luvluv

You got me there Sauron I did misread the Syphillis graphs. It was unintentional though, I can assure you I have no desire to be embarrassed by misquoting statistics.

The decrease is rather dramatic and contraception does seem to be rather effective in dealing with STD's. I stand corrected on that point.

luvluv

Okay, here is some better statistical information from the Center for Disease Control:

<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/2000FigNatPro.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/2000FigNatPro.htm</a>

From what I can tell, it seems to be a mixed bag. Genital herpes, genital warts, Chlamydia (and obviously HIV though that is apparently dealt with in a different report) all show increases overall since the mid 60's. Gonherea and syphillis are WAY down.

I can't help but suspect that this is the result of the fact that (I believe) Gonherea and syphillis are curable. I don't know if the other diseases are. Other than that I find it hard to fathom why syphillis has all but been eliminated yet certain other diseases are steadily increasing overall.

I am sufficiently humbled, however, to not draw any conclusions. Have a look around this material and say what you will.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Panta Pei

Panta pei: luvluv, the Christian God is not real.

Luvluv: How do you know this?

Panta Pei: As a violent crimes investigator, I apply the basic critical standard of probable cause to the issue. In layperson’s terms, I make observations based of facts and circumstances not on appeals to imagination or emotion regarding this important issue. So, the fact that any theistic claims are entirely based on myth, supernaturalism, fairy tales and not on reality in plain view, they do not meet this very simple standard. Thanks for asking, luvluv, it is my hope that this may help bring you understanding.

Panta Pei: you should love your ‘brother’ based upon simple human compassion available without metaphors or fairy sky deities.

Luvluv: Why should I?

Panta Pei: Because would be more sincere, honest and real.

luvluv: I agree with Jesus statement that he came to set brother against brother. The commitment to Christ is a primary commitment before which all other temporal claims to our allegiance must fail, but that Matthew 10 must be understood in context with Matthew 25: yes our primary allegiance must be to God but one of the two PRIMARY requirements of that allegiance is to "love our brothers as ourselves". There is no question the gospel of Christ requires a love of humanity. They are not at all in contradiction.

Panta Pei: Credulity = If two things don't fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden, there must be a third thing that connects them.

Surely you can think your way through the doublespeak you have now presented the curious lurkers reading our exchanges. The need for such an assault on the intellect is simply not required to appreciate the experience and romance of life.

Panta Pei: Well, as you can see by these ‘Matthew’ verses, the Jesus character puts himself well above humanity.

Luvluv: As well He is, which makes it all the more remarkable that He would lower himself to become human, and then go further and equate Himself with the "least of these": the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, the hungry. You do well to point out the beauty of a deity which is mindful of it's place above humanity yet, because of it's love, willing to be numbered as equal with what we consider the worst of humanity.

Panta Pei: Your continued contradictions speak volumes for the theistic mindsnare. Feel free to buy the ‘sickness and the cure’ of your dogma, but please try not to be taken aback if I find it disingenuous and downright silly.

Panta Pei: As a matter of fact, the only ‘crime’ worthy of the eternal torment provided by the loving Christian deity, conveniently enough, is the mere act of disbelief in ‘Him’.

Luvluv: Not "disbelief in Him" but failure to put your trust in Him. As Paul says "devils also believe, and do tremble". To put your trust in God, or in anyone, is a much greater act of vulnerability and openness than to simply mentally assent to a proposition. I can believe that a shaky rope ladder over an enormous canyon exists. It is an entirely different matter whether or not I shall trust that rope ladder to support me if I walk over it. Trust is orders of magnitude more intimate and more involved than simple mental assent. Haven't you ever trusted anyone? This is the sort of relationship I have with God. To describe it as simple belief is to trivialize and, emphatically, misunderstand it. And it is at best premature to dismiss something you do not yet understand.

Panta Pei: Please spare me your pretentiousness, luvluv. I trust the real people who exist who have exhibited allegiance as well as the real rope ladder that I physically put my hands on and climb. Again, to equate an imaginary deity with real people in existence is an affront to sensibility and trivializes true love and compassion.

