... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

1) ... on Roswell Creatures and Peer Review (starring M McQuarrie) · 2) ... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Never underestimate the power of deeply impious people to rationalise their beliefs in Evolution ...

Ward McCreery

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution exists whether you believe it or not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Creation happened whether you believe it or not, so did Flood.

Ward McCreery

The difference is evolution has evidence other than a moldy old book

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No it did not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Ward McCreery, if you call bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or ability to digest citric acid "evolution", well, there is evidence, it is being observed or was observed in the very recent past, last few decades, but it does not contradict our book.

If you call bacteria (or sth else, whatever) evolving into multicellular organisms, these starting to reproduce by sex, developing spines, leaving sea and starting to breathe air and a few more things like that, well, it does contradict our book, and there is no evidence for it.

+M McQuarrie Flood is abundantly evidenced in the fossil record which evolutionists want millions and billions of years in order to sort it into diverse non-global-Flood disasters and sedimentations.

And when layers that correspond to "millions of years" were all folded at same time, or when trees go through layers supposedly for hundred thousand years, well, your explanation works a bit badly.

Creation is evidenced in a Tychonian universe (which I suppose you dispute) and in the soul of man (which I also suppose you dispute).

Tychonian universe is most direct explanation for our viewings or observations, soul is most direct or even only viable explanation for our being able to think.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What about it?

Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc.

[sorry, missed distinction here]

I am in this reply presuming "Hitchens' razor" is a variety of Occam's.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc."

Lame straw-man of what evolution actually is.

And you're wrong about Hitchens' Razor too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+M McQuarrie, so you pretend evolution is NOT pretending some one celled organisms like bacteria evolved to man?

Good, then you might not be an evolutionist!

As for Hitchens' Razor, your turn to explain!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Find the correct definition of evolution and I'll explain Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you DO say"

That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it.

The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not.

If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have) try a credited source:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Or if you want to ignore me, please do. You creationists twats are effectively done.

The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it."

OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?

[Did not even name bacteria here!]

That this transition and whatever development there was before it is "pre-evolution" because evolution deals with how individual variations get or don't get a chance for sexual reproduction?

Or did you take umbrage on my placing "bacteria" where your credited source places "archaea"? And bacteria also developing from them?

I said "bacteria or something like that", I was pretty careful not to single out bacteria specifically among the one-celled organisms.

[Except once, in haste. Btw, CMI has the more correct "amoeba to man evolution" - I was just not much interested in caring too much about distinction archaea vs bacteria. No incorrectness of source involved.]

"The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not."

Gravitationists don't, I do think there would be a point to use "Newtonians", "Einsteinians" for the diverse tribes of gravitationists. One could, for instance, take the stand that apple falls to ground because of electromagnetism (I am not sure that believers in electromagnetic universe do that, they might be Newtonians about why apple falls to ground while yet being electro-magneticists about why planets orbit whatever they orbit), or that apple falls to ground because it is made up of heavy stuff and thus has centre of universe for its natural place.

Aside of course from that little detail that debating evolutionists is more common than debating gravitationists.

"If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have)"

OK, "twats", "you dolt", "wilful ignorance and deceit", I kind of sense a slight animosity even before the debate begins.

Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?

"Or if you want to ignore me, please do."

Actually, you start to sound a bit interesting.

"You creationists twats are effectively done."

You mean sth like we will be by tomorrow?

Predicting the future? Have you taken drugs or are you hypnotising yourself on crystal balls?

"The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now."

So, you are progressive left or progressive right or progressive sth else .... what exactly are the left or the regressive ones of them so dangerous idiots about?

Perhaps I should have enumerated politics along with crystal balls and fumes of burning laurel, or whatever it was the poor Pythia used!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?"

Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution. What is evolution hasn't really changed all that much and you can read all about it here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Twat.

"Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?"

Well we also have facts, science and reality.

Dolt.

And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution."

Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled.

Each position merits a name.

Which of them agrees with evolution?

"Well we also have facts, science and reality."

And above all ignoring each of these, and logic too, whenever it is convenient to you.

[And manners, hoping bad manners will impress whoever it will impress ....]

"And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it."

Two problems:

• 1) you still pretend to foresee what happens tomorrow;
  
  
• 2) you also pretend to know what "I need to understand".

Both of these statements are really nothing but divination.

Do you read it in cards? I certainly did not offer you my palm to read, I don't do your superstition.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled."

False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is.

And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

[I was accusing him of playing the snob and of ignoring basic logic. Not of "ignoring the facts" of how evolution is supposed to work. Except on the unlikely but still mentioned alternative he did NOT think many-celled organisms evolved from one-celled. I did not say I thought it the likelier alternative.]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding.

But you haven't.

Which is why you are a dishonest twat.

As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind.

People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is."

I don't think so.

I think the alternatives were not two allegations which could both be false, but one allegation with its direct negation, of which not only both cannot be true, but both cannot be false.

You seem ignorant of logic.

"And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding."

As to distinction between archaea and bacteria, I did so correct it at first glance at your credited source.

If you meant sth else, be a bit precise as to what you meant and where I could have corrected whatever misunderstanding you meant.

"But you haven't."

I did as much as I had time for. Before answering.

If you require me to lecture myself an all the content of their site before returning to your simply flouting of logic, you are unreasonable.

That is not how debates work.

If you want to correct a specific misunderstanding, you point out:

• what is the exact misunderstanding
• what is the exact correct position
  AND
• what your source is, specific on page, unless you can claim forgetting.

So, what exact page in your credited source would explode my simple observation as a false dichotomy?

"Which is why you are a dishonest twat."

I am not replying in kind for cuss words, but dishonest is how you come forth to me.

"As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind."

Most of them concentrated to one corner of mankind, which is not the one reproducing fastest.

I have also heard a more credible claim Islam is on the rise.

But whichever of the two rises quicker, there is such a thing as reversal of trends.

You are yourself a product of one.

Protestantism and Atheism are reversals of the trend of Pagan societies in Europe to become more Catholic.

Both are most prevailing either in Europe or colonies and former colonies or in near colonies. And least of these perhaps in former colonies. Or some of them.

So, they reverse the trend of the model societies to go from Pagan to Catholic.

Trends can be reversed.

Therefore your supposed rational argument for your prediction rests on the lie that trends cannot be reversed.

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America."

Part reversal of the Protestant trend which produced US, perhaps?

Not that I care for Bernie. He's pro-abortion and probably pro-government run schools as in anti-homeschooler. NOT social justice.

And suppose your trend won, what good would it bring you?

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things."

