This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Oromasdes1978

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 194 by Oromasdes1978

It's worth pointing out that gays are not unanimous on the 'should' of any of this. It is entirely possible, as with myself, for a person to be completely liberal about sexuality, have had a gay relationship too, and yet still feel that the phrase 'gay marriage' does not 'make sense'. Maybe that is conditioning, maybe it has a genuine rationale, but whatever it is...it's how the atoms in my brain are aligned.

Has it ever occurred to you that gay people want the same access to the rights that hetero people can take for granted?

Its really simple.

I could quite happily, if the mood took me, marry someone and reap the benefits that it bestows upon those who are married.

I'm never going to, but I do have that freedom to do so if I wish. Gay people do not have that luxury, by this and other ridiculous nonsense they are made to feel and look inferior to us "normal"people.

That is cruel, insane, wrong and highly objectionable.

I do not want to have rights soley on the basis that my sexuality is considered better than others and I will fight to the bitter end to see that gay people no longer have to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior in a society that should know better.

Marriage is a right that all people should have access to if they so wish to do that, doesn't matter if they don't want to, they should have that freedom of choice.

Marriage is about love and commitment - that is NOT soley a heterosexual practice is it? Gay people love and commit to each other just the same as everyone else - what kind of monster would want to prevent people from doing that?

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:51:58 UTC | #929236

Go to: Melvyn Bragg attacks Richard Dawkins' 'atheist fundamentalism'

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Oromasdes1978

Bragg argued that reason was not “the primary source of knowledge”.

Throwing reason out the window seems to work perfectly for Melvyn otherwise he would not be able to construct such hard hitting stupidity!

“Things come to us outside the realms of reason; intimations of love, surprise by joy, little pulses that we don’t know where they come from, we don’t know where they lead to, but they satisfy us or they make us despair. Dawkins shows no respect for religion at all.”

What does having complete ignorance and being really proud of it have to do with Richard showing respect for religion?

He said the King James Bible was the “great trigger” for bringing about modern democracy during the British civil wars of the 17th century and had enabled people to claim their rights.

Yes, it was a good job the King wasn't sticking his nose in the Scottish Church trying to reform it in 1638...none of it was motivated by religion was it Melvyn?

Also it is good to know that the King James Bible does NOT contain information on Unicorns too - that great book of knowledge and everything!

Sorry, but questioning ignorance is a good thing, Melvyn can twist it to make atheists look bad but the facts still remain the same!

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:36:32 UTC | #926954

Go to: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 148 by Oromasdes1978

With great sadness of his passing, I take great joy in having read what he wrote and heard what he said, thank you Christopher Hitchens, thank you so much sir.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:25:36 UTC | #899570

Go to: Yet another flea

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Oromasdes1978

So this is IT is it? Finally, The Book - The One - The Only - Look out Richard!!

All that magnificent work you put in is all for nothing - cos this book is going to destroy atheism once and for all..........

Right?

I bet this is what they are sitting smugly thinking to themselves.

Problem is, without even reading it I can make a very good guess that they a) have not read The God Delusion in it's entirety b) Have quote mined what Richard and others have said and c) have not produced a single argument that hasn't been addressed in The God Delusion already.

What makes me sick is they are using practices as ancient as those who were involved in the Talmud or Bible writing in that they use somebody elses name to make their own nonsense more appealing to read.

Except this isn't their own nonsense, I'll bet it's the same repeated crapulent nonsense being regurgitated and vomitted forth again because they think keeping the importance of ignorance is of the utmost importance. Their "arguments" have already been refuted, they just want to make money and better their reputations in their own small circles of ignorance promoters.

No doubt with that rather asinine joy of "Ooooh I just took on Richard Dawkins, look at how brave I am and sure of my arguments!"

(By the way, my sincere condolences Susan Latimer, I understand how awful it must be for you not only to lose someone like that but to hear all that religious rubbish at the funeral - I've been there and I know the feeling far too well. Take care, I hope things get better for you)

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:02:44 UTC | #894339

Go to: O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by Oromasdes1978

Oh dear Bill, oh dear!

