Religion of peace via their man made "submission" strikes again

[JakeStarkey]

Ding, avoid Joy4Uall, who is here to troll theism, nothing more, although she is much a faith believer as anyone on the Board.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Ding, avoid Joy4Uall, who is here to troll theism, nothing more, although she is much a faith believer as anyone on the Board.

Instead of avoiding me, love me as much as Scientific Humanism loves you - show me, teach me a better way. If you have the all-powerful creator of the entire universe on your side like you believe you do, then this should be pretty easy for you, my friend.

PS yes, we have faith....in logic, humanity, science, reason, common sense, a court-room level of evidence.....but not faith in unscientific stories ("Jesus coming back to life", nor Mohammad riding on a magic winged horse, etc.) written by people who didn't even know "where the sun goes at night". Seems reasonable. We like people who are Nobel Prize winners in science over books written by those that believed that killing gays was ok, and that slavery was cool. Our love for humanity is what drives us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joy4Uall, you are merely trolling theists.

However, enjoy your belief system, and I wish you well.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Joy4Uall, you are merely trolling theists.

However, enjoy your belief system, and I wish you well.

"Trolls" only bash/condemn/incite - I offer an alternative, however. I do disagree with theists, however, but that's not "trolling", just legitimate disagreement.

I do "enjoy [my] belief system" - it's a more loving belief system than even the Bible, so yes, I enjoy being so loving. I can say this prayer (that Christians usually won't say it, even when asked to):
“Jesus, I love my children so much that if any of them choose another religion in the end, please consider having them take my place in “heaven”, and I’ll take their place in hell. I love them that much, Jesus.”

The world would be a better place if Christians can rise to the level of Scientific Humanists and say this very loving prayer.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The world would sink to a blood bath if it followed Scientific Humanism.

Witness the systems of Hitler and Stalin, operated on science and humanistic principles.

 

[Joy4Uall]

The world would sink to a blood bath if it followed Scientific Humanism.

Witness the systems of Hitler and Stalin, operated on science and humanistic principles.

We partly agree on that, my friend....however, Scientific Humanism's #1 "commandment" is freedom! So of course we've moved beyond the murderous attitude of Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. Like you, we condemn them!
Our #1 "commandment":
1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech

The #1 commandment in the Bible is not as helpful to the world as our commandment is, we argue. You are free to disagree.....uh, since we believe in "freedom of speech".

Jesus believed "render unto Caesar", and believed in totalitarian schemes (kings, etc.) and didn't say democracy (representative republics) was good, not once on his 33 years, so I feel great that we've moved beyond even someone as great as Jesus on the all-important issue of democracy vs. totalitarianism.

The Bible also says" Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."
We, however, believe "follow the laws of the democracy you are in".....that implies to not accept a totalitarian gov't that rules over you - that's in stark contrast to Jesus/Bible. Scientific Humanism believes in freedom more than Jesus/Mohammad did - making it a better belief system for those that value freedom over tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If "freedom" is number one than that empowers the Hitlers et al to do as they wish.

You are mixing up your science-tology (heh) with libertarianism.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Joy4Uall, you are merely trolling theists.

However, enjoy your belief system, and I wish you well.

If "freedom" is number one than that empowers the Hitlers et al to do as they wish.

You are mixing up your science-tology (heh) with libertarianism.

Democracy (representative republics) is not what dictators like Fidel, nor Saddam, nor Stalin, nor Mao, etc want. Jesus never advocated Democracy (representative republics), so Scientific Humanism is better for the world than Jesus' teachings. Jesus approved of totalitarian political schemes (kings, etc.) - the world would have been a better place if Jesus was a Scientific Humanist, of course.

 

[RodISHI]

Watch and decide for yourself
1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 minutes - Muslims are scared of this!!!

Jesus ("Isa") is the messiah in Islam (Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a MUSLIM), so as a Scientific Humanist (we care for humanity greatly!) we'd of course, if we had Jesus' super-powers, have come down in the last 2000 years and educated, just educated, the Muslims that they (according to the Bible, that is) got Jesus all wrong. That would be best for the world, of course. It would largely end the Jihad/holy war, and the world would be a far more peaceful place.

Would you other folks have done that, like Scientific Humanists would have done (if you/we had those powers)?

From everything I have been reading about the factions between Sunni and Shia Muslims. It is more of the Shia that believe this and promote a belief in Jesus. The majority of the Sunni militant Islamist like ISIS factions seem to be more terrorist related. I can understand why dani67 does not care for arabs. From what I have read from the history and more recently arabs have been more involved in terrorist and war activities. The slander from the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula and Gulf regions are very nasty towards the Shi'ites in their twitter posts. That is not an excuse for any terrorism from either group. It is just the way it appears in the overall history of what their religious leaders have promoted since the division after Mohammad died. Wars and religion do not belong together in any form as God is a spirit.

 

[Joy4Uall]

If "freedom" is number one than that empowers the Hitlers et al to do as they wish.

You are mixing up your science-tology (heh) with libertarianism.

A prayer you can say to Jesus: "Jesus, please agree with Scientific Humanism that democracy (secular representative republics) is the best political system, and tell us that this year."

This would be best for the world - not a man who didn't believe in democracy (Jesus - as well-intentioned as he might have been.) The Bible doesn't understand democracy, so it's not from an all-knowing god - it does mention the Golden Rule, and SH brings that forward, but not the totalitarian nature of the Bible.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Watch and decide for yourself
1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 minutes - Muslims are scared of this!!!

Jesus ("Isa") is the messiah in Islam (Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a MUSLIM), so as a Scientific Humanist (we care for humanity greatly!) we'd of course, if we had Jesus' super-powers, have come down in the last 2000 years and educated, just educated, the Muslims that they (according to the Bible, that is) got Jesus all wrong. That would be best for the world, of course. It would largely end the Jihad/holy war, and the world would be a far more peaceful place.