Panta Pei: So, your claim that many Christians put the love of ‘God’ and human love as virtual equivalents is absolutely ludicrous to me.

Luvluv: I didn't say anything about "Christians" I said Christianity, and more importantly, Christ Himself.

Panta Pei: Semantic hollowness. My point remains unchallenged by this common and nonsensical two-step.

Luvluv: You can't judge the merit of a concept by the ability of it's adherents to continually live up to it. You cannot use a mathematician's mistaken sum to call into question the validity of arithematic. The extent to which Christians fail to put the love of God and human love as virtual equivalents is the extent to which they fail to be Christian: the failure is with the practioners, not with the theory. To the extent to which men obey the teachings of Christ and that obedience causes acts of unkindness, that is the extent to which you can blame Christianity. If a doctor gives me a bottle of medicine with specific instructions, and instead of ingesting the medicine within the bottle I bash the bottle against my brothers head, what right have I then, when my symptoms are much the same as they were before, to dispute modern medicine? Many Christians have not yet taken the medicine that Jesus has prescribed, but you cannot declare Jesus a failure as a physician because of that. I would wager that you are at times not the friend, or daughter, or employee that you would like to be, but that does not invalidate friendship or family or work. Christians at times fail to be the Christians they want to be (I know I do). Judge the Christian faith by the extent to which Christians adhere to it, not by the extent to which they fail to live up to it.

Panta Pei: Well, aside from being a rather conveniently broad excuse for any type of behavior, this is indicative of the mindset I have commonly encountered upon interviewing repeat violent offenders blathering on about how only ‘God’ can judge them.

It is exactly the extent to which christians adhere to their dogma that is immutably limiting to human progress and peace.

Panta Pei: However, that merely indicates that you appear to be very enigmatic regarding the fundamental core of your ‘belief’.
This is a very cafeteria-style approach to theism...
As you and others may know by now, I simply disagree, using the same ability to apply critical thinking skills you apparently use to pick and choose that which is literal versus that which is figurative.
Thanks for being forthright, luvluv, for I have no quarrel with mystics the like of Meister Eckhart, Brother Bruno or Bishop Spong as it is my understanding that you will join the rest of us heathens at the 'Great Bonfire' for your heretical interpretations of “God’s Word”.

Luvluv: Am I hearing this right? It seems that you, an unbeliever, are in some sense accusing me of heresy. I am tempted to believe that you are chastising me for not being an easy mark.

Panta Pei: Yes. As I said, ‘it is my understanding’ that the fundamentalists (aka true and literal christians) have interpreted the canon to include those ‘non-literalists’ like yourself as cursed and damned as we non-believers. My sarcasm should have made more of an impression on you than my chastising.

Luvluv: I am completely unbowed at the charge of heresy dear sir. I owe no man any belief, only God.

Panta Pei: To whom, I must then assume, you have spoken?

Panta Pei: Yet, then you convert to a more literal interpretation of another part of the same fable, which is that of the resurrection of ‘God’ in Jesus form.

Luvluv: Well, firstly, that is not part of the same fable.

Panta Pei: Do tell, please denote the fabulous from the factual and the probable cause to establish each as such so that I may better understand your fantastic perpective.

Luvluv: Secondly, I do not believe that Jesus was God, I believe He was the Son of God or the Messiah.

Panta Pei: Do you believe that Hercules was the son of Zeus, known as the savior of man?

Why/why not?

Luvluv: I believe He was more than human, but less than God.

Panta Pei: In your simple words ~ How do you know this?

Luvluv: I'm sorry if this does not help you belittle me. But this is my sincere belief.

Panta Pei: Just because I provide a more realistic perspective that contradicts your dogma does not mean that I 'belittle’ you. It may be that the belief in imaginary beings such as fairies, dragons and wizards in concert with their christian equivalents cries out as an affront to your intellect and critical thinking skills.

Luvluv: The crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus is not presented in a way that is consistent with mythology.