Fascinating interview, I think Richard had a good 5 seconds to talk about the book - pity Bill didn't want to talk about it, but hey ho.

Richard, may I suggest next time you are presented with the 10 Commandments to make some inquiries into whether they are being dutifully followed - for example, check if the interviewer is sacrificing the first born of all their livestock - remembering of course to leave the yeast out and not to leave it remaining on a passover morning - and that they are not cooking young goats in the milk of their mothers!

If they object, please refer them to Exodus 34 where this is all clearly explained.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:12:14 UTC | #879693

Go to: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Oromasdes1978

unique79

Is there something so utterly wrong with science and all the study that has gone into and will go into the exploration of our knowledge and understanding of this universe that just isn't enough for you that you have to hope there is some incredibly improbable nonsense that explains it all? I honestly do not see how wishful thinking about such things makes it any better than the knowledge that we DO have and can prove.

MotherLodeBeth

No human or being "made" the universe, that would be very silly and highly improbable. Plus there is nothing humble about believing nonsense.

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:31:52 UTC | #873066

Go to: Homeopathic leak threatens catastrophe

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Oromasdes1978

AtheistEgbert

There you go again blaming the ducks for global warming - can't you just accept that Deepak Chopra meditated too hard and be done with it?

:D

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:28:28 UTC | #869704

Go to: Homeopathic leak threatens catastrophe

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Oromasdes1978

Michael

It's alright for some isn't it - those of us without Atlantean DNA are all screwed unless I can get these whales to mate!

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:35:11 UTC | #869660

Go to: Homeopathic leak threatens catastrophe

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Oromasdes1978

Oh no....the day we all feared..The Homeopathic version of Chernobyl!

Richard - I think it's too late, there is a nasty wind blowing at the moment...soon we shall all fall victim to the solution which by now has so much diluted memory in it, no amount of blue crystals could possibly counter it...unless...no, it's a stupid idea, it will never work.

Ok, I'll share it...it's risky but times for half measures are over - yes, you guessed it - I'm going to get the Amethyst Crystals out with tapes being played with the sound of mating whales!

Please, don't attempt to stop me, I'm a determined man!

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:13:45 UTC | #869647

Go to: [UPDATE - iPad app]UK & US release info - The Magic of Reality

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by Oromasdes1978

An excellent idea - Richard is a brilliant communicator of knowledge to those new to the subject or who want to learn more and what better way to enhance the learning of children than making reality the focus of wonder and enjoyment.

I'll buy this book for my Oddson for when he grows up, I'm sure he will love it.

I wonder - can we get copies sent to the likes of Rick Perry and others - they seem to be having trouble with reality at the moment and perhaps teaching them as you would a child might finally get through to them! :D

In all seriousness, I am really glad this book is going to be available, I've never understood people's rejection of investigating the wonders of the universe in favour of delusional ignorance - it means missing out on so much interesting information which you could get great joy from knowing and that is a wasted life as far as I am concerned

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:12:21 UTC | #868897

Go to: Evolution threatens Christianity

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 263 by Oromasdes1978

The simple fact that you feel threatened by God means He does exist, because why would you argue over something that is not real?

I feel threatened by religion, not gods, there is a massive difference.

Belief in gods causes fear and misery in the world, people kill other people over their beliefs in gods, people are persecuted because of belief in gods, education is hampered and obstructed by belief in gods - the list is endless when it comes to the harm religion has on this planet.

I argue against religion because I don't like to see suffering and misery, I don't want gay people to be persecuted, I don't want women to be abused and oppressed, I don't want people telling lies to innocent children filling their minds with threats of hell from the celestial dictator if they don't appease him due to some ridiculous good for nothing and contradictory rules from some diabolical book.

Your god is of no threat to me because like all the others, it doesn't exist, your religion however most certainly is a threat and I will do all I can to argue for common sense and reason to prevail over dangerous nonsense as much as I can..

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:14:32 UTC | #865830

Go to: Evolution threatens Christianity

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 258 by Oromasdes1978

I would highly encourage you to do your research about God and the Christian faith before knocking it that way you will be better able to argue with a Christian.

Have you done your research?

