kuonphobos's forum posts

#1 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

#2 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

I wouldn't kick either of them out of bed for eating crackers.

But srrsly I would enjoy spending a nice day with either of them equally. They both seem to be fun folk.

#3 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

identity confusion

#4 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

When they don't care about minding their own business.


#5 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

Wake me up when JC is back in England, being written by one of the best British writers and with a publisher/imprint with testicles like Vertigo used to have.


#8 Posted by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio


#9 Edited by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

@dedmanwalkin said:

@kuonphobos: Religion does not dictate law nor does it dictate science. In a discussion of law or science religious belief is as immaterial as talking about what Katniss Everdeen believes. The Bible suggests the Earth is like 6000 years old but that has been proven completely false on multiple accounts. There are people who believe this still today in the Christian denomination but they are as wrong about that as they are about gayness. Again, when discussing law or science, religion has no seat at the table.

So hold on, the current political climate was able to dictate to religion what it could believe? If the Romans were able to dictate to Christians that Slavery was totally legit and the Christians were cool with that what is the issue here? You've already shown that Christians are willing to do immoral things in order to comply with the law. If they find gay to be immoral then why can't this be like when they were totally cool with slavery?

Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon ring a bell? All of these guys were polygamists and were used by God to spread His gospel. How are we to believe that God isn't totally cool with polygamy if he had several known polygamists spreading the gospel? We have 2 choices here with Paul: Either Paul is wrong or God totally does retcons. I guess the New Testament is really his New 52?

Either way, when you try to support the beliefs of people from hundreds of years ago without taking in the the current perspective you are simply preaching ignorance. This is especially heinous when those people from hundreds of years ago were able to compromise their beliefs to fit the current perspective.

I cannot determine whether or not you are being willfully obtuse.

Concerning your first paragraph - what are you talking about? I made none of the assertions which you are talking about. I simply was trying to point out an overlooked element of the religious side (from a Christian viewpoint) of the Indiana Law that is all. But thanks for sharing your opinion on the relevance of religion in a discussion of law or science.

Your second paragraph seems to indicate that you missed my point. The issue was one of time and power not will. The early church was never "cool" with slavery it was simply a reality which they had no power to control at that time. Man, did you even read my earlier statements on this issue? The difference in the power structures between the Roman Empire and the modern democratic West make you analysis untenable. At this point I think you are simply using language to goad me which places you into troll territory. Early Christians were not 'willing" to do immoral things, they were powerless to do otherwise. SMH

My response to paragraph three, simply put, is that it isn't so much that God does retcons as it is He works with and through sinful human beings who tend to be rebellious and disobedient. You named four of them. And beyond that, an argument could be made that even in the bible (Ancient Near Eastern culture) polygamy can be functional if not ideal. The issue lies more with the spirit than the letter. As cultures change to can forms. Does this apply to homosexuality? Based upon extreme pronouncements against it elsewhere I would think not. So since you seem to have issues with reading comprehension let me reiterate: A comparison of Christian views of polygamy, slavery and homosexuality may seem 1 to 1 to us moderns, but they were not 1 to 1 for the ancients. The situations at face value may seem similar but upon a closer inspection they are not.

You sorta stink at analogies.

Finally, we return to the first paragraph and again I shall restate that I was attempting to clarify not support. Then later I was trying to critique some of your assumptions concerning the early church. At no point in this particular conversation, have I offered my own personal opinion concerning the "Religious Freedom Law" in Indiana.

Take it easy.

#10 Edited by kuonphobos (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozen said:


You seem to have missed my point. Your claim that Jesus was delusional is indeed extraordinary and would need to be substantiated

The ''claim'' that Jesus was delusional is not extraordinary. That is a rational judgement rooted in probability. I do not need to provide evidence for my case because that rests with you. The notion that Jesus was a deluded preacher is rooted in:

  • Jesus was a Jew. As my argument stated; religion is a form of mass delusion. Jesus happened to follow such delusional texts/beliefs
  • Jesus claimed to be the son of god. Anyone who makes such a claim without evidence will be {rightfully} treated with ridicule and scrutiny

It's not extraordinary to claim that a poor Jewish preacher in the 1st Century who claimed to be the son of god was delusional; this is actually a rational viewpoint, this also applies to the other self-proclaimed messiah's at the time. A more probable view opposed to him actually being the son of someone who probably does not exist is that he was Schizophrenic.

If you believe in a baseless claim which asserts many outlandish and extraordinary beliefs, then you better give me a reason to take it seriously. Otherwise I'm going to treat it with the same scrutiny as I do flying pigs, the Greek myths, etc. The concept of Christ is not unique and there are at-least a dozen or so similar which happened before him.

But if you think the burden of proof rests with me, will you take my claim of The Flying Spaghetti monster seriously? Because I know many who believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot disprove him, can you?

The same applies for Scientology. This religion is taken seriously by celebrities alike. Can you disprove it?

And also the dogmatic belief from Mormonism, that Jesus appeared in North America?

No. You are still missing my point. I shall try again:

[ Actually I have edited a little more: Perhaps we are getting bogged down with my statement that your statement about Jesus being delusional was "extraordinary". Though I still believe that it is under your own stated parameters, leave that aside for a moment). I shall re formulate my criticism with "Your statement that Jesus was deluded is only an unsubstantiated opinion"... I see no need to go any farther than that...]

You draw one conclusion "Jesus was a Jew" and this is not extraordinary because it is demonstrable via several methods. Then you draw another conclusion (which you have now expanded) "Jesus was deluded" (now expanded to "religion is a form of mass delusion" ) which can only possibly be your personal opinion. It can only be your personal opinion because you cannot demonstrate it. You can resort to probabilities, etc but you cannot prove it. You cannot demonstrate it.

I agreed with you earlier that claims to miracles required evidence so there is no argument from me. But since you have never met Jesus, likely never will and are critical of any evidence one might use to make a case (biblical material) you have ruled out your own ability to demonstrate your opinion that Jesus was deluded. You are certainly within your rights to believe that to be true. But you can't prove it. You can infer it. You can't prove it. Therefore as I (an another poster) stated earlier this morning all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion. That's it. The end.