Last week, I was expressing my frustration to a friend about the recent and clear politicial activism, complete with of bucket-of-tax-exempt-money lobbying, by both the LDS and Catholic churches, in the same sex marriage and health care debates raging in this country. Personally, I find this activity reprehensible as well as unquestionably in violation of church-state separation laws; in the Maine and California cases the churches literally millions of dollars from outside the state were thrown into 'sanctity of marriage' campaigns, and in the health care debate we have Catholic lobbying threatening to constrain the right of people to *purchase* insurance that will cover legal health decisions that should be between women and their doctors.

Now I'm not a Christian of any flavor, although I was raised one, but I do remember all that business about '"let he who is without sin throw the first stone' and 'loving one's neighbor as one's self'. So why the tens of millions spent by these organizations expressly for the purpose of *denying rights to others*?

Which brings me to John Marcotte, a California Catholic who 'gets it'. Outraged by the hypocrisy implicit in the Church's activism on Proposition 8 (the prop that made same sex marriage illegal in California), he has started a drive to put a Marriage Protection Act on the California ballot next year making divorce illegal, as well as created the nonprofit Rescuemarriage.org, operating on the premise that 'if we're going to deny rights to others in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, then we should get serious about it and protect marriage at all costs':

http://rescuemarriage.org/

He's already held a couple of rallies at the state capitol, and probably the most amusing part of the site (although he's serious about using this issue for consciousness-raising) can be found in the comments, where clearly some of the respondants don't get that this is intentionally absurd and *agree* with him...

Regards,
Nydia

haha many of my friends are talking about this as well, I think this is a fabulous idea :)

Wait till the man-hating groups that don't get it, get up in arms about not allowing women the right to leave a marriage when she wants to.

Yeah, the firestorm over this could be interesting to watch.

That is awesome.

"So getting a divorce not only makes the baby Jesus cry, it also threatens our very national security."

Good stuff

Thats awesome! the comments section is is pure gold :D

although i am a little worried about that chinese egg hatching thing.

This is silly, for two reasons. The first people do not care about hypocrisy. Second there are states where divorce is illegal already until certain conditions are met.

Sure people care. It's hilarious for those of us that aren't participating in said hypocrisy.

Religion makes me laugh.

Religion makes me laugh.

As much as they like to throw their money into attempts to dictate to government, it is long overdue that the government starts taxing their monies.

Whats sad, is all that millions they bilk off there followers is going to waste, tearing apart other peoples lives. It could have been used to help, say the poor, the sick, the dying etc.. the very things there so called religion is suppose to help or i guess i misread there precious book they fawn and salivate over. Bunch of fakes and hypocrites.
Just shows you they really don't care about anyone, except themselves and there personal agendas, they cheapen and drag there religion down through the same pig shit they dip there pearls in.

Religion has never been about helping out other people. It's about control. Always has been, and probably always will be.

Religion has never been about helping out other people. It's about control. Always has been, and probably always will be.

Statement just doesnt agree with me but i can't put it to words...only thing i could say is that statement is like saying:

Guns are only made for killing, it's about death. Always has been, and probably always will be.

Statement just doesnt agree with me but i can't put it to words...only thing i could say is that statement is like saying:

Guns are only made for killing, it's about death. Always has been, and probably always will be.

Yes, what's your point?

If you are using them for hunting, it is about killing your quarry. If you claim you have it for protection, it is about killing someone trying to harm you or your family before they do you violence. And if you use it only for "sport", the reason for sport is to be good enough to be able to use it for one of the other killing purposes.

Guns are made for killing. They were developed to make an army superior at killing to the next guy's army.

Religion is developed as a means to control. It does not sound right, but when all the frills are cut loose, that is the bare essence. /shrug

I actually agree with Sixee about something. I am going to go pour a drink now.

Yes, what's your point?

If you are using them for hunting, it is about killing your quarry. If you claim you have it for protection, it is about killing someone trying to harm you or your family before they do you violence. And if you use it only for "sport", the reason for sport is to be good enough to be able to use it for one of the other killing purposes.

