Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
111 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,132 Year: 6,244/6,534 Month: 437/650 Week: 207/278 Day: 3/44 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 5 of 175 (789858)
08-21-2016 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
08-20-2016 6:38 PM


I'll note that the OP has very little connection to the supposed subject.

quote:

What does the evidence show us regarding international relations, global finance, the steady decline of the United States both morally and financially, and the rise of false religion the world over?

Is there a moral decline in the United States ? In many respects things seem to have improved since the 1950s. Despite the efforts of "Biblical Christians".

quote:

Are the secular humanists right? Is religion and ancient beliefs threatening a logical and rational future for our planet and ourselves?

For an example in the U.S. I would point to "Biblical Christians". I cannot say that all of them are liars who want to destroy freedoms held since the Bill of Rights (or even the passing of the Constitution) or even followers of those liars - but there are enough of them who speak loudly enough to make the point.

quote:

Or are the Christian literalists right? Are we all doomed to a bleak future by our actions of rejecting God and seeking to deify ourselves as the ultimate source of wisdom and logic?

I would say that many add hypocrisy to the lies when they make such claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 08-20-2016 6:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


(4)
Message 12 of 175 (789897)
08-22-2016 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
08-21-2016 7:18 PM


Re: Where is the problem?
So basically your objection is that humanists have beliefs that you don't like. Thus you call them arrogant and invent false accusations against them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 08-21-2016 7:18 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 08-22-2016 5:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 15 of 175 (789908)
08-22-2016 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
08-22-2016 5:32 AM


Re: Where is the problem?
quote:

Where did i invent any false accusations?

Does this ring any bells ?


Here comes the gestapo again! The thought police outlawing any expression of worship towards the supernatural which they in their arrogance and ignorance cannot see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 08-22-2016 5:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 113 of 175 (866796)
11-16-2019 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
11-16-2019 3:52 AM


Re: Humanist Clout vs Theocratic Clout
quote:
Granted we do not worship the State, at least not knowingly. But if the state passes a law which some disagree with, the answer is not simply for them to leave. The answer is the right to obey the God of your choic

Just as Faith ignores the Bible and mKes up her own “God’s Law” to demand that discrimination against gays should be permitted? (Or rather to ignore the issue she’s addressing and demand that gay marriage is banned)

Banning gay marriage is, of course demanding that others obey Faith’s God so I hope you don’t include that.

But the target she’s supposedly addressing - anti-discrimination laws - are a problem. Some Christians, believing that their God demanded racial segregation refused to serve non-whites, and there were not always acceptable alternatives. That’s why the US has laws against such discrimination.

The general rule is that religion is not an excuse to disobey a valid law. A law intended to target a particular religious group is not allowed but a law that happens to disadvantage a religious group for a valid purpose is valid.

The assertion that gay marriage targets Christians is intende to get around this point. The fact that it is obviously untrue never seems to worry those pushing it, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 11-16-2019 3:52 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 7:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 115 of 175 (866799)
11-16-2019 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
11-16-2019 7:17 AM


Re: Humanist Clout vs Theocratic Clout
quote:
Talking about me behind my back? Such fine debate form there. Not to mention the lies about me.

You’re a convenient example. And since you’ve lied about me on your blog I hardly think you you are in a position to criticise. Mentioning you on a thread you’ve already posted to is hardly “behind your back”.

So, just your usual “How dare you tell the truth about me, I’m a ***** *********!” Line.

quote:
Everything I say about Christian belief is based on the Bible, including the Moral Law of God.

Really? How does it address the fact that there is no law in the Bible forbidding a Christian from catering to a gay wedding party ?

quote:
And you are ***** about what I've said about gays since I have explicitly objected to "discrimination against gays" as my argument is ALWAYS about gay marriage only and not about gays as such.

You are contradicting yourself there. Denying gay marriage is all about discriminating against gays. Refusing to cater for a wedding party because the couple are gay is discriminating against gays.

quote:
Gay marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Aside from the fact that there isn’t any formal definition that really isn’t relevant. You can refuse to marry another woman all you like. Nobody will object.

quote:
Of course Christians are to obey all the secular laws, EXCEPT WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH GOD'S LAW.

And catering to a gay wedding party doesn’t conflict with anything in the Bible. There is no law against the catering.

quote:
Your post reminds me an awful lot of the way the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump, just by making up stuff they call impeachable though it isn't. Maybe this is becoming the method of choice for the Left on every topic.

Of course there are similarities. I’m telling the truth, you are ***** to try to deny that you did what you did. Which is indeed why you like Trump. He’s as mired in sin as you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 7:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 7:53 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 8:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 119 of 175 (866804)
11-16-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
11-16-2019 7:53 AM


Re: Humanist Clout vs Theocratic Clout
quote:
Where did I talk about you on my blog? It would have been years ago if I did and I have no idea what you are talking about. It wouldn't have been a *** either.

It was years ago and it was a lie. (I can’t imagine why you would think it wasn’t)

quote:
You are not allowed to redefine what I say. Objecting to gay marriage and refusing to serve it is not about gays as such, who are to be treated exactly as everyone else is and I've neer said anything different. MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION that is not for gays, period. YOU DO NOT GET TO REDEFINE THIS.

