(08-13-2012 01:24 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 12:57 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

And science has also been (mis)used in that it gave us everything from the viruses on your computer to the nuclear bomb.

On the same coin, it gave us the computer and Nuclear Energy.

But hey, if you are content catching your food with sharpened stones and eating it raw, be my guest.

On the same coin, religion has brought about a lot of philanthropy and humanitarian missions, as well as a belief system that includes peace and love-thy-neighbor that many find comforting. Despite a day where a gang of 19 "flew into buildings" under its banner.

You unintentionally proved my point. And the point being this (which you obviously missed): Any "good" or "positive" thing can be misused, appropriated and skewed for insidious means. To wit, science provides computers, but hackers use it for spyware, viruses and identity theft. Do we damn science for this? Both of us would say 'of course not'. Now apply this same thought to religion...

(08-13-2012 02:00 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 01:24 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 12:57 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

And science has also been (mis)used in that it gave us everything from the viruses on your computer to the nuclear bomb.

On the same coin, it gave us the computer and Nuclear Energy.

But hey, if you are content catching your food with sharpened stones and eating it raw, be my guest.

On the same coin, religion has brought about a lot of philanthropy and humanitarian missions, as well as a belief system that includes peace and love-thy-neighbor that many find comforting. Despite a day where a gang of 19 "flew into buildings" under its banner.

You unintentionally proved my point. And the point being this (which you obviously missed): Any "good" or "positive" thing can be misused, appropriated and skewed for insidious means. To wit, science provides computers, but hackers use it for spyware, viruses and identity theft. Do we damn science for this? Both of us would say 'of course not'. Now apply this same thought to religion...

We can argue this point (validly) till we both have bloody stubs for fingers, but this is off-topic for the OP. Torch's original post has been found to be misleading. I don't really feel any more incentive to argue after I summarized the article for everyone else.

I guess no one has a rebuttal.

(08-14-2012 09:47 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I guess no one has a rebuttal.

To what?

You're the only one who thinks your comments are meritorious.

You've been shown to be ignorant of history, philosophy and science...and a liar.

I really need a "no fools allowed" policy for my threads.

(08-14-2012 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 09:47 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I guess no one has a rebuttal.

To what?

You're the only one who thinks your comments are meritorious.

You've been shown to be ignorant of history, philosophy and science...and a liar.

I really need a "no fools allowed" policy for my threads.

Cool, just keep on ignoring my perfectly valid points and resort to defamation of character. You're doing more work destroying your validity than I ever could.

(08-14-2012 10:12 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 09:47 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I guess no one has a rebuttal.

To what?

You're the only one who thinks your comments are meritorious.

You've been shown to be ignorant of history, philosophy and science...and a liar.

I really need a "no fools allowed" policy for my threads.

Cool, just keep on ignoring my perfectly valid points and resort to defamation of character. You're doing more work destroying your validity than I ever could.

Must be one of those "Dark Ages" things. I'll bet you're big into Roswell too.

Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

As is your response. Well, all your posts actually.

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Does this mean that the "God is on our side" war rhetoric can be put to rest?

I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 12:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I don't know, but your question is certainly irrelevant.

I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment. I suspect you take the bible more literally and so accept stoning as godly justice in the appropriate biblical context.

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment. I suspect you take the bible more literally and so accept stoning as godly justice in the appropriate biblical context.

Make sure you don't wear clothing of two different fabrics or touch the skin of a deceased pig or else you'll get stoned.

(08-14-2012 03:38 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment. I suspect you take the bible more literally and so accept stoning as godly justice in the appropriate biblical context.

Make sure you don't wear clothing of two different fabrics or touch the skin of a deceased pig or else you'll get stoned.

I don't think any sensible people advocate for old testament law in modern times. The question posed is whether or not, within the biblical context, those people who were stoned for such offenses were in fact the recipients of appropriate and moral justice.

I say no, that it was barbarism and superstition, no better than burning women for alleged witchcraft.

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 01:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I would think that people should stop saying that. God is on which ever side he chooses and it may or may not be the one we think is right. Scripture bears that out..

Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment.

No, it's not a surprise. What's a surprise is that you actually think you have a better approach to justice.

If atheists are by definition, amoral, I don't see where agnostics have any other choice either.

(08-14-2012 04:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment.

No, it's not a surprise. What's a surprise is that you actually think you have a better approach to justice.

If atheists are by definition, amoral, I don't see where agnostics have any other choice either.

Do you believe that Old Testament justice was moral?

(08-14-2012 04:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Certainly Habakkuk was frustrated. However, I do think we can study and understand what constitutes "justice", and God is on the side of justice.

Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment.

No, it's not a surprise. What's a surprise is that you actually think you have a better approach to justice.

If atheists are by definition, amoral, I don't see where agnostics have any other choice either.

Torch, that has got to be the most asinine statement I have ever heard. Atheists "by definition" are amoral?? Do you even understand the structure of the word?

The ONLY thing atheism (aka non-theist, in a simplified latin structure) means is "without a deity" or "lacking a theist perspective on the supernatural". It says so right in the damn name.

(08-14-2012 03:43 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 03:38 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Stonings included?

You don't like justice?

It should be no surprise that I reject the biblical depictions of justice, especially when it comes to such punishment. I suspect you take the bible more literally and so accept stoning as godly justice in the appropriate biblical context.

Make sure you don't wear clothing of two different fabrics or touch the skin of a deceased pig or else you'll get stoned.

I don't think any sensible people advocate for old testament law in modern times. The question posed is whether or not, within the biblical context, those people who were stoned for such offenses were in fact the recipients of appropriate and moral justice.

I say no, that it was barbarism and superstition, no better than burning women for alleged witchcraft.

Tell that to the people who oppress homosexual rights.