1. If you say ppl have changed because of education, then explain why thievery still exists in law.
Why are there thieves
Why are there murderers
Why are there wars
Why is there still adultery

I hopw you did not misunderstand what I said. I repeat, people have not changed. We still have the same primal urges. And we still cede to them like we did in the past.
Dont' forget that the "sodomy you speak of is not new. It was practiced 2000 years ago and before.
Gangbangs as recreational were present in Pre-islamic arabia.
Orgies, whorehouses, and night clubs as well as parties where alcohol and frivilousness are as old as Babylon.
So what exactly is the change in humanity that has been brought about by education.

Are you telling me that because of school we do not do things that are ancient in origin.
Have you actually been to a frat house on Friday night..lol

Seriously though, have the reasons for war actually changed? Look at spin, and look at Nazi propaganda. Is there a difference other than the "name".

Interest and mortgage are also as old as pre-imperial rome. Brutus himself amassed a fortune on interest earnings alone.
So what exactly has changed in modern society because of "education", that makes the human animal and the very desires, urges, reactions it feels any different from those felt 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago.
Technology. Sure Dildos and fleshlights have changed how people fornicate or the masturbate. But didn;t people fornicate and masturbate and sodomize and kill and rob and wage war, and get into fights at the local; pub centuries ago?

2.Yes as you said it, the class system is different now. But there is still one.
People in Harlem are not treated or considered the same as people on PArk Avenue.Not because of anything but the place where they live, correspondingly the income they have, hence their worth.
If you look at Pre-Caesarian rome and post-Caesarian rome, read up on the Plebs, and how they were treated. Then look at the working class in Europe and the US, and see how they are treated.
Look at the policy of "democracy" and how politicians frame policies with Lobbyist and special interest groups in mind. Compare this to any ancient Oligarchical society of the past.
So yes, the bottles and their labels are changing with time. But it is still the same old Wine.

Religion does not deal with labels. It deals with the conduct and essential nature of people in regards to their very habits and behaviour. As long as our behaviour is unchanged, albeit suited and stiff-upper-lipped religion is just as relevant today as it was 5000000 years ago when we scratched our balls and did not shave our pubic hair for years - No wait people STILL do that TOO.

3. If you watch Rome on HBO - and please I hope you are not basing you historical knowledge of Rome on a TV show only - but since it was very close to historicity Ill humour you - pay attention to the first few episodes and the discourses between Pompeii and Scipio. Look at how easily loyalites changed.Look at how people behaved. If you cant see parallels in hwo people behaved then and how they behave now - You haven't been watching it in detail.
If you go down south, people are still copying "Rome on HBO's" Augustus and fucking their sisters - episode of the first season.
Every aspect of Roman society as practiced then is prevalent in modern society, right down to the gambling pubs and quais-mafia. And, if you look at the recent killings in high schools, trains and other public places in NY and Detroit to sight a few - is there really any difference?
So in citing Rome on HBO, you still prove my point.
If you look at ancient Rome, every aspect of that society, Babylonian society and greek society have been incorporated into modern society. In short we still do the same things and behave in the same ways. Difference being they killed with spears and slingshots, now we use rockets and guns. Still conceptually the same right down to the intentions of the person using these weapons.

4. From what you've said about the Supreme court and seminarians, I don't think you understood what I said about gays.
Let me repeat in a simplified form.
- Since we live in a society that separates church and state (is not a Theocracy), gays can certainly get married in civil unions sanctioned by the Courts. Called in other parts of the world - Court marriage.
- However, when we say that Church has to ratify m2m and f2f marriage, all you ahve to go on with Christianity today is the new Testament. If you say the NT is just a series of letters (and I agree with you), citing the series of letters to speak of "religion" is contradictory in itself.
But if you assume that it is religion, then you hold it to be more than just letters. Which is why you actually bother with the ritual of christian marriage - again sth that is mentioned in those letters.
In that case, for gays to marry, by Christian marriage tradtion, one asks where the ritual and vows and the like are derived from? from those same letters.
So if you do say that you are using those letters for performing the marriage, why call those letters irrelevant scraps when dealing with sections that spell out what that ritual of marriage is actually for? you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the Bible is a bunch of worthless letters, then the rituals spellt out in those letters are also irrelevant. Why then would gays want to "marry" by rituals from those irrelevant letters? And if you are implementing rituals from those letters, why ignore the sections that actually mention for whom the "ritual of marriage" is actuall for?
A weird form of Homo-apologeticism going on here.

as regards non-new testament bible sources, marriage is explicitly m2f, and sodomy is prohibited for m2f and m2m. No confusion there.

as far as love and sex, if you are having sex with someone you dont love, you are having it for the sake of a "release". Just like you would use a fleshlight or hands. That is where religion again states that the only condition you are allowed to "release" yourself sexually is with your wife. You certainly have to love and judge compatibility in order to marry. And you do not and should not marry just for sex. But the only condition permissible to have sex is being married and with your wife.
so your sex for marriage argument sort of missed what I was saying, and this last point you raised still kinda missed the point.