Panta Pei: Nonsense. There are at least seven major and often-occurring phenomena that shape collective myths. "Death and resurrection" themes were associated by the ancients with: 1) vegetation; 2) the sun and climate on an annual basis; 3) the sun on a daily basis; 4) constellations in the night skies; 5) awakened states from sleep; 6) tribal fortunes; and 7) human moods. Christianity does not vary from any of these elements.

A quick study of the Sumerian myth of Ishtar (Easter?) reveals her travels to the Underworld in search of her beloved. She is met there by her sister Allatu, Queen of the Underworld. Allatu informs her that she must pass through seven gates (divine purpose/mythic quest) and that, at each gate, she must remove an article of clothing. Ishtar does this and, after the seventh gate, she is naked (humbled/brought low). At this point, instead of being granted the purpose of her quest, Ishtar is chained up and made a captive of the Underworld. Because of her absence from the land of the living, all fertility on Earth ceases. Seeing the despair of the land, the god Ea (Yah?) orders the release of Ishtar. As she rises through each of the gates of the underworld, Ishtar's clothing and jewels are returned to her, and spring is returned to the land.

Just one of many similar myths based upon naturally occurring events. When do you celebrate the resurrection of the christian mythic hero, luvluv? (Spring)

How about the ‘birth’ of the ‘son’? (Winter Solstice)

Luvluv: It is given in what was a modern historical context in a nearby setting and it was claimed to have occured within the lifetimes of most of it's first hearers.

Panta Pei: Claimed by whom? I’ll answer ~ Conveniently enough, by the very book promoted by the dogma. In other words, pure credulity and circuitous explanation.

Luvluv: Many of the main characters, like Pontius Pilate, were historical figures who were named. There were no talking animals, no "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or other such allegorical reductions anywhere present.

Panta Pei: So, no walking on water, loaves and fishes, red sea, or verrry big boat?!

Luvluv: Indeed, critically thinking it looks as if this story were one that was meant to be taken literally, so that is how I take it.

Panta Pei: Uh, what? I thought you did not take it literally.

Luvluv: That is not at all a "vascillation", that is an opinion that is a very sane and rational inference given the structural differences of the two texts.

Panta Pei: Two texts? Are you referring to a concordance of some sort or other theologian for support of your dogma?

Vascillation = inability to take a stand.

Panta Pei: IMHO, the entire reading of the Christian holy book provides ample evidence that it is a collection of plagiarized myths and legends.

Luvluv: I won't deny that there are myths and legends in the Bible, but your mistake is in believing that you have nothing to gain from myths and legends.

Panta Pei: There is no mistake made, as I thoroughly enjoy the King Arthur myth and legends, along with Sherlock Holmes, Celtic lore and native shamanistic tales among many (The Justice League of America rock too, IMHO). They are great fiction. I can, however, discern their value as escapism from reality.

None, including christian mythos, are any way to propose an honest participation with the natural beauty of the very real universe.

Luvluv: Myths and legends, stories of great kindness and great faith, often have much to teach regardless of their historical veracity.

Panta Pei: I agree, my personal favorites are ‘The Ant and the Chrysalis’ and ‘The Monkey and the Dolphin’. Don’t even get me started on Poe.

Luvluv: The story of Good Samaritan, for example, is a story which no Christian would claim to be historically accurate, but it is accurate in painting a picture of love for a neighbor. It is not factual, but it does contain a truth in a beautiful and useful form. Myths that convey morals or hint at greater truths are very necessary to human endeavor. They often contain truths that cannot be communicated otherwise.

Panta Pei: I do not have to claim club membership to appreciate good tales. I simply reject the myths you provide as a significant part of a limiting dogma.

Panta Pei: Human civilization has progressed significantly due to recent secularization and has much to lose within a theistic mindset.

Luvluv: Secularization has also provided us with the nuclear bomb which could well make theistic mindsets, and every other mindset, inconsequential..and non-existant to boot.

Panta Pei: I am sure that this nonsense is taught at your church, however, it is quite a stretch to claim that bombs and genocide are the creation of ‘secularization’. Please open your bible, turn to page 1 and read (no dozing). Perhaps you should investigate the tenets of secular humanism when you get a chance prior to making any of these types of false assumptions.