... on Objective Morality with Guess Who? I bungled original discussion, but made another on slavery

Right, McQuarrie is back on this blog. This time the thread is under his own video.

On Objective Morality
M McQuarrie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emylH-D2TaQ

My original 2 comments on his video

Can objective moral values be ascertained by someone not believing there is a God?

In theory a Christian would usually say yes.

In practise, I find that such and such a guy not believing there is a God tends to miss objective moral values as well.

I just had a debate with you about slavery in which you very obviously had the alignment "lawful stupid". Slavery is bad, ergo God had to forbid it totally and had no right to use any other tactics involving partial toleration of that bad thing. Otherwise God is bad too.

But this is beyond "lawful stupid", this is absurd:

Husbands and wives [according to you] have the same right to refuse each other sex as they have in respect to total strangers, and have the same right to have consenting sex with total strangers as with their husbands and wives, anything else is rape.

OK, in theory you can perhaps ascertain objective moral values without believing in God, but in practise you are not convincing me.

And Dawkins has the same problem. When he advocates medical abortion one of his arguments is that that is what is currently being done.

OK? Once upon a time slavery was also currently being done.

That a thing is currently done does not prove it good.

Of abortion (including of handicapped already known to be such) and slavery, it is arguable slavery was worthy of more toleration and abortion of less, rather than reverse. A slave can be liberated. An aborted child cannot be resurrected except God make a miracle.

M McQuarrie

The only thing you need for objective moral values is a recognized definition of morality and I have that.

And action can be considered moral if it maximizes happiness, health or well being or minimizes unnecessary suffering or harm. Conversely, an action can be considered immoral if it minimizes happiness, health or well being or maximizes unnecessary suffering or harm.

So where does god ever recognize that definition of morality?

What part of believing in god is required to recognize that definition of morality?

What moral action can you do because you believe in god that I cannot do because I do not believe in god?

"Husbands and wives have the same right to refuse each other sex as they have in respect to total strangers, and have the same right to have consenting sex with total strangers as with their husbands and wives, anything else is rape."

Not according to your bible. [I was resuming his position, ending with "anything else is rape", not mine.]

And why should that be contingent on their genders?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl As for Dawkins, well I really don't give a crap about what he thinks on matters that aren't related to biology. He's biologist. When he talks science, that's when I take him at his word. Anything else he says I take on a circumstantial basis. If he says something I don't agree with, I'll disagree with him. What's that got to do with anything?

"Once upon a time slavery was also currently being done"

Do you not know how to speak English?

Once upon a time, slavery was accepted. That never made it moral. [Which was my point, I sadly missed to exploit this admission.] In a secular movement, society gradually deemed slavery to be immoral based on the harm it caused. Society still does and we collectively view slavery as abhorrent based on the harm it causes which can be empirically measured.

So why hasn't your bible changed? And why does it still not say "you will not own slaves?"

"it is arguable slavery was worthy of more toleration and abortion of less"

I fail to see how. I am still undecided on the abortion issue but slavery as a practise causes more harm to individuals and society as a whole.

But while we are on the subject of abortion, read Numbers 5:11-21. That's your god condoning an abortion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, exactly according to my Bible. [Had forgotten he was referring to my resumé or rather looked to hastily at it.] The one passage which DOES outline the sexual rights of the sexes is I Cor. VII:3-5.

What you propose is so general it is inane. I meant you have shown no talent applying it. Nor about weighing pain and happiness when they go together.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Verse 4 says it best: "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife"

This is not equality or sexual rights of any kind. This is subjugation.

" I meant you have shown no talent applying it. "

And you do?

You think slavery is acceptable and that marriage is mutual rape.

[Omitting a personal insult plus a blasphemy against God “and everything it stands for”]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Slavery was not just accepted, it was being done, or practised if you prefer the Latin word.

And I mean WIDELY.

The Bible was written in those times and for times including such as repeated that. It was not just a blueprint for brief breaks from that evil. It was written to be applied then too.

Slavery cannot cause more harm to the victim than abortion.

Numbers 5 is not referring to an abortion. a guilty woman died herself as much as the fruit of adultery and so did the guilty man:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. NUMBERS - Chapter 5
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id452.html

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In a secular movement, society gradually deemed slavery to be immoral based on the harm it caused."

Simply not true.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl The United States of America.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Slavery was not just accepted, it was being done, or practised if you prefer the Latin word.

And I mean WIDELY."

How does that make it better? [My original point would have been, it didn't, and so a widely practised thing is not necessarily moral, but atheism offers no objective basis beyond that.]

"The Bible was written in those times and for times including such as repeated that."

You are not making any sense.

Construct an actual sentence.

[OK, what about this one: The Bible was written in those times and for times including but not limited to such times as repeated that widespread practise of slavery - was my sentence really too short for him?].

"Numbers 5 is not referring to an abortion"

It's referring to the termination of a foetus. That's an abortion isn't it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Numbers 5 is NOT referring to the termination of a foetus. It is referring to the death of an adulteress if guilty and death of noone if she was innocent.

I am sorry your grammar skills suck so much you cannot recognise an actual sentence when it slaps you in the face.

As said, slavery was practised or done too widely and this has been repeated in other forms in XXth C. for God simply to abolish the horror just by forbidding it.

God has for times when slavery is not abolished given instructions on how to humanise it. Humanising masters and rehumanising slaves.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "It is referring to the death of an adulteress if guilty and death of noone if she was innocent."

1 and also the death of the unborn child within her (which is an abortion)

2 and you just admitted your bible condones the death women who, for any reason, had sex with someone who was not their husband.

Explain how that is moral?

"...for God simply to abolish the horror just by forbidding it."

WHY THE FUCK NOT? HE'S GOD ISN'T HE?

Why has humanity had to do all the work to abolish slavery? Why does god get all the credit when it hasn't done anything to discourage or abolish slavery?

"God has for times when slavery is not abolished given instructions on how to humanise it."

Including outlining in the bible who may be bought as a slave, who may be sold as a slave, how a slave may be passed down like a possession and how severely a slave may be beaten. Yeah, god's done a lot of work to "humanise slavery."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1 key word "also". That is not abortion per se.
• 2 There is a change because there is a change of testaments. You know the adulteress in John 8?

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Gospel According to Saint John : Chapter 8
http://drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm

God has slowly made abolishing slavery possible - for Christian societies. For XXth C. we have seen new slaveries introduced by secularised society. Slaveries without the limitations you cavil so much against. School compulsion, taking away children from parents, psychiatry, sterilising gipsies and natives ... way beyond what the Bible condones a master doing to his slaves. Way beyond. Far worse violence than was imaginable in the 13th C. When people were still Christians.