Why are there around 38,000 denominations of Christianity? I do find it incredible that all 2.1 billion of you can't arrive at the same conclusion about your chosen deity.

There are multiple and very different copies of the Bible - why is this? Why do the stories in it differ and contradict each other?

I could go on all day about your religion and it's lacking in authenticity and verifiable facts because I have done the research and I have tested it's claims - it fails miserably.

Speaking of evolution and Christianity, the Genesis story bothers me -

Genesis 3:1, from the King James Bible (The one with the Unicorns in it - Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalm 22:21 and Issiah 34:7), complete with spelling mistakes -

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Here is a talking snake, created by God - why are there no talking snakes any more?

Genesis 3:14

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

This talking snake eats dust - how come there is absolutely no evidence of dust eating snake in the fossil record? If evolution by natural selection hasn't happened then there should be dust eating talking snakes around - snakes at this point in history cannot talk for it is impossible for them to do so and they most certainly do not eat dust. How did they lose this ability? Did they evolve?

Does this not seem in the slightest bit absurd to you?

What is so wrong with evolution by natural selection - is it not interesting enough or something? Are the verifiable facts about it really that difficult to swallow and that stories of talking snakes are more palatable?

Until I see verifiable evidence that the Bible and Christianity is the work of an impossibly complex being and not entirely a human construct , I shall continue to call it absurd and ridiculous because that is what it is. We have 21st Century knowledge now and it's always improving thanks to science and it's methods - using Bronze age knowledge is not going to help the world move forward.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:43:59 UTC | #865814

Go to: UPDATE: 3 days to stop Murdoch's media takeover

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by Oromasdes1978

Synapse - I do have one humble question - if you did want good advice about Medieval Intellectual History and the subject you are currently discussing...why would a Phd level educated expert not be a good enough person to ask and take advice from?

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:28:59 UTC | #847213

Go to: Morality without 'Free Will'

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 989 by Oromasdes1978

BJohn

Wow. Lots of angry thinking. Very little calm, cool, rational debate.

I do not approve of your playing the victim card and not addressing the questions put to you.

I was objecting to people suffering - that is very important to me, I do not want people to die and suffer because of ignorance and superstitious nonsense.

People are dying BJohn - do you not wonder why we are all so concerned about that?

People are dying because of the direct involvement of the Catholic Church, their doctrines and unfounded assertions are getting people killed and you support them. How much more do we have to spell it out to you?

Because you don't seem to understand this basic premise and that you hand wave away all attempts to tell you that you are wrong by saying that we are all "angry", I seriously doubt you will ever grasp what we all disagree with.

Yes BJohn, we are all disagreeing with you, deal with - your shared views with the Catholic Church are NOT going to help this crisis, no good will come from what you propose.

Condom use however IS a good idea to combat AIDS - it will help stop people dying, it will help stop suffering until science can find a cure for this horrible disease.

I care greatly about the AIDS crisis and I do not want it continually ruined and obstructed by objections from people who do not know what they are talking about. If the Catholic Church had any moral fibre whatsoever they could make up some excuse and approve of contraception, but they don't and people have to waste a lot of time and effort combatting this rather than placing all their efforts into preventing the spread of the disease.

I'm not angry about this, I'm passionate because it matters, lives are at stake and the clock keeps ticking and the deaths keep mounting.

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:58:44 UTC | #844370

Go to: Morality without 'Free Will'

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 966 by Oromasdes1978

You don't seem to see the point.

No, sorry - you are the one who has not seen the point.

The RCC argues against condoms for several reasons, and one reason is how unhelpful they are in the fight against AIDS.

You have lost me - it has been proven beyond all doubt that condoms considerably reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases - ask any medical expert you like.

The vast majority of AIDS patients contract the disease through sexual intercourse. We want to stop AIDS, so forgive us if we are a little "focused" on the "sex part" of that fight.

No, I will not forgive the Roman Catholic Church for the horrific misery it has inflicted upon the world because of it's obsession with sex and how it should be done.

But you're mistaken if you think that's all the RCC cares about: as you ought to know well by know, her moral teaching extends far beyond the bedroom, and it reaches even into the shady world of those in the medical world who seek profits above all else and do not care for those whom they kill by their negligence.