Luvluv: The God of Human Progress is at least as deficient, inept, and dangerous as you make the God of the Bible out to be.

Panta Pei: I cannot be more clear ~ There is no God. Create or imagine for yourself the enemy of your choice, you are simply one of many who look at each other and merely refuse to tell the emperor that he is wearing no clothes.

Please take good care of yourself and hug a cop

~ Steve

PS I almost forgot...and you are also incorrect regarding your assertions regarding 'porno and morality'

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>

ju'iblex

I have collated these points from the beginning of your saga that are relevant to porn, except for pages 2 and 6 which, for some strange reason I cannot access. So the main bulk of your argument seems to rest on your statement:

“Women are different from men”


which, you have nowhere been able to prove, even with your consistent cries of “Fukiyama!”.

You have not been able to prove anywhere, that women have a different motivation for sex than men, are more monogamous, porno is destructive, and that pornography in any way has a negative effect on women. Most of the reasons you have given, stem from your own personal belief and are thus a priori. All ‘evidence’ you have given is not a) relevant, b) supported.

Evidence 1: you constantly claim bonduca, Lady Shea et al. Are different to the bulk of women,
how can you claim to know what is a normal woman, and all the women you know are normal? how is the fact you know a couple of people who have a had a bad experience have any kind of a bearing on what the porn industry in general involves?

Evidence 2: a number of psychologists, you have been asked to present, but have not. Hardly evidence, but this seems to be your main source of back-up.

Evidence 3: An isolated case, that is not supported and the source doesn’t even claim to be fact. This is obvious from the use of the words “may” and “probably”.

Evidence 4: A strange irrelevant figure, unsupported.

Evidence 5: a priori

Interesting, none of the evidence you have presented is worthy of the title ‘evidence’, nor is any of it relevant to the bulk majority of your points. So how is it you still manage to cling to the argument that porn is bad?

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: juiblex ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I can't help but suspect that this is the result of the fact that (I believe) Gonherea and syphillis are curable. I don't know if the other diseases are. Other than that I find it hard to fathom why syphillis has all but been eliminated yet certain other diseases are steadily increasing overall.

Syphillis and Gonorrhea have obvious symptoms. Chlamydia, as I recall, rarely is symptomatic in men, and sometimes is not in women either; herpes is cyclical; people are often unaware that they have these diseases. That may explain the disparity. Additionally, Federal funding for these diseases differs, and the different rates may simply reflect the level of Federal interest.

Vorkosigan

luvluv

"Panta Pei: you should love your ‘brother’ based upon simple human compassion available without metaphors or fairy sky deities.

Luvluv: Why should I?

Panta Pei: Because would be more sincere, honest and real."

No, why should I love my brother at all?

"As a violent crimes investigator, I apply the basic critical standard of probable cause to the issue. In layperson’s terms, I make observations based of facts and circumstances not on appeals to imagination or emotion regarding this important issue. So, the fact that any theistic claims are entirely based on myth, supernaturalism, fairy tales and not on reality in plain view, they do not meet this very simple standard. Thanks for asking, luvluv, it is my hope that this may help bring you understanding."

I'm not convinced. Can you share with me exactly how you proceeded to solve the "case" of God?

"Panta Pei: Credulity = If two things don't fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden, there must be a third thing that connects them."

There is no contradiction in Jesus's statement that we are to love God first, and then love one another second. I imagine you love your children (if you have them) and you probably love your friends. But if push came to shove, who comes first? Probably your children. Does that mean that you cannot love your friends? No. It simply means you prioritize. When there are rival claims on time and devotion in a Christians life between God and anything else, the Christian is supposed to choose God. If you are on your way to take your children to Disney World and God asks you to take 15 minutes and pray for a loved one, you wait the 15 minutes even if your kids beg you not to. If your wife wants you to take your Christmas bonus and buy her a fur coat and you believe God wants you to give your Christmas bonus to the needy, you obey God. That is all those two versus mean. When Christ talked about setting brother against brother, He was talking about the potentially disruptive force Christianity was to close relationships. Obviously, to have a new first allegiance is going to cause some turbulence in human relations, but in the end the turbulence will yield good results. Yes, certain human relationships can be ruined by a person finding a new First Cause, but that same persons overall relationship to humanity can be improved. If you are an "out" atheist, I'm sure that many of your relationships have been strained, even ruined, by your commitment. Does that mean that you should stop being atheist so as not to ruin your relationships? No. Sometimes a commitment to what you perceive to be the truth outweighs friendships, marriages, allegiances, everything. This is what Christ meant when He said that whoever does not love Him more than mother or brother is not worthy of Him.