No, it is humanity which has done a very bad job, not God.

M McQuarrie

[Omitting but noting a blasphemy against "my" God "and everything it stands for."]

... on Bible Endorsing or Not Slavery, Ephesians 6, 5 and 9

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

My original answer to part of video

34:23 In the Bible slavery is conditionally acceptable, but slave hunting is not.

Human sacrifice is not, except for God who laid down His human life on the Cross.

Funny, that you are sitting on the branch of a Biblical abhorrence of Molochism and cutting it off by attacking the Bible for not abhorring it enough. As if it didn't.

M McQuarrie

Leviticus 25:44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

So there's one (of many) passages in the bible saying slavery is very much acceptable and it tells you exactly whom you may buy and from where.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers all state that god demands sacrifices because he loves the smell of burning flesh.

[Those were animal sacrifices.]

It is painfully clear to anyone who has read the bible that it is a book of moral atrocities written by bigoted and savage men who had no understanding of morality or the world around them. The bible does not abhor savagery or immorality. The bible clearly condones it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As I precisely said : slavery is acceptable on certain conditions, but slave hunting is not.

Thank you for making my point again!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Slavery is acceptable. That doesn't bother you that slavery is acceptable?

Okay. You are an immoral thug. Your bible advocates slavery. [Curse over Bible, its God and myself as His worshipper, omitted but noted.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The alternative would have for instance having even gentle masters go to Hell - and giving no real and at the time realistic alternative to the real Pagan thugs who not only owned slaves, but hunted freemen to make slaves, forced slaves to sexual immorality and even committed human sacrifice on slaves. Like the Etruscan origin of gladiator games.

Or, for there having been no morality, Biblical or otherwise, until the total rejection of slavery in European countries started morality - through belief in a Bible which did quite a lot to discourage slavery, despite formally allowing it.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl First off you have no reason to think Hell exist and you have no way of knowing the criteria in which souls are judged if they are judged at all or even if they exist.

Not every Pagan culture owned slaves. And the bible outlines exactly a Hebrew may beat his slave provided he doesn't kill said slave. Hebrew slaves were among the most cruelly treated and child slavery was a common practice, condoned by the bible no less.

The cruelty within the bible is evident to anyone who has read it. The bible did NOTHING to discourage slavery (site me ONE passage where it explicitly says "you shall not own slaves").

The abolition of slavery was a largely secular movement. Southern Slave owners opposing the abolition of slavery often used the bible as a platform for keeping their slaves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not every Pagan culture owned slaves?

Those in the area around did. [Dacians seem to have had very few slaves, but were marginal to the area.]

A master could beat a slave and if he died after a certain time it was no murder, but if he died the same day it was.

In certain other cultures a man could feed a slave to a murenas and get away with it. And yes, I am talking about the Mediterranean.

Last off, Hell does exist, since God has revealed that. He has also proven his divinity (unlike Odin and Muhammed, for instance, and prophethood in the latter case) by lots of miracles including His Resurrection.

Souls exist, it is even obvious once you think of the fact that we can think.

And souls getting to Hell if they treat slaves badly was one of the fears through which slaves came to be treated better or even - and in the long run after centuries normally so - freed. I am not talking about the abolitionism of around Civil War. I am talking about diverse abolitions of slavery from France under Queen St Bathilde to Sweden in the 14th C. but even more than nationwide abolitions I am talking of the gradual abolition that was going on all the time between conversion of a country and the time it ceased having slaves.

There is not one passage forbidding the owning of slaves as you said. There are several indirectly discouraging it.

Say you are bad tempered and your slaves suffer? Well, fear of getting to Hell for their suffering would be one motive of freeing them, to be on the safe side.

Say you are good tempered and your slaves are happy? Well, making them happier by freeing them as you yourself are a "freedman" of Christ would also be a motive for releasing slaves. Plus you would be treating the ones you kept decently.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Care to site them?

Because if they are there, then the god of the bible is so inept that it couldn't discern that slavery was wrong or the people who wrote the bible came to the conclusion that slavery is immoral of their own accord.

By what right do I or anyone else have to own another human being?

"Christ would also be a motive for releasing slaves."

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Ephesians 6:5.

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you went to Ephesians yourself, you would know the earthly masters were no wise encouraged to regard the slaves as their property, but rather to regard both themselves and their slaves as the property of God.

That IS discouraging slavery. In the long run.

Here is verse 9: [9] And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No it isn't. It's encouraging a person to maintain the idea of slavery in every regard. [!]

Where the bible isn't condoning or outlining the ownership of slaves it is encouraging people to be slaves. There is nothing moral with that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is not encouraging people to "be slaves" as people were in fact slaves. It is encouraging to use their slavery about as public servants use their offices (or did at the time), that is as honourable men.

If you want to know what slaves really were like, don't look at Spartacus, do look at the slaves in the comedies. THAT is what kept slavery going. Ephesians 6:5 killed off slavery as much or even more than Ephesians 6:9.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl There is nothing honorable about slavery. It is owning a person as property. It is dehumanizing.

You get it? The bible dehumanizes people.

It outlines how to beat them. Whom may be bought. Whom maybe sold (little girls not with standing). How you can ensure their servitude for life.

You want to know what slavery was like? Look at actual history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, the Bible RE-HUMANISED people who were dehumanised by Pagan society.

Time you start getting it. 70 BC, Spartacus leads a revolt of slaves and massive crucifixions follow. After that humanly speaking nothing can rehumanise slaves, hardly even Stoicism. 313 Christianity is made licit and some decades later official religion. Slaves becoming freemen is now order of the day, so much that even the Church (which has encouraged it) starts getting worried about things going too fast. 1000 years later large parts of Christendom show a spectacle not seen on a large scale since Nimrod started making slaves : societies where no one is a slave. THAT is history. Actual history.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then where in the bible does it say you will not own a slave? Or buy a slave? Where does it say you will not beat a slave? You will not sell your daughter as a slave?

Where in the bible does it say slavery is immoral?

That the church is being strong armed into supporting a secular cause that is no where to be found in their bible, is a clear indication that the bible got it wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I see you refuse to get a very simple point.

Slavery is [often enough] dehumanising. Slaves needed rehumanising. Abolishing slavery was not the obvious first step.