Guns are made for killing. They were developed to make an army superior at killing to the next guy's army.

Religion is developed as a means to control. It does not sound right, but when all the frills are cut loose, that is the bare essence. /shrug

I actually agree with Sixee about something. I am going to go pour a drink now.

The point he was trying to make I think is that just as Guns can also be to someone for "Preserving and protecting life" the way he defined religion can also be different to someone else.

Religion is developed as a means to control. It does not sound right, but when all the frills are cut loose, that is the bare essence. /shrug

Religion was created as a means of understanding things not quite understood, hardly a system of control - you need to look back a few thousand more years. Sure, there have been certainly numerous times where religion was abused, but I bet there are an equal if not greater number of times where religion was a catalyst for something good.

Charitable giving in this country (and in the world) is driven by religious organizations moreso than any other. It can inspire hope, calm, and peace in patients causing almost ... dare I say miraculous ... recovery from scientifically fatal illnesses and diseases. The major tenants of religion were adopted into almost every legal system in the world: do not steal, do not kill, tell the truth, and to love others as you would have them love you. We are, after all, one nation under god - and in god we trust.

The problem you associate with religion is like associating murder with guns as Greystone put it, or something equally absurd as financial meltdown with mortgages. Bad people will do bad deeds with or without religion, with or without laws, and its just small mindedness to stereotype religion as evil anymore than it is to assume a black guy is going to steal your stereo.

You're making an assumption that "control" implies malicious intent. Most of what you cited as benefits of religion are exactly the reasons that leaders like Constantine co-opted it to help them bring societies into line easier.

Ive always looked at the "laws" of religion, as simply a means for society to function and thrive. be it the Mayas making sacrifices the ten commandments ect Society needs structure and rule to thrive.

It ties a society together and that society can be anything from Scientology to paganism. Religion is tied to human nature to feel accepted to belong, whether to make others feel good or make mends for your own perceived ills on the world. Or force your opinions on.

Its used for good and alot of freaking ills to this day. But it is at the root about control either of your self or the masses for the carrot of ascension can make you feel better about your lot in life, and give hope of something better the next go around. Depending upon what you believe.

Religion makes people feel on an even playing field no matter who they are, Rich poor black white, the next lifes going to be alright !!!

Regardless of intent, I think there's also a difference between religions being developed for control (Scientology, etc.) and religions being co-opted for control (most mainstream religions).

Thank you all for putting to words what i couldnt :P

San makes a good point that control doesnt have to be a negative thing.

Sanchek had it right. Control doesn't not always mean something bad. If a populace follows the tenants of most religions, they will tend to have a functioning society. It is better for the society to have people doing good things (regardless of the reasons), rather than beating/stabbing/shooting each other.

This is not to say that is the reason why most religions were founded. In the absence of rational explanations, religion fills in the scary part of a person's mind that reels at the notion that we are just germs, clinging to a bit of dirt, an an immense void.

You're making an assumption that "control" implies malicious intent. Most of what you cited as benefits of religion are exactly the reasons that leaders like Constantine co-opted it to help them bring societies into line easier.

Bravo!

Religious leaders have always used religion as a means to control the populace, or at least those that adhere to the said religion's beliefs. Believe it or not, the guidance of the Ten Commandments is a basic form of controlling social behavior. /shrug

Pick any sectarian belief system, and you can find the same thing present in any religion's tenets. And B.F. Skinner thought he was breaking new ground! hehe

If you strip away the bullshit, pomp, circumstance, leeway for manipulation and corruption that is self evident in organized religion and you are left with....

Community. Good Sense. Common Sense. Purpose. Hope.

Last time most people checked those were base principles and brutally practical.

The better aspects of Humanity in a nutshell. Like all things abstract though, its all subject to interpretation. Ultimately, Higher Power or not, religion is filtered through imperfect and short lived people who might be on their deathbed when they realize mistakes. So until then we have religion used as an excuse, either because its such a powerful force exploited by the cunning and ambitious to instill fear in the weak minded or the righteous who misinterpreted the abstraction.