Err excuse me - you lot oppose abortion and contraception of all kinds which is all to do with your irrational obsession with sex and causing pain and misery. I actually wonder if the RCC cares about anything other than their disgusting doctrines.

See here for just how horrible it gets

You cannot in justice accuse the RCC of not caring for the misery of these poor people.

Yes I most certainly can they are spreading lies about condoms and using fear and misery to accomplish this.

In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"

See this article

Spreading this sort of dangerous nonsense is what I am talking about. Condoms DO NOT spread AIDS - that is a complete fabrication, its totally and utterly dangerous nonsense to boot.

You should be more concered about those who refuse (for whatever reason) to promote abstience and maritfal fidelity, which are two things that are 100% guaranteed to stop the most common means of infection. You will never get AIDS on account of sexual intercourse if you and your partner waited until marriage and then remained faithful to each other. Abstience and fidelity are two of our best weapons against the epidemic. Why won't you help me promote them?

Did you not read my post or Irate's? You CAN catch AIDS from other sources!

Education is our best weapon, not ignorance. I want to promote education, I want people to know what is truthful and what is clearly dangerous and deluded nonsense

Now, explain to me why my wearing condoms is a bad thing, what wrong have I committed?

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:45:40 UTC | #843410

Go to: Morality without 'Free Will'

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 960 by Oromasdes1978

I'd like to further what Irate was saying and ask - why does the Catholic Church only focus on the sex part of AIDS?

In most sports these days - I have noticed Rugby in particular- all blood injuries are treated off the pitch to help stop the spread of infection should someone's blood mix with theirs.

As Irate pointed out, there are plenty of ways AIDS can be caught through medical procedures, especially blood transfusions or infected needles - which is positively frightening in itself.

But no, the obesession and frantic worrying is all about sex.

Dear goodness if you are caught having sex in any other way to what a group of sadistic and highly delusional virgins have decreed an invisible being they claim to speak on behalf of - woe betide you.

Despite all the medical and scientific knowledge backing up the use of condoms being effective in the fight against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases - the Catholic Church worries incessantly about a bit of latex placed on a man's penis.

To the point of lying about them - telling poor and credulous people that condoms actually CONTAIN the virus.

Why?

What good can possibly come of this?

BJohn - have you absolutely no idea why everyone who disagrees with you are saying what they have been?

Do you not see the needless suffering, misery and DEATH that can be and has been perpetuated because of this mindless objection to a bit of latex that can considerably lower all the above?

Yes, I'm talking about death and suffering, people are DYING out in Africa right now because of the ridiculous and utterly dangerous objection to condoms - what is wrong with you?

I see no good in what you are posting, I only see someone so set in their dogmatic and impossibly strict ways that all references to the suffering of others is somehow ignored.

Why is this so important to you and others like you? What are you so scared of?

What is going to happen to people like me who have used condoms? What possible evil have I done?

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:56:37 UTC | #843390

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 223 by Oromasdes1978

Michael

I've just done a bit of quick reading on it but it would probably be best to ask someone more knowledgeable, Steve, I don't know if you could possibly help out here?

I believe in 2005 there was an attempt to allow Civil Partnerships to be allowed the same legal and financial allowances but it was made perfectly clear that it was not to be recognised the same as marriage, as that is apparently reserved for religious people and heterosexuals such as myself.

This is, I think, the main cause of the outrage is that same sex couples are being segregated and being made to feel like second class citizens - basically the law is saying heteros own the rights to the concept of marriage - you gays and lesbians have a Civil Partnership because you are different.

What I would be interested to know if same sex couples adopted children would they have the same tax breaks as hetero couples?

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:16:31 UTC | #641156

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 220 by Oromasdes1978

Sunrise

Thank you for that post, you have shown me where I was wrong in my arguement and I admit I haven't argued my case well enough.

One reason for that is because I was too busy testing the water a little to see where your line of argument was headed, I was slightly worried you were equating incest along with being gay but I didn't want to be rude if that wasn't the case, which it clearly isn't and for that I apologise.