It does say slave hunt is immoral by stating Nimrod was a slave hunter. A "mighty hunter before the Lord" the traditional comment has "not just of beasts but of men". It also enumerates plagiarii - kidnappers or slave hunters - among with homosexuals [ok, sodomites really, since “men going to bed with men” do not include purely psychological cases of homosexuality] as people who will not get to Heaven. In other words, it says very clearly that if you encounter a free man it is immoral to make him a slave against his will. You can make a contract of indentured servitude, but you cannot hunt him down to make him your slave or to make him a slave to sell to others. It is also said very clearly that giving a slave his freedom if you are his master is an act pleasing to God.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Abolishing slavery was not the obvious first step."

WHY […] NOT?

You literally have a god that supposed to be able to reveal profound morality and inarguable wisdom. And it couldn't abolish slavery on its own? ESPECIALLY AFTER IT ENDORSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[Omitting a blasphemy.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God never endorsed slavery as much as certain others did.

Why it was not the first step, well because mentalities had to change - and did that thanks to the Bible and the Church - before legal institutions could.

You look like you are throwing a kind of childish tantrum - at least you look like that to me - on the subject of partial endorsement of slavery as if that is what made men want slaves and (against God's law) hunt slaves in the first place.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If your god never endorsed slavery, why is it endorsed, outlined, permitted and instructed in his hand book?

And why is not outlawed in that same hand book?

Did god have nothing to do with the bible? That seems to be the most obvious answer since it was largely secular movements that abolished slavery.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Be glad we have internet between us. Or if you are strong I should be. If you had behaved like that in a bar, you would have had beer in the face. Every question you pose I have already answered. Adequately and patiently.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Not even close.

Oh and how very Christian of you. Do what I say or I'll hurt you.

Just full of god's love aren't you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure, beer in your face would hurt you. Are you a girl? [He was not.]

A close look

at three parts of three speeches:

M McQuarrie

[The Bible] couldn't abolish slavery on its own? ESPECIALLY AFTER IT ENDORSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God never endorsed slavery as much as certain others did.

M McQuarrie

If your god never endorsed slavery, why is it endorsed, outlined, permitted and instructed in his hand book?

See what he omitted?

“as much as certain others did.”

See an answer to his question?

Partial endorsement – of slavery but not of slave hunt – BECAUSE not endorsing as much as certain others did.

A close look at what I originally answered:

In the Bible slavery is conditionally acceptable, but slave hunting is not.

Human sacrifice is not, except for God who laid down His human life on the Cross.

Funny, that you are sitting on the branch of a Biblical abhorrence of Molochism and cutting it off by attacking the Bible for not abhorring it enough. As if it didn't.

Of the three paragraphs,

M McQuarrie does not even try to refute two, only goes about slavery, never even tries to accuse Bible of endorsing human sacrifice. He also makes no attempt of accusing Christianity of endorsing slave hunt. Some honesty even he has.

... on Marriage and on Rape, on Quiverfull and on Feminism, on I Cor 7:3-5

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

Actually, Feminism is not brought up as a subject seen from without - but M McQuarrie illustrates a certain shade of familiphobic or oecophobic (oecos is Greek for family) feminism.

AronRa provoked my initial comment by pretending we have no family values (seems McQuarrie has none) based on Christ's words of loving no family members above Him - something AronRa considered "egocentric" of Our Lord. But also - here McQuarrie will provide irony - lacking in family values.

My comment to video

31:47 Christ is Theocentric, as any man should be, and He is God.

We are not to love family MORE than him and He knew he would be the cause why there were conflicts in quite a lot of families.

Much of the worst in that respect was within the Jewish people, when one was still siding for or against Him. Or later within the Roman élite. Some of it has come back with apostasy.

Now, this is not a ban on the family. It's a ban on idolising the family, not on having it on normal terms.

M McQuarrie

Do you know what the terms are for having a family under god? It is putting the husband at the head of the household and giving him absolute authority over his wife and children. This is what a loving god more than the family looks like:

Vyckie Garrison : Escape from Duggarville: How playing the good Christian housewife almost killed me
AlterNet
20 Sep 2014
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/656002/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"absolute" authority is not what you can find, if by it you mean unconditional and promoting cruelty

Undemocratic authority over wife, granted.

Before I look at the link, now I will.

OK, I looked at the link.

Certain Christians have started a certain movement dedicated to remodelling the Biblical family as if it had been entirely lost in general culture. I do very much endorse the ban on birth control - what Catholic would not? - but the point is they risked getting things a bit wrong by being a dedicated movement.

Now it has apparently gone so wrong in one of ,the families one wife has run away and tolod media "it almost killed me".

Is her story really even representative of the Quiverfull movement?

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes. Yes it is.

And that's a no true Scotsman-Fallacy you tried to pull.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not think her story is representative of the Quiverfull movement.

Insofar as it involves her not having birth control it is, but insofar as it involves her not being able to stand that, since a ban on birthcontrol is perfectly normal, no, it is not.

Most wives in the Quiverfull movement are presumably quite happy being in the Quiverfull movement and having no birth control and having lots of children. Otherwise, why would she be making a headline?

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Really? So abuse is okay as long as the victim is happy? And it's not abuse if it's not in the headlines?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not think a family living the ideals of Quiverfull is necessarily abusive. That woman in that headline found them so.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well good for you, you are wrong. The article clearly illustrates exactly how it is abusive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Namely?

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Didn't you see the abuse diagram wheel where it shows how you can recognize abuse?

It correlates to biblical passages illustrating how a life under biblical principles and ideal is harmful and detrimental.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Those correlations are abusive.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And they come directly from the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say the quotes were abusive. I said the correlations were.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And it correlates directly to the bible. An application of bible tradition and verbatim interpretation leads to spousal and child abuse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not think a verbatim interpretation of these Bible passages does lead to abuse.

In one of the items cited the "wheel of abuse" was itself clearly abusive, i e in calling it an abuse to deny birth control. That item was obviously written by an infidel feminist and an abject slave of the depopulation agenda.

In other items the correlation was very unclear. Statements about original sin are not dehumanising to the wife and children, since the husband and father also has it.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well good for you, you're wrong.

It's abuse when you exact control over someone and mandate how they may have sex and under what circumstances they may reproduce. Doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman.

[Omitting a blasphemy and a curse on Catholicism/Christianity] How is it not abuse?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well no. In a marriage:

• no one/neither gets birth control
• both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands.

Neither is abusive.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

HOW IS THAT NOT RAPE?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) Because it is MUTUAL.
• 2) Because it is consented in ADVANCE.

Rape is one sided, remember, and not consented, except some cases of statutory rape.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

That statement is very one sided. What kind of rose tinted world do you live in?

There is nothing about consent in that statement you made.

And consent in advance?