"Panta Pei: Your continued contradictions speak volumes for the theistic mindsnare. Feel free to buy the ‘sickness and the cure’ of your dogma, but please try not to be taken aback if I find it disingenuous and downright silly."

What contradiction, exactly? Christians believe that Jesus was something more than human, who because of his love for humanity, humbled himself and became "numbered with the transgressors" in order to bring us into relationship with God. He does come first, like your atheism comes first with you. You would not, I would wager, abandon what you consider to be the truth for the sake of your friendships. But you probably believe that your commitment to atheism makes you a better friend to those people who still choose to be your friend. It is no different with Christianity.

"Panta Pei: Please spare me your pretentiousness, luvluv. I trust the real people who exist who have exhibited allegiance as well as the real rope ladder that I physically put my hands on and climb. Again, to equate an imaginary deity with real people in existence is an affront to sensibility and trivializes true love and compassion."

On what basis do you trust people? On the basis that they are corporeal? That they are visible? That their existence can be objectively proven? That the bleed when you prick them? Or do you trust them on the basis of their reliability? Their faithfulness? Their dependability in delivering on their promises? Can only the visible, corporeal, and objectively proveable keep promises? If this "mythical" being keeps all His promises to me, and if believing in Him makes me a better person, and if His words have proven true to me through repeated trial, can I not trust Him?

"It is exactly the extent to which christians adhere to their dogma that is immutably limiting to human progress and peace."

Please give an example.

"Panta Pei: Yes. As I said, ‘it is my understanding’ that the fundamentalists (aka true and literal christians) have interpreted the canon to include those ‘non-literalists’ like yourself as cursed and damned as we non-believers."

A) What gives you the right to decide who is a true Christian?

B) I don't see what the relavence of what these so-called "true Christians" beliefs is to our discussion. If you find those beliefs objectionable, perhaps you should discuss them with someone who believes them.

"Panta Pei: Do tell, please denote the fabulous from the factual and the probable cause to establish each as such so that I may better understand your fantastic perpective."

The "Fall of Adam" myth is in Genesis. The story of Jesus' death and ressurection is in the New Testament. They are both part of Christianity, but not part of the same myth. I do not regard all of the Bible as simply a myth. It is an attempt at history, even if some of it is not accurate history, as a critical thinker, we cannot simply overlook the original writers' intent. A myth is only a myth if the writer intended it to be a myth, and intended it's meaning to be taken allegorically. A story does not become a myth, from a literary standpoint, simply because you do not believe it is true.

"Panta Pei: Two texts? Are you referring to a concordance of some sort or other theologian for support of your dogma?"

There is one Bible, and many myths within the Bible, along with attempts at history, poetry, proverbs, and parables. You may disbelieve the whole thing but that does not make the entire document a myth. The Fall of Adam is one story, the ressurection of Christ is another.

"[No mythology], including christian mythos, are any way to propose an honest participation with the natural beauty of the very real universe."

Really? So Aesop's fables, books like Of Mice and Men, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn, The Grapes of Wrath, have no ability to transfer moral truths?

"Panta Pei: I am sure that this nonsense is taught at your church, however, it is quite a stretch to claim that bombs and genocide are the creation of ‘secularization’. Please open your bible, turn to page 1 and read (no dozing). Perhaps you should investigate the tenets of secular humanism when you get a chance prior to making any of these types of false assumptions."

I did not say bombs or genocide, I said the nuclear bomb. Certainly, the desire to kill is as old as man, but the artifact that may end humanity is the product of secularization, and the foundation of secularization, science. Secularization, overall, is a good thing, but it is not an entirely good thing. To seperate all human endeavors from moral truths and from moral responsibility... a "value-free" science... has it's drawbacks.