You do have an excellent point and I agree with it.

I guess what bothers me at the present moment is that I, as a heterosexual man, have more rights than others based solely on my sexuality and it does not make sense to me. I could drag my girlfirend down the register office tomorrow, get married and the state would bequeth many a tax break and other allowences upon us. More so if I were to have children.

There seems to be a favouritism towards one sexuality and I don't like that, I don't agree with it.

You can read above how people like Cartomancer are made to feel in society and I guess I'm arguing for something better, I want others to enjoy what I could enjoy, should I want to.

There has to be a better and more equal way of dealing with it. I don't want to erode the system of marriage as such as I want to make it more equal. I can't begin to tell you how incredible it was to be witness to an expression of two people's love for each other in a ceremony like the humanist one I was able to attend, I guess I want everyone to be free to enjoy that moment in life. Taking that away would make the world a worse place, in my humble opinion.

But then again, like you said there are people who live together who won't get married, what about them? I'd hate for them to feel oppressed or discriminated against either - it does kind of make marriage a bit elitist. Perhaps two systems set up to benefit each in their own way or something.

Hmm something to ponder upon, but in the meantime, I hope that makes things clearer.

Thank you again for pointing out where I was wrong, helps enormously

Cheers

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:56:52 UTC | #641106

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 215 by Oromasdes1978

Sunrise

The law states here in England that there should be 4 degrees of seperation between you and the member of your family you want to marry, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The logic of what you are saying is sort of true, marrying your aunt but not having children would almost be the same as what I am arguing for all gays and lesbians - but incest is still incest and it's completely different to being gay, lesbian, bisexual or hetro.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:44:51 UTC | #640734

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 213 by Oromasdes1978

Sunrise

Oromasdes1978 Your objection to people who are related having romantic/sexual relationships that are given status by law is based on what? Please dont say anything about birth defects since you have made it clear that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. What gives you the right to deny these people membership of "the human race"?

Sorry, if you want to go and marry your siblings, please do not let my harsh criticisms get in the way, I just don't think it is a wise option.

Keymaker - where to start?

Accept gay marriage because Cartomancer is gay? What sort of an argument is that? That’s even less convincing than the points I’ve already despatched.

I think it's a pretty damn good argument, you seem to be unable to accept that Cartomancer is gay and recognise he should be allowed the same rights as you have, I'm telling you to deal with it and stop being a bigot, it's perfectly simple.

It’s you indulging in personal insults not me - perhaps you should take your own advice.

Er, you personally insulted a man who I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for soley because of his sexuality, what the hell were you expecting exactly, a medal?

We’re not on privileges or bonking here but gay marriage. Marriage requires consummation so Parliament thought it best to introduce civil partnerships to equalise tax and inheritance righ... I’m sure I’ve already explained this.

You really think that now my brother is married the first thing he should be doing is making babies?Why are you so set on this weird notion? I've never heard anyting so ridiculous in my life - reminds me of priests in Italy who, if a couple had not produced at least one child in the first year of their marriage, would go and bonk the wife themselves to ensure that the wife DID get pregnant.

What about me, I never want to have kids but I can see myself possibly getting married one day - would that make my marriage anything less of a marriage because I am not going to have kids?

There is no difference between me getting married and not having kids or Cartomancer getting married and not having kids.

No I think you’ve lost the plot with that to be honest

Why thanks, that's very kind.

Pot, kettle and something about black suddenly springs to mind when I read your accusation there. You hate gay people and you think women are solely on this planet to make babies - sure, I've lost the plot completely.

Oh, I wouldn't be scared by precise terminology if I were you - makes communication easier.

No, I'm an English and History graduate, words don't scare me - I'm more worried about which century you think you are living in

No I mean that's what civl partnerships are for - unions that don't need to be consummated or annulled for non consummation - in that sense they're actually more suitable for gays.

Here we go again with the baby making, what is wrong with you? How evil are you really? I'll say it again, I dread to think of the horror you will put some poor woman through with that attitude.

Anyway, look, it's getting a bit repetitive in here because it seems not everyone has followed the thread all that closely and are asking the same questions over and over.