Would you other folks have done that, like Scientific Humanists would have done (if you/we had those powers)?

.......... as God is a spirit.

Scientific Humanism doesn't bring forward one particular unique god because many of them are not "spirits" like you claim (I hope you are right, however) - but rather vengeful entities that will see that non-believers get brutally tortured in "hell". So of course they are about as unfair as anything that's ever existed. Our children deserve better than to be tortured if they don't win the "celestial lottery" and happen to luck out and pick the one true god out of the 5000+ on offer. That's simply unfair.

 

[Joy4Uall]

..
You are mixing up your science-tology (heh) with libertarianism.

Hehe - we worship Tom Cruise (PBUH)!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Watch and decide for yourself
1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 minutes - Muslims are scared of this!!!

Jesus ("Isa") is the messiah in Islam (Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a MUSLIM), so as a Scientific Humanist (we care for humanity greatly!) we'd of course, if we had Jesus' super-powers, have come down in the last 2000 years and educated, just educated, the Muslims that they (according to the Bible, that is) got Jesus all wrong. That would be best for the world, of course. It would largely end the Jihad/holy war, and the world would be a far more peaceful place.

Would you other folks have done that, like Scientific Humanists would have done (if you/we had those powers)?

From everything I have been reading about the factions between Sunni and Shia Muslims. It is more of the Shia that believe this and promote a belief in Jesus. The majority of the Sunni militant Islamist like ISIS factions seem to be more terrorist related. I can understand why dani67 does not care for arabs. From what I have read from the history and more recently arabs have been more involved in terrorist and war activities. The slander from the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula and Gulf regions are very nasty towards the Shi'ites in their twitter posts. That is not an excuse for any terrorism from either group. It is just the way it appears in the overall history of what their religious leaders have promoted since the division after Mohammad died. Wars and religion do not belong together in any form as God is a spirit.

"It is more of the Shia that believe this and promote a belief in Jesus."

Islam, in any iteration, does not believe in the Jesus to whom you refer.

" According to the Quran, Jesus, although appearing to have been crucified, was not killed by crucifixion or by any other means. This view disagrees with the foundation of the Gospel. Instead, the Quran says "God raised him unto Himself," which happens to agree with the Gospel message of Isa ascending into heaven. In the 19th Sura of the Quran (verse 33), Jesus is believed to have said "And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive", a similar statement that John the Baptistdeclared a few verses earlier in the same Sura. Muslim tradition believes this to mean Jesus will experience a natural death with all mankind after returning to earth, being raised to life again on the day of judgment.

Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered a Muslim (i.e., one who submits to the will of God), as he preached that his followers should adopt the "straight path" as commanded by God. Traditionally, Islam teaches the rejection of the Trinitarian Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God. The Quran says that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Son of God, and it furthermore indicates that Jesus will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment, and God will vindicate him.[5] "
Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia

As in many ways, Islam is derivative of Judeo-Christian concepts.

 

[ding]

Glad I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

Many Democrats and Whigs (the latter were pre-cursors of Republicans) did that. Almost all conservatives approved of that.

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

 

[ding]

Correct. The South used Jesus' acceptance of slavery in the Bible (and in 2000 years Jesus has never spoken out against slavery, despite many many pro-slavery statements being in the texts, so he accepts slavery) to justify slavery - taking the US to it's bloodiest war (in terms of actual American deaths) in US history.

I think you mean Democrats did that.

Glad I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

Many Democrats and Whigs (the latter were pre-cursors of Republicans) did that. Almost all conservatives approved of that.

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

If Jesus was a Scientific Humanist then that wouldn't have been needed, as Jesus would have found the moral courage to simply say "end slavery w/in the next 30 years". I love people so much that I myself would have said that - would you have said that ding? I believe you are a good enough person, a caring enough person, to have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life (if you were in Jesus' shoes), to say that. I believe in you. Would you have said that? If so, you are on your way to being a Scientific Humanist.

Have a great weekend.

It is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

 

[Joy4Uall]

f

Many Democrats and Whigs (the latter were pre-cursors of Republicans) did that. Almost all conservatives approved of that.

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

 

[ding]

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? Did anyone say it was moral? But putting that aside the Bible tells accounts of events which happened in allegorical fashion. Many cultures have an account of a great flood for a reason. It did happen. Just as The account of Babel tells the account of how people spread out from the cradle of civilization. That too happened. In fact, it is captured in the symbols of the world's longest running written language.

 

[ding]

f

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I think you mean Democrats did that.

Glad I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

Many Democrats and Whigs (the latter were pre-cursors of Republicans) did that. Almost all conservatives approved of that.

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

If Jesus was a Scientific Humanist then that wouldn't have been needed, as Jesus would have found the moral courage to simply say "end slavery w/in the next 30 years". I love people so much that I myself would have said that - would you have said that ding? I believe you are a good enough person, a caring enough person, to have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life (if you were in Jesus' shoes), to say that. I believe in you. Would you have said that? If so, you are on your way to being a Scientific Humanist.

Have a great weekend.

It is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

Like me, if you were hypothetically in Jesus shoes, would you have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life to help the world by saying "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years", ding? If not, then Scientific Humanism is something that might put more love in your heart - I know it did for me.

If you can exhibit this higher level of love, then if the after-life judge (if any) is a loving, caring, entity, then your chance of a favorable after-life would be greater as a Scientific Humanist (versus if you can't say that you'd say "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".) A loving god would want you to care for humanity enough to answer "yes" to my question above, of course.

Thanks.

 

[ding]

f

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

I argue that it is always wrong because at conception a new, genetically distinct human being is created. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. That is what science