Panta Pei

And I counter, yet again

"No, why should I love my brother at all? "

I seem to understand the question, luvluv, and the answer is still that it is more sincere, honest and real to do so.

To expound on this point or to at least make it more clear to you ~ I find it ludicrous and disingenuous to love others simply because a particular subset of humans propose that an invisible, supernatural santa claus promises to reward me with yum-yums or eternally spank me if I do not behave or ‘show’ love to others.

Again, my advice to you would be to find the time to access a secular humanist website and read some of their material. Or, perhaps, you should read the preamble to the US Constitution for insight. It begins, “We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility…”.

Atheism merely disbelieves in supernatural deities.

Morals and ethics remain a strong part of my life both at work in law enforcement and in my personal endeavors.

Your self-created atheist or secular enemy does not stand the test of real evidence and only exists within your dogma.

I am not ‘value-free’.

"I'm not convinced. Can you share with me exactly how you proceeded to solve the "case" of God?"

I already did.

Please reread the stated ‘case’ again at your leisure. Be unconvinced if you will regarding your deity Yahweh, however, these are the same criteria you use to disbelieve in Zeus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Peter Pan, etc.

"There is no contradiction in Jesus's statement that we are to love God first, and then love one another second. "

Luvluv, I contributed to this post as I was offended at the very idea that somehow humans are required to place their love in an imaginary deity before the real love of true people in their very midst.

You argued a few posts ago that this was not the case, in your opinion, and then spelled out your defense of Christ. Now, it appears (yet, again) that you are speaking with forked tongue.

This is hard evidence that your dogma is a true cult of mindsnared individuals willing to remove critical thought from the issue, in favor of circuitous and dishonest methods of defending it at all costs.

"I imagine you love your children (if you have them) and you probably love your friends. But if push came to shove, who comes first? Probably your children. Does that mean that you cannot love your friends? No. It simply means you prioritize."

True, I do prioritize. However, I do not place above the love of real family and friends some imaginary supernatural booga-booga or the convenient representative authority of the deluded who do.

"When there are rival claims on time and devotion in a Christians life between God and anything else, the Christian is supposed to choose God. "

Here again, I agree with you that this is the indoctrinated dogma. And it is this type of cultish behavior that I find reprehensible, as I stated a mere few posts ago.

"If you are on your way to take your children to Disney World and God asks you to take 15 minutes and pray for a loved one, you wait the 15 minutes even if your kids beg you not to. "

I have never heard from “God” and neither have you, luvluv. It is one of a variety of fictional characters found in many primitive cultures. You merely pretend.

"If your wife wants you to take your Christmas bonus and buy her a fur coat and you believe God wants you to give your Christmas bonus to the needy, you obey God."

Very emotionally appealing, luvluv, however, “God” should be more concerned with air travel these days.

BTW I am a very generous person when it comes to charitable giving and, since I can’t figure out the tax laws regarding it, I merely give the hand out and hope it brings someone comfort.

I Hope this fact doesn’t bring too much confusion to your dogmatic world.

"That is all those two versus mean. When Christ talked about setting brother against brother, He was talking about the potentially disruptive force Christianity was to close relationships. "

Yeah, luvluv, that’s a real no-shitter. Your proud proclamation of such offense speaks for itself.

"Obviously, to have a new first allegiance is going to cause some turbulence in human relations, but in the end the turbulence will yield good results. "

I’ll stick with the honest allegiance of real love, thanks, anyway.

Future post-mortum promises are the worst kind of sham and not the basis of sound relationships.

"Yes, certain human relationships can be ruined by a person finding a new First Cause, but that same persons overall relationship to humanity can be improved. If you are an "out" atheist, I'm sure that many of your relationships have been strained, even ruined, by your commitment. "

Again, another no-shitter, there.

My commitment to truth, honest love, compassion and real affection has seemed to hamper my personal relationship with those who chose bullshit over simple reality.