All religions have one very basic commonality: their holy book, be it the Bible or Quran or whatever, was written by a man, or men, and; any and all revisions of the original work have been done by men with agendas, either good or bad.

All religions have one very basic commonality: their holy book, be it the Bible or Quran or whatever, was written by a man, or men, and; any and all revisions of the original work have been done by men with agendas, either good or bad.

Again, that couldn't be further from the truth. The Jewish faith was around centuries before Moses wrote the Torah. As far as we know the Egyptian, Greek, Norse and Roman religions didn't have any written doctorine. Native Americans who worshiped never had a book of rules to follow, but could tell quite a great story about the Coyote and Possum spirits. As for modern religion, Buddhism doesn't have a central text. The Daoedjing (I think that's what its called) of Taoism is hardly similar in any way to the Bible/Torah/Koran. The Hindu Shuruti is probably the closest thing to a "bible" they have, but it reads more like Homer's Illiad than a series of religious rules and laws. Etc etc etc.

Christianity is only about 2000 years old, Islam is about 1400 years old and both are based on Judaism so they would naturally share similar aspects. However, homo sapiens are about 200,000 years old - there is a whole lot of history and like four other continents there you are ignoring.

Again, that couldn't be further from the truth. The Jewish faith was around centuries before Moses wrote the Torah. As far as we know the Egyptian, Greek, Norse and Roman religions didn't have any written doctorine. Native Americans who worshiped never had a book of rules to follow, but could tell quite a great story about the Coyote and Possum spirits. As for modern religion, Buddhism doesn't have a central text. The Daoedjing (I think that's what its called) of Taoism is hardly similar in any way to the Bible/Torah/Koran. The Hindu Shuruti is probably the closest thing to a "bible" they have, but it reads more like Homer's Illiad than a series of religious rules and laws. Etc etc etc.

Christianity is only about 2000 years old, Islam is about 1400 years old and both are based on Judaism so they would naturally share similar aspects. However, homo sapiens are about 200,000 years old - there is a whole lot of history and like four other continents there you are ignoring.


Ummm, you did not show anything to contradict that their Holy Books were written by men. That was the point I stated, using two religions as examples. Please read what is written and not what you wish to argue about, and the conversation will flow more smoothly. :)

You suggested that ALL the religions were 3 out of hundreds, which was very incorrect. As for the Torah/Old Testament probably everyone knows it was Moses who wrote the majority, much like how it was three apostles and Dr. Luke who wrote the beginning of the new testament. I am sure there are some sects of Judism and Christianity that believe it was God writing through these people (and good luck proving otherwise), but most believe that these were writen by men - not that loving god and then loving each other is a horrible message regardless of who wrote it. After all, wars were fought over "We the people..." which was also written by man. As for the Koran, there isn't a muslim in the world who would tell you it was written by Allah ... it was written by Muhammad, his prophet.

As for the original point of this topic, I think the new testament in the bible would put Jesus' stance on the matter pretty clear ... he would want Christians to support our gay brothers and sisters as we would want them to support us. The problem lies with people reading the early laws for the nation of Israel in Liviticus while ignoring context or what Jesus said later to clarify. And they don't want to read the bible or listen to anything other than what they want to believe - religion aside - because they are biggoted people. They will be biggoted with or without the religions you demonize.

You suggested that ALL the religions were 3 out of hundreds, which was very incorrect. As for the Torah/Old Testament probably everyone knows it was Moses who wrote the majority, much like how it was three apostles and Dr. Luke who wrote the beginning of the new testament. I am sure there are some sects of Judism and Christianity that believe it was God writing through these people (and good luck proving otherwise), but most believe that these were writen by men - not that loving god and then loving each other is a horrible message regardless of who wrote it. After all, wars were fought over "We the people..." which was also written by man. As for the Koran, there isn't a muslim in the world who would tell you it was written by Allah ... it was written by Muhammad, his prophet.