Of course it is about gays. Gay marriage - as it actually exists - is purely a matter of secular law giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. The only affect of denying it is to discriminate against gays. There is no redefinition required.

quote:
I deny that I did what I did? WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You claimed that you oppose discrimination against gays, yet here you are demanding it. You deny that you invented your own law but you don’t come up with any law against catering to gay wedding parties.

quote:
And what doesw sin have to do with anything?

You love Trump for his sins - some of them at least. That’s why you support the smears and the lies and the cover-up.

quote:
They are making up impeachable doings thaqt are not impeachable

Abuse of power is impeachable - and there is a whole load of evidence that Trump did abuse his power.

quote:
They are ***** and ***** and ***** and ***** and *****,

No, that’s Trump and his defenders.

quote:
... all to get Trump out of office strictly because they don't like him, the tens of millions of us who voted for him don't matter.

Trump doesn’t get a free pass any more than Clinton or Nixon did. And why should the number of votes matter any more than the greater number of votes for Hilary Clinton mattered to the Ekectiral College?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 7:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 8:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 122 of 175 (866808)
11-16-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
11-16-2019 8:24 AM


Re: Humanist Clout vs Theocratic Clout
quote:
What did I say about you on my blog? I know it wasn't a *** because I don't ***, but I don't remember it. Is that why you've been so unbelievably ***** to me all these years?

You don’t lie? That’s a contender for the biggest lie on this forum.

If I recall correctly it was the assertion that I “wouldn’t ,eat you have your beliefs”. Which was completely untrue.

And no, I haven’t been unbelievably ***** to you. You’re the nastiest regular poster on this site.

quote:
Stop ***** about me. There is no discrimination against gays as such, they are not barred from anything anyone else may enjoy. Marriage is not for gays.

So there you are demanding that the state discriminate against gays based purely on your religious belief. Which has no place in US law.
Again, it is purely a matter of secular law.

quote:
Stop ***** about me. I support Trump for his policies, for objecting to abortion, for wanting orderly legal immigration, for wanting a wall at our souther bordern, for improving the economy, putting millions to work, taking them off food stamps, above all and primarily for loving America and putting American interests above all others.

Well let me point out that he’s been putting his own interests ahead of America’s in the Ukraine, and likely in other areas (like the tax. cuts). The wall is a silly waste of money - if it was cost-effective it would have been done earlier.

quote:
He has done nothing wrong in all the Left's attempts to hang something on him

He’s done a number of wrong things. Most of them weren’t serious enough to get past his supporters in the Senate.

quote:
... He did nothing wrong in the phone call, and he'd already been exonerated of any wrongdoinjg by the Mueller report: no collusion, no obstruction of justice, Now they are trying to find something else

Because making military aid dependent on personal favours isn’t wrong ? Even when it is important for American interests? There’s a reason why that transcript was misclassifued. And Mueller did find evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice.

quote:
Everythign they find is something they invent to be something it isn't. They call it impeachable but it's not. Oh they may impeach him anyway and get away with it but all that means is that America is dead.

Why would America be dead if a rogue President is impeached? That’s why impeachment is in the Cinstitution. And which of Trump’s policies - that you care about - would stop if Pence replaced Trump? I can’t imagine Pence doing less about abortion. .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 8:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 130 of 175 (866831)
11-16-2019 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
11-16-2019 11:30 AM


Re: Humanist Clout vs Theocratic Clout
quote:
It's no longer a free country so I'm not allowed to obey God over the state...

Just like the segregationists. But you’re fine with that. Why should you be treated any differently from them ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 11-16-2019 11:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 156 of 175 (866901)
11-17-2019 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
11-17-2019 8:02 AM


Re: The Beginning of the death of freedom in the USA
quote:
No, I believe it is not a free country any more when a Christian cannot obey God without being punished for it, as the businesses who refused to cater a gay wedding were punished..

Except that they are disobeying God. There is no rule forbidding catering to gay wedding parties. And before you argue that they believed that they were obeying God, the exact same may be said of segregationists who also disobeyed anti-discrimination laws.

quote:
It's just the beginning of worse to come as I and many others see it.

The descent of the Right is of far greater concern to anyone with any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 11-17-2019 8:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 11-17-2019 8:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


(1)
Message 159 of 175 (866904)
11-17-2019 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
11-17-2019 8:22 AM


Re: The Beginning of the death of freedom in the USA
quote:
You may not dictate what Christians believe.

And I clearly did not do so.

quote:
It is clear to us that a gay wedding violates the Creation Ordinance of marriage between a man and a woman and that if we participate in a gay wedding we are violating that law.

But you obviously would not be violating that law if all you do is provide paid services. Anyone who marries before being able to move out of their parents home more clearly violates that “law” and yet I doubt very much that you would object.

quote:
All the businesses put in the position of being asked to cater to a gay wedding understood that it violates God's law and had to obey that law instead of the secular law

And yet there is nothing in “God’s law” that justifies such a stance, but there is a requirement to follow the secular law.

quote:
But this is all I want to say about this

Indeed, you have no answer to the fact that your position hardly differs from that of a die-hard segregationist. The only difference is that you are fine with discrimination against gays. Yet you have no better claim of persecution, nor any cause to say that there is any great loss of freedom in extending that anti-discrimination laws to protect gays.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 11-17-2019 8:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022