What kind of bullshit is that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Marriage is consent in advance to whatever marriage means. According to Bible it means each has the right to reproduce with the other, neither has the right to withdraw without consent of the other. Rose tinted or not, that is what it says and what thousands or millions of Christian couples practise.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Who gives a fuck what the bible says? A statement like:

"both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

is an endorsement of rape.

So does marriage no longer make rape rape?

"neither has the right to withdraw without consent of the other."

How many wives have died at the hands of violent husbands because of that mentality I wonder?

"that is what it says and what thousands or millions of Christian couples practise."

And that somehow makes it moral?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, it is NOT an endorsement of rape, since it is mutual, preconsented and usually involves no violence. St Paul does not say a wife who refuses to consent can be taken by force by her husband. Nor that she cannot. Something is left to the good sense, but some other passages saying on how to treat the wife would very much tend to exclude that method.

What it says is that each by marrying incurs a debt. Not that each can act as if collecting a debt by force if that should be the only way of collecting it.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "since it is mutual"

Where is the mutual consent in this statement "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands?"

Further more, your notion of good sense and debt flies in direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9, Ephesians 5:22 - 25, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15, Romans 7:2, Titus 2:3 - 5, 1 Peter 3:1 -3, and 1 Peter 3:5 -7.

It's a very one sided debt which seems to indicate a wife is less human and more property.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The "mutual" part is the "both" part.

A husband is neither less nor more property of his wife in bed than she of him.

I Corinthians VII: [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Where exactly in the other passages, those you mention does it say the opposite?

Passages of chapter 11 are about their social relation, not about their sexual one. Both 3 and 7-9. Ephesians 5 also stresses mutuality of love without getting deeply involved in sex. Colossians 3:18 is also not about relations in bed. I Cor. VII:3 - 5 on the contrary is precisely about that. I am not going on, have I missed anything?

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are positing that a biblical idea of a marriage is somehow equal to both parties involved, are you not?

That is not the case in the bible.

"The "mutual" part is the "both" part"

So either one can demand sex from the other and take it without consent as long as they are married?

Again, how is that not rape? What is marriage to you? 'I get to rape you and you get to rape me so it's all good?'

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "are about their social relation, not about their sexual one."

So wives get to be subjected socially as well as sexually?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You dishonest knave, what do you mean by "as well as sexually"? I Cor VII:3-5 outlines absolute equality sexually!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I Cor VII:3-5 outlines mutual rape by denying the husband or wife the right to say "no."

"The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."

No authority over their own bodies? That's not sexually equality. That's dehumanizing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is not dehumanising. It is erecting the couple into a unity. That is what marriage means. No rape about it.

[It would have been dehumanising if one sided, like in Fifty Shades of Grey, according to rumours I have heard of it.]

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So where does it stipulate consent? Where does it say a wife has the right to say "no?"

For that matter, where in the bible does it say "thou shall not commit rape?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It does not say the wife has a real RIGHT to say no. It does very much say that bad manners to her are out of the question. Love your wives as Christ has loved His Church.

As to your second question, diverse forms of rape were punished in diverse manners during OT. If it involved adultery or sodomy, it was of course a stoning offense. If it was a woman the rapist could marry, he HAD to if her father wanted it and could never divorce her (in NT no one can divorce his wife or husband). And if not, he HAD to pay the dowry.

That way, if she didn't like him at all (friend rapes do happen, so her liking the perpetrator is not out of all possibility) she could marry a poor man she liked and the rapist was paying it.

If an offense merits a large fine or a decision being taken for one, it is a large offense indeed.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Christ didn't have a church. If he existed at all he had a temple (synagogue).

"diverse forms of rape were punished in diverse manners during OT"

Not if you were raping someone who wasn't Hebrew. Remember the Midianites whom god commanded Moses to have killed and their homes sacked? But the virgin girls they could keep.

[Referring to a thread on slavery, which is upcoming.]

And if a man raped an unmarried woman, he only had to pay the father a dispensation of 30 silver. It didn't matter what the father wanted (let alone what the woman wanted, after all, she's just property).

In biblical times if you wanted a woman you could just take her. Real ethical there.

"friend rapes do happen"

HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?

All of this is irrelevant because until you can find the passage where it explicitly states "thou shall not rape" the biblical position on rape is at best ambivalent and at worst sanctioned.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Christ FOUNDED the Church.

Keeping Midianite daughters as slaves did not necessarily mean raping them. It would very probably mean marrying them off OR putting them under some pressure (as Orientals do now) to become concubines.

That was because Midianites had deserved a punishment, forgot exactly what for.

And forcing a rapist to marry victim if she wants to or pay her dowry if she doens't isn't sanctioning rape.

... on Roswell Creatures and Peer Review (starring M McQuarrie)

1) ... on Roswell Creatures and Peer Review (starring M McQuarrie) · 2) ... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

M McQuarrie was a bit irritating on a few threads, you have seen one, under an AronRa video, so I looked him up. Here is one thing (I have not watched video yet):

The Atheist Experience #773 - Martian God and ET Jesus
Atheist Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T4_tPdx3TE

M McQuarrie

Never underestimate the power of the deeply religious to rationalize anything that might contradict their faith in god. If we find extraterrestrial life, you can beat some apologist somewhere will have a bullshit reason that makes it fit into their worldview. God itself could come down and tell every Christian everywhere that they got it wrong, Christianity would not cease to be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My favourite reason why extraterrestrials fit the Biblical world view is because Roswell creatures aren't really EXTRA-terrestrial but INTRA-terrestrial, i e infernal.

REAL extra-terrestrials or supernal life would be God and angels.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wait, so you're a Rosewell conspiracy nut too? How often were you dropped on your head as a child?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you think if one considers Roswell creatures exist one is a nut? How many times were you patted on your head as a goody goody by every teacher when you were a teen?

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl What the fuck are you going on about? Can you actually present evidence that aliens landed in Rosewell?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No. But there is plenty of evidence from abductees they landed (or pretended to) some places, whether Roswell or not. And Roswell has been pretty much pointed out as a starting point for that. Btw, you use an - e - too much.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm all ears. Present this evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eyes, I hope, since reading is what you will be doing.