As for the original point of this topic, I think the new testament in the bible would put Jesus' stance on the matter pretty clear ... he would want Christians to support our gay brothers and sisters as we would want them to support us. The problem lies with people reading the early laws for the nation of Israel in Liviticus while ignoring context or what Jesus said later to clarify. And they don't want to read the bible or listen to anything other than what they want to believe - religion aside - because they are biggoted people. They will be biggoted with or without the religions you demonize.

And again, you show you simply want to argue. I have not demonized religion in these posts.

I'm with Kelraz. You made a hasty generalization that was completely incorrect. You should expect to get called out when you post something that is blatantly incorrect.

It's not about his desire to argue. You posted something with glaring falsities.

His broad point wasn't incorrect. Whether revolving around a written text or not, none of these religions' tenets are materializing out of thin air. Whoever interprets the rules or supposedly has <insert deity>'s ear will subjectively influence the religion.

On a related note: Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations (http://dailycow.org/system/files/article_0.pdf).

On a related note: Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations (http://dailycow.org/system/files/article_0.pdf).
Page not found

The requested page could not be found.

Mirror: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al

I find it more interesting from that link that it appears that Asians seem to have a between 8 and 15% higher IQ than most European/North American countries.

I think we can all agree that religion in and of itself is not inherently bad. But when people decide to stop thinking, and follow whoever's interpertation of whatever faith without question is where I have a problem. Nothing good ever seems to come from blind faith, whether it be Judiasm or Global Warming (notice I didn't say Climate Change).

I think we can all agree that religion in and of itself is not inherently bad.

Religion has never been about helping out other people. It's about control. Always has been, and probably always will be.

Yeah?

I find it more interesting from that link that it appears that Asians seem to have a between 8 and 15% higher IQ than most European/North American countries.

I don't put too much credence in an IQ test, personally. I scored a 128 as a kid, and I certainly don't feel any smarter than average - if anything it allowed for me to fuck around in school for 1 hour a day in the "gifted" program, so I'm probably dumber than your average person. IQ tests pretty consistently have women score lower than men, yet most of the women I'm around are leagues smarter than me. So many other factors like diet and culture and so forth are also directly related to your IQ, which could be why an Asian culture would seem to do better than ours. And of course, IQ isn't a record of if the person is smart or isn't, its simply the barometer of if they could be or not.

Yeah?

Yeah. Control isn't a bad thing. It can be, in the wrong hands. I put forth the point, earlier that societies benefit from a populace that doesn't beat/stab/shoot each other. Many people believe if you do these things, you are punished not only in this world, but in the afterlife as well. This is a good side of control.

Where it gets all whacked out, is when someone decides to abuse that control, whether it be for personal gain, or to further their own agenda. This is a bad side of control, but isn't directly related to what religion is supposed to be about.

So religion is about control and not about helping out your fellow man but in and of itself is not inherently bad.

That plain enough for you?

I don't put too much credence in an IQ test, personally. I scored a 128 as a kid, and I certainly don't feel any smarter than average -

I agree, per a test i took in 3rd grade and again in 11th, i have a 144 IQ, and most of you think i am a dumb ass :P

I'm with Kelraz. You made a hasty generalization that was completely incorrect. You should expect to get called out when you post something that is blatantly incorrect.

It's not about his desire to argue. You posted something with glaring falsities.


I am still waiting for one of you to point out a Holy Book from any religion that was not written by men, which is what I stated. Back in my early 20's I was studying world religions (Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christianity, etc, etc) and the most common theme was the attempt to control behavior of a social group. The underlying commonality was that all written scriptures and such were produced by men, which raises the question of motivations guiding the writings.

Take your holier than thou attitudes and shove them if you cannot refute such a simple statement. I was not looking to argue, or demean anyone or anyone's beliefs. If you want to argue, bring your bullshit on but do it with something concrete, please.

I can argue or I can leave. These boards are done and it matters little anymore how these threads evolve.

