not logged in
| re: NJC: Dumbledore being gay | |
Posted by:  |
Tremorlor 03:00 pm UTC 10/28/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Dumbledore being gay - John_Galt 12:28 pm UTC 10/28/07 |
| The bible wasn't the first book/tablet/scroll that contained legislation, and there has been better legislation in many civilisations before and after. Many of which were destroyed by the bible (and assorted other books that follow Jehova/Allah/insert revealed name of original jewish entity here) followers desire to save the souls of those uncivilised barbarians. Who btw had better concepts on tolerance than did those destroyed them. Faith is something that is personal, it should not be something that is imposed on others, therefore legislation should not be based on faith, but on moral and ethics. And no, I have no inclination whatsoever to reread the whole book. > Tremorlor, > > I responded to Pudding's post below at length so I'll be > more concise here. > > The letter you quote cites examples of laws or rules found > in the Old Testament. As you read the New Testament, in > particular, Paul, you'll find a recurring theme against > legalism or devotion to the old encyclopedia of > regulations of Judaism. As hilarious as it seems, your > argument against Christianity ignores the New Testament. > > I suppose we could do the same thing to you by simply > ignoring the last paragraph of your post and claiming that > you advocate following such laws because you refer to them > at the beginning and the middle of your post. But any > fair reading of your email requires that we consider the > final paragraph. The same holds true of the Bible. > > You still may have an argument that religion should be > about following all the rules all of the time, but what > you are saying is that you aren't really embracing the > second half of the book and Christianity. There are many > smart people who agree with you, at least in part, in > particular conservative Jews. This has been discussed for > a couple thousand years now and how religion should be > practiced is still open to debate, but with millions of > Christians across the globe, I'm not sure you can really > say that unless a follower is legalistic, the follower is > not religious and that all followers better take the whole > package when reading the Bible. Besides, you aren't > really advocating that Christian's really should comply > with your reading of those old testament rules and kill or > brutalize people. I think you'd be shocked and outraged > if you heard about that happening. More likely, you are > trying to point out that you are a smart secularist > because you can find inconsistencies or argue against the > Bible. That's fine, but you should still read the book > first. > > Interestingly enough, the debate about looking to faith or > law to govern our actions that comes out of the New > Testament is just as important today as it was in Paul's > time. > > BTW, John Galt and his army of objectivists are atheists. > Not surprisingly there are far better folks to discuss the > Bible and religion than your truly. > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Dumbledore being gay - John_Galt 03:26 am UTC 10/29/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Dumbledore being gay - Pudding 11:00 am UTC 10/28/07 |
| Thread: | |