CMI : Feedback archive → Feedback 2006
Alien & skeptics
25–26 November 2006
http://creation.com/aliens-and-skeptics

CMI Store : Books - General & Family
Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the evolution connection (updated & expanded)
Gary Bates
http://ukstore.creation.com/catalog/alien-intrusion-updated-expanded-p-821.html

CMI : Aliens in your bedroom?
A startling new book on UFOs and their ‘evolution connection’ looks set to open many eyes …
by Mike Matthews
http://creation.com/aliens-in-your-bedroom

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So no actual scientific or peer reviewed and recognised papers huh?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As if I would trust that kind of publications to be honest? Na. Not about admitting what they have been denying for long. Whether UFOs or Creationism.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Such publications have to be honest or else be exposed as frauds and lose all credibility. Why do you think no one cares about what creationists say? Because they are frauds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh ... that is what the Evolutionist comunity tends to say.

Creationists do not accuse all Evolutionists of being frauds, nor of all Evolutionist publications of being usually fraudulent in what they positively do publish (sometimes, alas, yes), but rather in what they do NOT publish. They can be exposed as fraudulent in that way as many times over as we Creationists like, they still rely on a readership within the Evolutionist Community, which moreover is augmented unfairly by unequal access to education system which is on top of that unduly centralised (in many states of Europe even more than in US).

Never underestimate the power of deeply impious people to rationalise their beliefs in Evolution ...

... on Homosexualty, Definition of Marriage, Bronze Age, Progress and Middle Ages

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

Here is a thread which starts with one of my own comments on video - these might also be published together, in order.

Here is btw the man - M McQuarrie - whom I considered as soothing a death fear by trusting on modernity, see for yourself if he does so or if I am projecting as revya thought.

30:59 - "restricting the liberties of others, especially the rights of homosexuals"

If our God exists, the homosexuals may certainly have rights as persons, but not as specifically homosexuals. If He didn't - where would any rights be coming from anyway?

So much for RIGHTS, which is a metaphysical question. Now, LIBERTIES and RESTRICTIONS, we are getting more empirical.

It seems the more liberties homosexuals get, the less liberties others have, in certain situations. Taking orders for baking wedding cakes you approve of, if you are a baker ... keeping the child you gave birth to if two fags hired you as surrogate mother ... preaching the Gospel truth about the question if you are a pastor in Sweden.

If homosexuals are not banned from public displays of "affection" someone grossed out by such has little other things to do - legally - than walking where he won't see the horror.

M McQuarrie

So you want to be allowed to treat certain humans as less than human, by removing the civil liberties they have, based solely on sexual orientation (something that is accident of nature) because you think it's gross?

I think your bigotry is gross. Does that give me the right to treat you as less than human?

If god does exist than he is responsible for homosexuality. So clearly god doesn't mind gay people, else he would not have made them gay or given them the capacity or even ability to be gay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have not suggested removing anyone's civil liberty to any act allowed for others because that someone has an orientation.

Sodomy should of course be prohibited whether the culprits are:

• homosexual
• bisexual
• hetero but in for a kinky moment
• hetero and being kinky to someone they tried to dominate by kinkiness.

Marriage - note that definitions are MUCH closer to the ones of Quiverfull than the ones of Gay Movement - is a civil liberty which should very definitely be open even to homosexuals insofar as they are willing to compromise with or reassess their "orientation".

I do think culprits can be treated as less than innocent humans. Thieves are locked up, I cannot see why sodomites should not be locked up. Note : sodomites, those having committed sexual acts with someone of same sex and therefore infertile. Not homosexuals just for being homosexuals, no.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So gay people are allowed to be gay, they just aren't allowed to have sex with other, consenting gay people?

So the next time you have sex with someone, can we lock you up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not if it is with someone of opposite sex - whether straight or lesbian. In a way which makes pregnancy possible.

It is sin against nature, not sex in a natural way, nor a sexual orientation per se, which merits locking up.

Besides, I never said a gay man could not have sex with a lesbian woman. You are misconstruing what I am saying.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are aware that homosexuality exists in nature. Even among other mammalian species, homosexuality is relatively common.

You are saying a gay man may not have sex with another gay man, correct?

And your reasoning is based on a flawed moral principle and a lack of understanding of what exists in nature.

By that same token then, why shouldn't we be allowed to control your sexual habits?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Sodomy is a sin against nature. Does not mean "doesn't exist among animals in the wild", does mean "sins against the reproductive system".

2) Society is already controlling - or still controlling - some of the sexual acts it considers abusive. Like child porn or rape. Or is at least pretending to control them.

3) There is a reason why child porn and rape are abuses, namely lack of consent and encouragement to lust going into excessive passions.

There is a reason why sodomy is an abuse to be punished, namely encouragement to lust going into excessive passions and lack of intent of fertility.

There is no such corresponding reasons against the kind of sex life I would want, i e a Christian marriage. Therefore you cannot validly make such a comparison.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl First off, I am not talking sodomy.

Child abuse and rape however, ARE NOT SEX. They are crimes. They have little, if anything to do with natural urges or passions. They are acts of violence that are abhorrent to moral people.

Coincidentally, your bible condones both. [I am answering that in detail on other thread]

By saying two gay mean cannot have sex simply because you don't like it is bigotry.

If two grown and consenting mean want to have sex with each other, and you wish to stop them, why shouldn't I or anyone else be allowed to stop you from having sex with someone of your choosing?

Answer the question, it still stands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rape is an act using the sexual organs. If you will call it "not sex" because it uses them in the wrong way, then so can I do with sodomy or any other sexual act (which moral theologians would class as sodomy) between persons of the same sex. The question is answered.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So is flashing. Or that one Broadway act, Puppetry of the Penis.

Rape is an act of violence. It is meant to harm. It isn't sex. And I'll remind you again, I am not talking about sodomy. So ducking and dodging behind terms isn't going to help you here.

You want to prevent two consenting people from having sex. Their genders are not the issue here.

If it isn't fair for me to discriminate against you for doing the same thing, why is it fair for you to discriminate against homosexuals?

You're not only a hypocrite, you're also a bigot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Their genders IS very much the issue, since without two opposite genders there is no such thing as offspring.

And yes, I think flashing of the broadway act puppetry of the penis should be legal offenses as well.

Sexual organs were created for a purpose. That purpose is not filled by the acts that moral theologians call sodomy. If you call something else or only part of it sodomy, that doesn't mean that two adults of same sex having acts together that excite their sexual organs is radically different from sodomy or radicaly similar to the act by which children are made.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So if you have sex with someone but you don't get her pregnant, does that me we get to lock you up in prison?

If a woman can't have children, or a man get produce sperm do we get to ban them from having sex?

If rape produces a child does that make the rape okay?

Should we arrest anyone who masturbates?

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. You think it is okay to mandate a part of life that is as natural as breathing. Not only is what you are positing horribly immoral. It's also stupid as fuck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Failing to get children is not same as chosing deliberate combinations where they are out of the question.