Originally Posted by Bylimet Spiritwalker http://ayonae.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ayonae.com/showthread.php?p=176502#post176502)
All religions have one very basic commonality: their holy book, be it the Bible or Quran or whatever, was written by a man, or men, and; any and all revisions of the original work have been done by men with agendas, either good or bad.

All religions DON'T have as a basic commonality their holy book. Many religions today don't have a "holy book" as I explained earlier, only a very small handful of sects of the various mainstream religions even imply that it it written by God as I also explained earlier. Plus all of the mainstream religions existed in one form or another before books existed, as coincidentally I also explained earlier.

So what you should have wrote, if you still wish to pretend that is what you meant, is that "OF the religions that have a holy book ALL of those books were written by man and all have agendas" - but that still is a fairly pointless statement since obviously all books are written by men with agendas. You were inferring that ALL (incorrectly) holy books were written by men with agendas, yet under some sort of ruse were selling the books as written by their deity - and I've already explained to you how that is incorrect.

Of educational interest, you may want to look into Shinto, Byl, it's the somewhat unofficial state religion of Japan, which has no particular claims of divine inspiration in its dogma other than the deification of the imperial house (which while still an obvious mechanism of control is much different in practice). It's probably one of the last remaining examples of what religion probably looked like world-wide prior to the combination of religious empires and pervasive writing.

I do see the "morality from religion" trope being brought out, and while I have no interest in arguing that point I will say that virtually all modern behavioral research indicates the exact opposite is true. "Morality" is an emergent property of our own psychological development and is constructed based on many pre-civilization developments; it is almost present in various forms in numerous other primates and advanced mammals, and possibly even in ants.

Originally Posted by Bylimet Spiritwalker http://ayonae.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ayonae.com/showthread.php?p=176502#post176502)
All religions have one very basic commonality: their holy book, be it the Bible or Quran or whatever, was written by a man, or men, and; any and all revisions of the original work have been done by men with agendas, either good or bad.



Kelraz already gave you new education on why this sentence you started your post with was patently false.

Now get bent asshole.

Now get bent asshole.

And the award for most disproportional overreaction goes to...

Kelraz already gave you new education on why this sentence you started your post with was patently false.

Now get bent asshole.


KK, bye bye.



And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. I am out.

Srsly wtf guys?

byl just ignore him and dont go

I believe in God, however I don't believe in any man made interpretations of God's will or demands.

The reason I believe in god is personal, it is because I have had things happen in my life at moments I was the most down that have given me just the push I needed to keep going. Payments for things I never paid for and had no way of paying for that all of a sudden I got bills showing I was owed a credit. Little things that I cannot explain.

I believe all of this has happened because I try to be the best person I can be. I help people when they need it and I can.

Sorry but I don't think god cares if I eat pork, or if I have sex before I am married... I don't think god would consider a man of higher worth then a female, or any of the other dumb things "Religion" claims to be the words of God.

Any argument in favor of religions validity is completely sustained by FAITH, and a false belief in a book written by man.(When a book is present... When there is no book, its even worse. Word of MOUTH?)

Defending religion for the good it has done does not validate its existence.

I believe in God, however I don't believe in any man made interpretations of God's will or demands.

The reason I believe in god is personal, it is because I have had things happen in my life at moments I was the most down that have given me just the push I needed to keep going. Payments for things I never paid for and had no way of paying for that all of a sudden I got bills showing I was owed a credit. Little things that I cannot explain.

I believe all of this has happened because I try to be the best person I can be. I help people when they need it and I can.

Sorry but I don't think god cares if I eat pork, or if I have sex before I am married... I don't think god would consider a man of higher worth then a female, or any of the other dumb things "Religion" claims to be the words of God.

Any argument in favor of religions validity is completely sustained by FAITH, and a false belief in a book written by man.(When a book is present... When there is no book, its even worse. Word of MOUTH?)

Defending religion for the good it has done does not validate its existence.

I nominate this for Jedd's Best Post of the Year 2009

BTW, the whole "boards are dead" is going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people keep saying it.