This was the motive for my initial post on this thread. You have done everything to confirm my worst fears regarding the cult of Christianity and its adverse effects on human relations.

"Does that mean that you should stop being atheist so as not to ruin your relationships? No. Sometimes a commitment to what you perceive to be the truth outweighs friendships, marriages, allegiances, everything. "

I will not believe that God(s), winged fairies, horned monsters, or other such nonsense is reality. That my wife still does, despite all real evidence to the contrary, is currently a burden that continues to sour that which, without Christianity, would be an unreachable romance.

"This is what Christ meant when He said that whoever does not love Him more than mother or brother is not worthy of Him. "

I will say it again, Christ is a mythical character similar to thousands of other mythic hero sagas and is not a real person to love. Appeal to emotion and escapist imagination all you like, it will not change this fact.

"What contradiction, exactly? "

Well, let’s see, one was when you said Christ was equal to human relationships and then said he was to be above human relationships.

You did it again when you said you were a non-literalist and then said you were a literalist.

…and you have now again confirmed that which I originally proposed, namely, that human beings are required ~ under the Christian dogma~ to place their allegiance and love in a fictional character above real loving humans before them in plain view.

"Christians believe that Jesus was something more than human, who because of his love for humanity, humbled himself and became "numbered with the transgressors" in order to bring us into relationship with God. "

See, you do believe that God sired himself through a human in order to appease his own anger at his own imperfect creation?

After all, who did we allegedly transgress against?

The natural beauty of the universe in plain view is of so much more value than that petty fable.

How many contradictions have you presented us now, luvluv?

"He does come first, like your atheism comes first with you. "

Atheism is merely a disbelief in God(s).

My personality is not based upon a ranking system of several diverse facets. It is the theistic mindset that is fixated with ‘first’ causes in the face of eternal flux.

"You would not, I would wager, abandon what you consider to be the truth for the sake of your friendships. "

I am currently being tested with this very scenario, I’ll try to keep you posted on how in pans out.

"But you probably believe that your commitment to atheism makes you a better friend to those people who still choose to be your friend. It is no different with Christianity."

Utter nonsense. Christianity is the belief in the primacy of a fairy tale, sectioned off into thousands of assorted conflicting clubhouses among even more diverse dogmatic compulsions at violent odds with each other and asserts that the human condition is a disease.

Atheism is merely the disbelief in God(s).

My ‘commitment’ is to unmitigated honesty and reality.

"On what basis do you trust people? "

By their deeds and their words.

"On the basis that they are corporeal? "

This is a very good start.

"That they are visible? "

A very likely factor

"That their existence can be objectively proven?"

I often have to ‘see’ them on a case by case basis.

"That the bleed when you prick them? "

Lots and lots, let me tell you.

"Or do you trust them on the basis of their reliability? "

Absolutely. Words and deeds, again.

"Their faithfulness? "

Allegiance is key.

"Their dependability in delivering on their promises? "

Works for me.

"Can only the visible, corporeal, and objectively proveable keep promises?"

I'm glad you asked. The answer is, Yes. So far, after 38 years, this has been a constant.

"If this "mythical" being keeps all His promises to me, and if believing in Him makes me a better person, and if His words have proven true to me through repeated trial, can I not trust Him?"

If, as has been shown, your mind can conjure up an imaginary friend you are willing to suspend all common definitions of what real love and basic compassion are and then make implausible excuses for this ‘friend’s’ behavior despite evidence consistently provided to you to the contrary, you have a very misguided perception of what real trust consists of.

I don’t respond to these threads to compel you to atheism. I merely respond to the injustice of the many falsehoods you espouse that need to be challenged. I do not berate the Christian, just the Christianity.

"Please give an example." on limitations christianity has placed on human progress and peace.

Please refer to the Dark Ages, Inquisition, Galileo, Bruno, Salem Witch Trials and slavery for a mere taste test of irrepressible Christian insanity.

You have seen for yourself the progress secularization has made, despite, your attempts to mischaracterize all of the hope and help it has brought to the human condition regarding education, science, health and understanding.

"A) What gives you the right to decide who is a true Christian?"