If rape produces a child, the child is at least ok. The rape is not, but it can be forgiven.

Masturbation among celibates is sometimes a weakness. Some punishment is attached to it, like you try to go to a monastery, you don't ditch that habit, you are kicked out of the monastery.

But a weakness is sth other than a deliberate choice. Someone who really goes into the business of making others masturbate, like a porn producer, should be arrested. Someone who goes out of his way to exploit weak moments in younger men should be arrested.

But a man who does that should be trying to get a wife. And not using any birth control.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So it comes down to choice. You want to mandate something that is not a choice for people.

But you don't want others to mandate the choices you make.

How are you not a hypocrite? How are not immoral in what you posit? You are literally trying to make sex illegal.

[Omitting an insult and a blasphemy, given in that order, let us hope he intended more to insult me than to blaspheme God!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not trying to make sex illegal. I am trying to make non-sex or the worst kinds of it once more illegal as they were in better times.

Bill Clinton said one true word. When charged with perjury for saying under oath he had not had sex with Monica Lewinski, he said "that is not sex". So, what I would want forbid is not sex.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl That's exactly what you are trying to do. You are trying to impose what you think is or is not sex and mandating everyone just along with it. But you are unwilling to have anyone else do it to you.

Who are you to decide what is or is not sex, especially when you don't seem to have a clear grasp on the concept yourself?

How is that not hypocritical? How is not immoral? And how is it any business of yours if it does not harm or involve you in anyway?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Imposing what is sex and what is not is not forbidding sex.

I am imposing nothing on my own authority but declaring my loyalty to the Church and to the civilisation it made. If anyone is to hear a "who are you to x?" it is your revolutionary side. If anyone is hypocritical it is your side. Not mine.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes it is.

Setting aside that you have no right to make that call, you set the precedent for someone else to come along and enforce what they think should or shouldn't be sex.

It's especially hypocritical when the side who is trying to enforce said mandate is a collection of ungoverned, superstitious, hysterical virgins.

Namely the church.

And the Catholic Church has already betrayed this trust.

If you and yours get to mandate what is or isn't sex because of arbitrary bronze age traditions and the book of myths that inspired them, why cannot I do the same to you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If someone is hysterical, it is you.

You have no tradition reaching from the bronze age. If you outlaw straight sex, you doom humanity to extinction.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well it's a good thing I am not trying to do that then. Maybe now you get the point?

We've abandoned almost every other bronze age tradition for good reason. They don't work.

So who are you to demand we keep and enforce one of the most immoral traditions of that period?

And if you get to mandate that, what's stopping me from getting to mandate how should get your rocks off?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We have abandoned almost every other bronze age tradition? No.

We have agriculture. We have clothes. We live in houses. We use language. We use writing. We bake. We cook. We weave textiles. We make cities. We have drains in cities and irrigation in fields. I have seen irrigation tubes in Spain.

We are staying with most bronze age traditions because they do work.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Like what? Antiquated technology and medical practises? Tribalism? Theocracy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Everything you mentioned. All useful technology is antiquated, nearly (excepting medicine which has had some boosts very recently) and when we do not have the right kind of tribalism and theocracy, we have the wrong kinds of them.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl But we make technological advances and move forward. YOU ARE WANTING TO TAKE US BACKWARDS.

"and when we do not have the right kind of tribalism and theocracy, we have the wrong kinds of them."

Congratulations, you've identified a tautology!

[I missed to answer this, no there is another logical possibility which I excluded from being factual, namely having none of it at all.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The technological advances are for life up keeping purposes, excepting medicine, marginal to what they were in the bronze age and what we keep of them.

That 100 years has seen technological advances is no guarantee the changes in morality same time are real advances making things better.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You got it backwards. Advances in medicine and technology have improved our quality of life by leaps and bounds.

The fact that acts of violence and barbarism are LOWER now than there were in the bronze age is clearer indication that abandoning those bronze age traditions and immoral views benefits humanity.

In the following

I twice divide up the comment sequences. The comments as written are marked as A - I, three of them are together, six divided, including the last four.

Hans-Georg Lundahl A 1 - 4

(1) Advances in medicine have improved life expectancy of ill people. The one major reason violence and barbarism is lower than certain corners of the bronze age - if that is still true - is Christianity. (2) 13th C. was very certainly less violent than 20th. And more Christian. Apart from medicine improving life of cancer patients by prolonging it and similar, (3) how has technology IMPROVED our quality of life?

(4) Internet has improved interactivity above what it has been since printing press - but printing press made interactivity less, so internet is only restoring, not over all improving.

[Note the non-numbered parts also, which he did not answer.]

1

M McQuarrie B

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Advances in medicine have improved life expectancy of ill people."

No. Medical advances have improved life expectancy for everyone not just sick people.

People weren't living to their 80s in the bronze age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Oh?

But they were living to the seventies in the Middle Ages. Nel Mezzo del Cammin di nostra vita, you know.

2

M McQuarrie B

"13th C. was very certainly less violent than 20th"

Do you just ignore history on a regular basis? Violence has gone DOWN universally in ever developed nation around the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Whereever you learned your history was not a university faculty of history.

In a real historical work, about the Thirty Years War, given me in my teens as I was and am still a history buff, there were stats for percentages who died in wars in Europe. The two peaks since 13th C. were Thirty Years War and XXth C. Not XIIIth. Not XVIIIth.

3

M McQuarrie B

"how has technology IMPROVED our quality of life?"

Try living a year without electricity and plumbing and get back to me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Plumbing has been invented well before modern times. Electricity I have lived two years nearly without in ma's and mine appartment in Vienna. Cooking on fire and lighting oneself with burning materials rather than with glowing light bulbs is not a bad quality of life.

4

M McQuarrie B

"Internet has improved interactivity above what it has been since printing press"

The internet has allowed information to be passed halfway around the world in a matter of minuets (depending on connection of course). While I do not discredit the advances of the printing press, the winner is obvious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

That is both for better and for worse.

Interactivity was better before the printing press and has improved again after internet was invented.

However, public schools have also deteriorated interactivity in favour of one way communication. And that has not been corrected adequately.

M McQuarrie D (1-4 as above)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Okay. Now you are onto another subject entirely, one I couldn't care less about at this point.

Are you done now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl E (new division 1 - 4 for the following)

No, I am not.

(1)I say there is objective moral reason to condemn deliberately infertile sex. You call that "bronze age". (2) I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated, (3) why not marriage too. (4) You pretended life has VASTLY improved since bronze age. I answer that quite simply it hasn't.