Let's look at Jedd's post for some religious context, too. Pork being unclean first appeared in religious text in Isiah, and it was out of his mouth that swine was unclean. And at the time it probably was, there were probably parasite conditions that made people ill which caused the nation of Israel to make it illegal. Similiarly to eating kosher (seperate meals and dishes for meat and dairy, and no shellfish) these were a combination of health concerns in a pre-refridgeration world and animal rights issues (combining meat of a child with its mother's milk is a bit brutal, despite how much I love my cheeseburgers). Now these practices are more about self sacrifice in respect of God moreso than religious commandments.

Most of the weird religious laws from the religious texts aren't that weird in context.

Let's look at Jedd's post for some religious context, too. Pork being unclean first appeared in religious text in Isiah, and it was out of his mouth that swine was unclean. And at the time it probably was, there were probably parasite conditions that made people ill which caused the nation of Israel to make it illegal. Similiarly to eating kosher (seperate meals and dishes for meat and dairy, and no shellfish) these were a combination of health concerns in a pre-refridgeration world and animal rights issues (combining meat of a child with its mother's milk is a bit brutal, despite how much I love my cheeseburgers). Now these practices are more about self sacrifice in respect of God moreso than religious commandments.

Most of the weird religious laws from the religious texts aren't that weird in context.

Context doesn't matter... You pointed out the exact reason I don't care for religion. Something came up, and some people wrote it into a holy book because there was a reason for it. Sorry, but I don't want to live my life by that.

I prefer listening to the news or getting a fax from the local police department with things to watch out for, not reading an ancient text!

Context doesn't matter... You pointed out the exact reason I don't care for religion. Something came up, and some people wrote it into a holy book because there was a reason for it. Sorry, but I don't want to live my life by that.

I prefer listening to the news or getting a fax from the local police department with things to watch out for, not reading an ancient text!

Context is everything about the topic that does matter, and its failure to realize that which leads a lot of people to believe things like what started this thread. Understanding the context of topics on slavery, women's rights, homosexuality, and even the number of times a man should fuck his wife (once a month for a camel driver like you Jedd, once a week for a scholar like me) can give real different results. To assume that a list of man-made laws (such that swine shouldn't be eaten from Leviticus) was a law from God is simply ridiculousness. However, for religions to respect the tradition and to practice acts such as not eating pork, or not eating meat on Fridays, or not eating meat and dairy during the same meal, or to give up something you really like for 40 days; all are entirely about self sacrifice and reflecting on how good we have it when its all boiled down.

There really are only a very minor handful of religious rules, similar to most religions, and they are pretty common sense ... summarized down into "Love Thy Neighbor". Hell, all of the mainstream religions even have a built in expectation that you won't even be successful at following that one - and if you're sorry about it, its ok.

As for ancient texts, the Constitution is over 200 years old. At what age does it become unimportant? After all, the Koran is only 1400 years old and the Bible is only 1850 years old or so. More importantly though, unlike (or very similar depending on who you speak with) the Constitution these are very open to interpretation - which is one of the first things everyone should be taught about religion. That part sounds like it was missed by a lot.

My favorite religious quote comes from Dogma, when Rufus (Chris Rock) put it, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

Context is everything about the topic that does matter, and its failure to realize that which leads a lot of people to believe things like what started this thread. Understanding the context of topics on slavery, women's rights, homosexuality, and even the number of times a man should fuck his wife (once a month for a camel driver like you Jedd, once a week for a scholar like me) can give real different results. To assume that a list of man-made laws (such that swine shouldn't be eaten from Leviticus) was a law from God is simply ridiculousness. However, for religions to respect the tradition and to practice acts such as not eating pork, or not eating meat on Fridays, or not eating meat and dairy during the same meal, or to give up something you really like for 40 days; all are entirely about self sacrifice and reflecting on how good we have it when its all boiled down.

There really are only a very minor handful of religious rules, similar to most religions, and they are pretty common sense ... summarized down into "Love Thy Neighbor". Hell, all of the mainstream religions even have a built in expectation that you won't even be successful at following that one - and if you're sorry about it, its ok.