That is because you are not listening.

I'm gonna have to take my leave of absence to get on with those projects I was talking about.

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, you might start having gay thoughts....oh the horrors!

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:48:15 UTC | #640332

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by Oromasdes1978

JHJ

Constantine was an interesting chap wasn't he - I love the rumour that he once took on a lion and won - no basis or evidence he ever did such a thing, but seriously funny nonetheless!

I thought Constantine had manouvered himself to the emperor position by cleverly knocking out his rivals Maximian and Licinius and then seeing the opportunity of the rising popularity of Christianity decided to make it the religion of the empire. The problem was that Christianity was enormously divided and it needed more cohesion for Constantine's rule to be more effective.

I think you are right when you say he was furthering his own interests with Christianity but I'm not entirely convinced he was a full Christian either, there is something about the way he threw Arius out to exile only to then chuck Athanasius out to have Arius return shortly before he died that makes me suspicious. Plus, he was an enormously clever chap - you can't go through life learning from people like Marcus Aurelius or even his dad Constantinus and not come out of it without a little cunning and political manouvering. Constantine was a good tactical thinker and a risk taker - he saw an advantage in Christianity and went with it.

Then again I could be very wrong.

It is very difficult to tell when you have people like Eusebius of Ceaseria who was the equivalent of Alistair Campbell and as much as his works were interesting, there is no doubt in my mind there was a little embellishment on his part!

I'd have to hunt it down at another time but I think I saw or read something about how Constantine converted to Christianity - according to Eusebius I think - whilst busy killing people in battle - it all seems rather sudden to me - I don't doubt his sincerity in advancing Christianity throught the Roman empire, but I'm still not entirely convinced he was as devout as he is made out to be.

As for the "Pope" title, yes, I was a little wrong there, I think it was more of a title the Council of Alexandria liked to have to make themselves seem more important than they actually were!

Thank you very much, it is a pleasure to swap knowledge - you keep up the good work too!

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:04:16 UTC | #639956

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by Oromasdes1978

Clod - God doesn't like teeth - see Psalm 58.6

Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD. (King James Bible)

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:57:30 UTC | #639586

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by Oromasdes1978

JHJEFFERY

I posted a link to Richard Carrier's disection of Mark 16:9-20 to show that it was written by different authors as an example, also here is a link that argues that they did not put their names to the texts and that they were added in the 2nd Century, not when they were written.

Earl Doherty's book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man: The Case for a Mythical Jesus also confirms this in more detail too

The First Council of Nicaea was called by Emperor Constantine in the year 325 AD in order to cement his rule a lot better, there was considerable division and dispute over many questions of Christianity which he wanted to sort out in order to make the Roman Empire an easier place to rule.

You have Arius, a Christian Priest from Egypt and also the Council of Alexandria who were in severe disagreement over the divinity of Jesus.

Arius believing that "A creation...is less than its creator. The Son is less than the Father that 'begot' him. In the Beginning was the Creator God and the Son did not exist." whereas people like the Popes Alexander and Athanasius firmly held the belief that God and Jesus were of the same divinity as equals.

I do know of an Ossius of Cordova in Spain who managed to bend Constantine's ear during the stalemate the Council had when discussing the divinity of Jesus, thus swaying the Council to adopt the teachings of Athanasius & co rather than Arius who was subsequently exiled.

After the decision was reached the above teachings influenced the first canonical Bibles requested by Constantine to be created. The Church Fathers discussed which books were to be included but they were selected, in my humble opinion, based on the results of the 1st Council and the influence of Athanasius & Co.

Here is a good summary of the whole conflict to do with Arianism, it is enormously long, but still interesting to read if you have the time

I hope that helps, by all means correct me if I am wrong

Cheers

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:12:31 UTC | #639537

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 204 by Oromasdes1978

Keymaker

Cartomancer is gay, deal with it and stop being a mindless bigot.

I do not and should not have any special privilage being a heterosexual man. I find that utterly absurd. Cartomancer is gay, I'm hetero, some people on here are bi-sexual - we are all consenting adults, as long as neither of us are related or too young to understand what is going on we can all happily bonk away to our heart's content with whom we wish.