So if you give up the line "we must abandon bronze age superstition because we do things so much better now" what is your next line of attack? On humanity, as on marriage, by the way!

M McQuarrie F 1

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "I say there is objective moral reason to condemn deliberately infertile sex."

What is it exactly?

And why do you get to make that call?

Hans-Georg Lundahl G 1

1) What is the exact moral reason against deliberately infertile sex?

The exact same reason as why is it wrong to eat and puke so you can eat again. Your stomach was created to nourish you, and that is where your taste bud pleasures fit in. Your balls and a woman's ovaries and uterus are for making babies. And that is where any pleasure in ... well you know what areas we talk about ... fit in.

Why personally I myself get to "make that call"? Because I am a normal person believing the normal morality, because I am a Catholic believing the Catholic morality.

In other words : because it is NOT I who am getting to "make that call".

You have not explained anything like why you get to make all the calls you are making.

M McQuarrie H 1

+Hans-Georg Lundahl 1) You committed an equivocation fallacy. First off you assume god created us (you haven't shown this to be true) second, the idea of food binge and purge can be shown to be unhealthy.

That's not the case with sex (again not talking sodomy so take your Catholic hang ups and pound sand).

You still don't get to make that call either. If god exist then it is god who is responsible for homosexuality in the first place. Either god wants gay people to be gay or god doesn't care that they are.

Or he doesn't exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I 1

Food binge and purge is unhealthy for the individual. Sex binge with birth control (including but not limited to sodomy) is unhealthy for the population. Have you noted inverted pyramid of ages in certain states of Europe where it is more done than in US?

God has very certainly not created anyone to prefer deliberately infertile sex over the Christian marriage.

M McQuarrie F 2

"I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated,"

Like?

Hans-Georg Lundahl G 2

2) Shall I copy paste my own list from above?

Will you read it this time?

We have agriculture. We have clothes. We live in houses. We use language. We use writing. We bake. We cook. We weave textiles. We make cities. We have drains in cities and irrigation in fields. I have seen irrigation tubes in Spain. To be precise : irrigation tubes, open on the top, made of concrete, in fields in the Meseta.

M McQuarrie H (2)

2) All of which has been vastly IMPROVED since the bronze age. So why do want to live in a time without those improvements?

And why do you want to live in a time and under a tradition where rape was permissible and slavery lauded? Where you had no electricity or medicine? Where you could reasonably expect to live to 30 tops?

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (2)

2) "All of which has been vastly IMPROVED since the bronze age."

You say vastly. I say marginally. [Languages have arguable even deteriorated since iron age.]

"So why do want to live in a time without those improvements?"

I did not say I wanted to.

"And why do you want to live in a time and under a tradition where rape was permissible"

Rape was NOT permissible, you have failed to show that.

"and slavery lauded?"

Slavery was not exactly lauded in the Hebrew tradition of the Old Testament, still less in the New Testament. It was just not condemned.

"Where you had no electricity"

No electricity is fine with me - if all the world goes that way. Otherwise I would like to be near a public library where there is internet.

I am however saying electricity is a marginal improvement.

"or medicine?"

There was medicine in the bronze age and there was medicine between bronze age and modern times. For instance in the Middle Ages.

"Where you could reasonably expect to live to 30 tops?"

That is not a fact. You have provided no source stating that as a fact, and your teacher said so or you read it in an intro to an article about developments in science specifically medicine is just NOT good enough for my sense of historic accuracy.

M McQuarrie F 3

["I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated,"]"why not marriage too."

Because of passages like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.

Hans-Georg Lundahl G (3)

3) You make the ideal of marriage a reason to not perpetuate marriage?

Is your ideal celibacy? Or is it harlotry.

M McQuarrie H (3)

3) Personally I hate marriage as a construct. I would rather see it fixed or altered from its current state. I don't think you should arbitrarily abstain from sex simply because you aren't married. If you as an adult want to have sex with somebody and they want to have sex with you, why should I or you or anyone have the right to tell you no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (3)

3) As you just put it, you prefer harlotry over marriage.

That was how slavery dehumanised slaves in the pre-Christian Roman world.

One way in which Christianity prepared the abolition of slavery (not saying it abolished slavery immediately) was by showing that slaves too are capable of conjugal fidelity and of virginity.

M McQuarrie F 4

"You pretended life has VASTLY improved since bronze age."

I fail to see how it hasn't since violent crime has universally decreased, knowledge and education has increased, we have things like electricity, plumbing, medicine that works and sanitation, and as a result average life expectancy has risen by at least 50 years FOR EVERYBODY.

The quality of life hasn't just marginally improved. It's go forward by leaps and bounds. WE WENT INTO SPACE FOR BALL'S SAKE.

And you want to go back to the bronze age?

WE DO THING MUCH BETTER NOW. WE DO DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING BETTER NOW.

Hans-Georg Lundahl G (4)

4) Violent crime has universally decreased?

Not.

Knowledge has increased? In some fields, but in others the contrary has happened.

Education has increased? With compulsory education and compulsory miseducation like common core, you have got it. But if you mean effective education to a civilised lifestyle and a civilised body of knowledge shared with others, no, not over the last century. But when it really did increase, like during the Middle Ages, that was when people were believing what you call "bronze age traditions".

Electricity is not just a boon.

Plumbing and especially sanitation has existed before modern times, including in the bronze age. Get a grip about history or shut up about it.

Medicine does not always work now, did not always fail in the bronze age. Average persons have about the same health as then , or worse due to cancers due to stress and pollution.

Average life expectancy has risen by at least fifty years for everybody?

Again, get a grip. Average life expectancy, once infantile mortality is off (or even with infantile mortality if you count abortions) is about the same as now.

"The quality of life hasn't just marginally improved. It's go forward by leaps and bounds. WE WENT INTO SPACE FOR BALL'S SAKE."

Going into space is not improving the life of everyone. It hasn't happened to very many. But that a few men have gone into space, lucky them, but there were lucky people in in the bronze age too.

"WE DO THING MUCH BETTER NOW. WE DO DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING BETTER NOW."

Except reasoning, and knowledge of history, as you have just shown.

M McQuarrie H (4)

4) You are demonstrably wrong on everything you have outlined here.

I am done with you. You think it should be okay for a husband to rape his wife. You want to go back in time to get your slaves back. You are morally inept.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (4)

4) I am demonstrably wrong? Demonstrate it if you have sources!

I think it should be okay for a husband to rape his wife? Not what I said.

I want to go back in time? Not what I said.

I want my slaves back? Not what I said.

I am morally inept? No, you are, because you are a misquoter.