As for ancient texts, the Constitution is over 200 years old. At what age does it become unimportant? After all, the Koran is only 1400 years old and the Bible is only 1850 years old or so. More importantly though, unlike (or very similar depending on who you speak with) the Constitution these are very open to interpretation - which is one of the first things everyone should be taught about religion. That part sounds like it was missed by a lot.

My favorite religious quote comes from Dogma, when Rufus (Chris Rock) put it, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

That was some of the dumbest shit I have heard as a response ever... You admit it is written by man and that it is not gods word yet you defend it.

What purpose do I have with a code of ethics and a way of life that is preached to me if it is written by my fellow man and not by God. Like I said... If I am to take cues from other people, I will listen to the news or refer to my local police bulletin.

The part about an ancient text was obviously a joke, but your comparison to the Constitution is laughable. The Constitution is not being defended by a mass of people as the word of God. We know it was written by men, and we respect the men who wrote it and their beliefs and therefore will follow them and their wisdom in the way we run our country.

They never had to lie to us and pretend that they spoke the words of God.

I am sorry that you believe in the written words of others as divine fact and live your life in accordance to the laws and lessons they put forth. I try to be my best not because some book tells me.

I would also like to hear how you feel about the way a women should be treated according to your Bible!

Context is important, but then again so is relevance. I think that is the basis of both of your arguments.

That was some of the dumbest shit I have heard as a response ever... You admit it is written by man and that it is not gods word yet you defend it.

What purpose do I have with a code of ethics and a way of life that is preached to me if it is written by my fellow man and not by God. Like I said... If I am to take cues from other people, I will listen to the news or refer to my local police bulletin.

The part about an ancient text was obviously a joke, but your comparison to the Constitution is laughable. The Constitution is not being defended by a mass of people as the word of God. We know it was written by men, and we respect the men who wrote it and their beliefs and therefore will follow them and their wisdom in the way we run our country.

They never had to lie to us and pretend that they spoke the words of God.

I am sorry that you believe in the written words of others as divine fact and live your life in accordance to the laws and lessons they put forth. I try to be my best not because some book tells me.

I would also like to hear how you feel about the way a women should be treated according to your Bible!

And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't use that many big words, I doubt this is simply a problem of you misunderstanding.

Context is important, but then again so is relevance. I think that is the basis of both of your arguments.

You're very right. The laws of Israel have long since stopped being relevant, hence them not being enforced anymore - or really practiced outside of a few sects of Judaism (or in the case of swine, which Jedd brought up, also parts of the Muslim faith).

As with all man made creations, the bible is filled with flaws and contradictions galore. Written over centuries by many different authors and edited by many others. Some of it, especially the earlier stuff, came out of oral story's, passed down through tribal chiefs or shamans or who ever was the good story teller.
Hell, alot of the early old testament you could say was stolen/borrowed history or fairytales from the Babylonians and the Sumerians, the earliest civilizations back then. The creation, the flood etc..
It was written by simple minded folk of a by gone ancient era, with an outdated point of view of the world around them, fear and awe of the unknown. Most of the bible and all other religious text have no meaning in this future age that we live in today.
We should be beyond ancient man made texts. We should all Believe in a Creator/God/Force/ or what ever on our own terms, through our own spiritual path, you could say. Or we dont need to believe at all, if thats your fancy.
Each new generation that is born, we shed more and more of those old superstitions. Men and woman are equal, Gay folk will marry on the same level as straight, racism will finally be put at an end etc..etc..
Were nothing like our grandparents were, there mentality wise.
Were breeding those bias out. Its only a matter of time.

Course, not everything is bad in those religious books, trim out all the out dated nonsense crap, and keep the things that have relevance to the here and now, the jesus parables and stuff from the bible are still good stuff. But alot of the crap that came after his so called death, is just plain crap and can be scraped. The old testament is fine for alot of the history stuff but all the law bullshit kind of stuff aka leviticus type junk should be scraped and put aside as a museum piece, to remind folks how some people use to think back in ancient times.

I like pork and shellfish.

With a glass of milk?