Here's a scary thought for you - people are bonking as I type this and as you are reading it. Men are kissing other men right now, women are kissing other women right now, massive groups of men and women are probably at it right now in the same room. All around the world consenting adults are having a really great or possibly boring time - what are you going to do about it? Is it ANY of your concern?

No it bloody well isn't.

However, what you have to realise is they live among us, they live, breathe, laugh, cry, use the toilet, drink beer, drink Tea - everything every other human being is able to do and they have every right to do so.

Don't start telling Cartomancer he cannot be part of the human race, don't tell him or any other gay person they should not be able to live life as everyone else does.

I've just seen my brother get married, it was a truly beautiful moment in my life, don't you dare say Cartomancer be denied the same choice, the same right to have his beautiful moment in life because you can't cope with the fact that it will be with a man.

Oh yes, another thing, using the phrase "natural coitus" and sentences like the one below are just plain scary and creepy as well as being tremendously archaic and stupid.

...We're not talking about some random sex act here but the right to have children and to petition for annulment when denied. Whereas consummation is central to marriage it obviously has no place in civil partnerships... as a matter of fact it's a key point of difference between them.

I would like to hope that you never get married in your life or if you currently are, Odin forbid, I'd be duty bound to rescue your poor wife from all the suffering you would inflict upon her with that sort of attitude.

Women are not baby making machines.

They, like gay people, like bi-sexual people, are human beings, treat them accordingly.

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:49:26 UTC | #639511

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by Oromasdes1978

Rebro5

If the Bible was as easy to understand as you claim then I'm quite sure there would have been considerably less violence commited on it's behalf throughout history.

Constantine had to call the 1st Council because of all the killing and violence over the question of how divine Jesus was since they couldn't agree on what the scripture meant!

2000 years later people are STILL fighting over how to understand it - I don't share your optimism as to how easy the Gospels are to comprehend when even the believers are struggling.

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:59:35 UTC | #639291

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by Oromasdes1978

Whilst I am at it here is an article by Phd Historian Richard Carrier, the Bible is not as inerrant as you claim it to be, if you cannot think of a better set of documents of a supposed historical person then I suggest you get your facts correct first about what it is you are claiming.

Mark 16:9-20 is just one example of added forgery . I do not think it helps your claims on the historical validity of the Bible or Jesus.

I linked to interpollations earlier, they are also good examples of why you should not trust the Bible or it's stories.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:06:07 UTC | #638868

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by Oromasdes1978

Rebro5

I'd suggest you read Bart Ehrman, he explains it very well - the Bible translations were essentially copies made from copies that were copied into copies - please understand there is a massive margin for error - lets say one scribe hands it to his assistant, his assistant sees a word that looks like another and uses that one instead - these guys did not have a printing press, the copies could never have been accurate enough.

Later on in history you have monks in the middle ages adding or subtracting passages, putting things in margins as footnotes that then become inserted into the actual text later on.

The earliest Bibles were have less information in them that the ones we have now - people have added things along the way. Even the copies we have access to were written under considerable bias - the First Council of Nicaea and the influence it had on groups like the Church Father or people like Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Palaestina - Emperor Constantine's equivalent of a highly bias press officer, Pope Athanasius of Alexandra whose Cathar based teachings also influenced some of the first Bibles.

Things did not stop there, basically, most rulers throughout Medieval Europe influenced further creations of Bibles that suited their take on religion - look at the King James Bible for goodness sake, it's got unicorns in it due to a mistranslation of the word for oxen!

The King James Bible itself is a good example as it has a massive history and is a collection of a LOT of previously translated Bibles mixed together to produce it - it was changed, it IS different - there are a heck of a lot of Bible versions out there - they do not all say the same things.

Tell me why Paul's earlier account, supposedly since he was closer to the events that the Gospel writers were (There was not one author for each gospel, they were not written by people called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - there were many authors), is different to that of the Gospels - the Gospels, written later, make claims to events that Paul does not speak of.