I’ll say it again, “it is my understanding” that those that hold to the “fundamentals” of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. have interpreted the canon to include those ‘non-fundamentalists’ like yourself as cursed and damned as we non-believers.

"B) I don't see what the relavence of what these so-called "true Christians" beliefs is to our discussion. If you find those beliefs objectionable, perhaps you should discuss them with someone who believes them."

My point, since you missed the relevance, is that another ‘christian’ may find your ‘myth, myth, not myth, myth, not myth’ interpretations equally objectionable. You, luvluv, are ‘in the same boat’ as it were, regarding your ‘non-belief’ in the fundamentals.

"The "Fall of Adam" myth is in Genesis."

I’m with you. Totally silly story, however, it is the foundation of your religion.

"The story of Jesus' death and ressurection is in the New Testament. They are both part of Christianity, but not part of the same myth. "

And this instruction is provided where?

"I do not regard all of the Bible as simply a myth. "

Why not? What special 3-d glasses do you use to discern out the utter BS?

"It is an attempt at history, even if some of it is not accurate history, as a critical thinker, we cannot simply overlook the original writers' intent. "

An intent that you magically glean from those within your cult. Have you made an attempt to glean the intent of the Koran? The Torah? The Book of Mormon?

Why don’t you buy into any of those?

"There is one Bible, and many myths within the Bible, along with attempts at history, poetry, proverbs, and parables. You may disbelieve the whole thing but that does not make the entire document a myth. The Fall of Adam is one story, the ressurection of Christ is another."

Again, your ability to pick and choose merely places you firmly in the realm of the credulous. Not much more to it than being a ‘non-literal literalist’ depending upon how far you wish to stretch consistency to defend ‘the faith’.

"Really? So Aesop's fables, books like Of Mice and Men, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn, The Grapes of Wrath, have no ability to transfer moral truths?"

As I have said before, I thoroughly enjoy escapist fiction (you seemed to have skipped over that part from my previous post). I do not find in them a proof for real talking monkeys, wizards who walk on water and cater fish and bread to hundreds with thaumaturgy or any other such nonsense.

"I did not say bombs or genocide, I said the nuclear bomb. Certainly, the desire to kill is as old as man, but the artifact that may end humanity is the product of secularization, and the foundation of secularization, science. "

‘Secularization’ did not create the bomb and science is not the foundation of secular humanism. Make for yourself all sorts of pretty strawmen to demonize, but, in your Christian world a loving God is omnipotent and could prevent annihilation at any time. It takes the tiresome theistic two-step to wriggle out of that one.

"Secularization, overall, is a good thing, but it is not an entirely good thing. "

Neither is Playstation2, what is your point?

"To seperate all human endeavors from moral truths and from moral responsibility... a "value-free" science... has it's drawbacks."


Luvluv, listen carefully…ready… ~

a. Morality, responsibility and values do not come from a belief in a fairy sky king or representative authority figures (sages, popes, priests, ministers, Benny Hinn, etc.)

b. Science and humanism are not, at all, ‘value-free’.

It may be helpful to get past these two simple misconceptions.

~ Steve

ju'iblex

wrong forum

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: juiblex ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Well said, Jamie! When dealing with any portion of the sex industry it is wise to remember that these are among the most self-seeking people you will find anywhere. They not only care nothing about their customers, I have the impression that they actively want to harm them if they can. At the very best, they want only your money, as much of it as they can get. I think that explains the total lack of artistic sense in porno movies. They could be much more erotic than they are: two (or more) people who might as well be puppets grinding against each other, with no seduction involved is *boring*. But the producers are not interested in satisfying the customers. Their idea seems to be, "Give them the cheapest product you can produce."

What surprises me is that this industry, where there seems to be a free market at work, hasn't discovered that there would be a niche for really good pornography. (Or maybe I simply haven't discovered it.)

Dark Jedi

You haven't discovered it.
Look in some of the more 'uptown' adult shops and slinky nightwear stores. They call it "Couples erotica" or some variation thereof. It has nice sex scenes and pretty ladies for the men, and an actual plot and erotic buildup for the ladies.