chronology. Of course Moses did give specific dates (Ex: This happened in 250 BC.) but the Bible gives specific spans of time with respect to genealogy – from Adam to Jesus. Again, if you research the chronology in the Bible, you will see that the earth is only between 6000 and 10000 years old.

 

[dilloduck]

Huh? What does this have to do with Moses? I never said that he recorded dates for events. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html merely lists over 200 examples of how the Bible contradicts science and history. It includes absurdities from the Old and New Testament.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/young_earth_age.html shows a chronology. Of course Moses did give specific dates (Ex: This happened in 250 BC.) but the Bible gives specific spans of time with respect to genealogy – from Adam to Jesus. Again, if you research the chronology in the Bible, you will see that the earth is only between 6000 and 10000 years old.

Think about it Matts--how many times in history has science pompously claimed to "know" something or "understand" something only to have to turn around and admit that they were totally wrong. Give em 10 years or so and things they are claiming to be a "fact" now will be determined to be fiction. And they still want us to respect them enough to let them have the final say as to the nature of things ??

 

[MissileMan]

has never been proven wrong.

Is this your standard of truth for everything or just for the Bible?

 

[glockmail]

Huh? What does this have to do with Moses? I never said that he recorded dates for events. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html merely lists over 200 examples of how the Bible contradicts science and history. It includes absurdities from the Old and New Testament.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/young_earth_age.html shows a chronology. Of course Moses did give specific dates (Ex: This happened in 250 BC.) but the Bible gives specific spans of time with respect to genealogy – from Adam to Jesus. Again, if you research the chronology in the Bible, you will see that the earth is only between 6000 and 10000 years old.

1. This is a good source that I have used in the past to debate against the Koran. Pick an example. Take your best shot.

2. Genesis Chapter 1 is unrelated to the researched chronology. There is no way to estimate the time differential to Chapter 2.

 

[glockmail]

Is this your standard of truth for everything or just for the Bible?

What standard would you propose for a collection of books by scores of authors, written over several millenia?