Paul speaks of Jesus as visionary knowledge provided to him by God that was supposedly not previously known to the world - not once does he make reference to a human or specific places that the Gospels lay claim to like Nazareth etc. Knowledge of Jesus is essential to Paul as it is a pathway to be saved by God and by trust in Paul's visionary knowledge is the only way to get in God's good books.

The Gospels do not say this, they say something completely different.

I am a historian, I have a fair idea of what constitutes Primary and Secondary evidence and the Bible does not even come close to historical validity, to be honest it is as factual as the accounts of William Tell.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:39:16 UTC | #638859

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by Oromasdes1978

Despite these, it is still literature, was written at a point in historical and as part of specific cultures. So as I said, understanding each of these contexts assists in understanding the literature

Rebro5 - Do you know when this literature was written and how it has evolved throughout history? I agree with you, understanding the history of them is essential - but it still doesn't excuse people like Barton making a fool of himself or any other person attempting to use the Gospels as truthful examples for something.

Understanding just how historically inaccurate it all is is paramount to understanding it has not a shred of evidence to back up it's claims.

As I said in my last post, the Gospels - chosen, by men, and, I might add, from a vast collect of others that didn't make it - were written decades AFTER the supposed events took place, we do not have the original copies and even then they are made completely redundant by the millions of translations and copies they have been through throughout their existence.

The Gospels can and should be discarded as evidence for pretty much anything they claim - they are entirely of human construct and completely fabricated. It's enormously interesting to study their origins and how they changed and evolved, in that way they do serve a historical purpose as well as essential reading if one is studying something like Shakespeare - but in no way, shape or form should they be given any credence as historical and meaningful documents.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:29:39 UTC | #638835

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by Oromasdes1978

Ok, time to put the Bible in perspective.

Paul's letters and the Epistles are probably the closest thing we have to what the 1st Century Christians thought Jesus was but his character can easily be attributed to the gathered and accepted philosphies, customs and idealised versions of kings, healers, teachers etc that had been incorporated from many different cultures that had managed to gather in Jerusalem and Galillee. Over and over Paul refers to Jesus as a visionary and spiritual figure and the knowledge that was previously unknown to humanity was now being communicated via visions to Paul who arrogantly claims he knows more about Jesus than anyone.

There are no authentic passages that claim Jesus ever walked on the Earth.

There are those that claim Paul: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are proof that says otherwise but those passages are complete forgeries. See Richard Carrier for further info.

The 4 Gospels written way after the events took place, whose first editions are lost to humanity, there is no outside evidence to back up any of the claims made by it - ie no other of the surrounding countries around where Jesus was supposed to be reported any activity of any sort.

If the interpolations of Paul's letters, the common use of Midrash and also writers using Pauls name to make their ideas sounds more authentic are not enough then the copies, made from copies that were copied from other copies that emerged from the 2nd century onwards should give you an idea of how fabircated and muddled the Bible stories are. Not to mention the first Canonised/Voted on by human men versions arrived in the 4th century after being influenced by the results of the 1st Council of Nicaea and the Church Fathers or any of the additions and interpollations of monks from the middle ages or the mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek and later Latin before it even got translated into English.... the list is endless.

How anyone can make claims about what Jesus said or did based on the available evidence which suggests strongly otherwise is beyond me.

Claiming there is such a thing as Biblical law is ultimately flawed too - the Old Testament contradicts everything the New Testament claims and the claims of the New Testament are full of flaws and complete lack of corroborating evidence and common sense.

David Barton needs a lesson in the Bible and possibly needs to read it first too!

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:51:30 UTC | #638408

Go to: The Sign of Abuse

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Jump to comment 192 by Oromasdes1978

Eric Blair - forgive me if I have not read your post properly (I'm very tired and not being tremendously observant) but the fact that The Passion of Christ is an 18(A) or R rated film, is because it visually tells and shows the mythical story of Jesus being crucified in all its gory detail, tells you something about what is acceptable and what is not.

If you put that image on crosses to be worn by people, in massive sculptures, in churches or by actually quoting from the Gospels etc - it is perfectly acceptable to do that - backing it up with visuals however is frowned upon.

Seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:06:31 UTC | #574575