I didn't get the last section of your post, so I cant respond to your last 2 sentences.
also, you did not mention the animal sacrifice you were talking about. Could you repeat that if you want to raise it.

I'm not a theologists nor have read the bible completely but even me understand that what you are doing Lazarus is misinforming others and I recommend not to lie any value into Lazarus posts (and not into this article he posted at all) anymore or take it too serious. He writes a lot of stuff and smashes everything you say into little pieces to make you getting sick to argue anymore and post lots of links (even if it's bullshit like this) that tries to misinform people that have no clue and actually don't care about anything what is posted here (which is an overwhelmingly majority) but still read some little parts like "God's a sadist because he preferred the innocent animal's blood and not the fruit" which is wrong. However, I decided to show you this time what really is going on and spend a little time of my time one time.


"The butchering of innocent animals" ... how sweet, are you vegetarian? This explains the niveau of this article quite well.
In fact the real story explains WHY God doesn't look on Cain's offering because of Cain's inner attitude against his brother Abel which will lead to the second type of sin, this time, the sin against God which effects the world as a whole turns into the social sin between humankind which leads to the fall of brotherhood and through that to a murder.
If you read it very closely (and you always have to if you want to understand the bible) there stands God would not look on "Cain AND his offering". But God had an "unofficial" look into Cain as well as on his offering and the "official" into "Abel AND his offering".
The Bible further tells that Cain brought one of his fruit, a random one, to offer. But Abel offers the best of the best of his work, the firstborn and fat sheep. Cain's attitude was just to fulfill his duty but Abel did it out of love to his God.
As you see it is not about God want to see animals suffering. It is about much more. Have you ever questioned yourself why they haven't put their offerings together and remember they were brothers.
Out of that refuse Cain feels envious and angry and kills his brother. Envy and anger - Source of any war.
[I just was sadly laughing when thinking about some people that are trying to tell me there is no good and evil in this world]

Lazarus, I will not go further but there is lots of stuff in this article which is simply wrong. And I just follow one rule now: Where one limb in the chain brakes the whole construct which it holds brakes as well.
Whatever you say and show Lazarus or any other person with the same intends, the construct "Bible" holds, has hold and will hold because of a simple fact: It's true. Till this day many tried - all failed. But hey... lets time proof my  - how many would say - my arrogance.

Cya next time

ok?

Jan, I'm truly tired of Christians trying to claim that the bible is not supposed to be interpreted the way the articles suggest. Unfortunately, there are huge disagreements even just amongst the christian groups, all because there is no real basis for interpretation, and the bible itself is certainly not helpful with regards to rules of interpretation, although that would be a circular argument anyway. This problem of interpretation amongst the holy books has caused and continues to cause wars.

Also, I sincerely hope you're not alluding to the argument from context. As I've said countless times before, context can be important but it usually is not. In what context does wanton slaughter become acceptable? Every person I've mentioned this to has avoided answering it. Fingers in ears singing la la la. And if indeed the bible is not "meant" (who says) to be interpreted literally, then how did you determine that it was of value at all? How can you prove its inspiration (note that I've heard all about the prophecy and science arguments and they are easily dismissed).

Do not mistake passion for dogmatism. In the end, the most sophisticated argument that religious people can come up with is that atheists are "fundamentalists" or "evangelists", something designed to irritate the atheist since he hates these things when he sees them in religion. I am passionate in my defense of reason. This is not "bull" as you put it. And it's no coincidence that in america, belief in a God is strongly correlated with a lack of education (and also intelligence).

I took a break from the thread because all Serpicus ever came back with was "I can't prove it and neither can you", a weak and incorrect trick that I refuted a number of times. I will repeat again for clarity that the chance of this God being there is not 50:50, and science sheds a lot of light on the actual reality, which is in the range of the probability of Zeus or Mars being there. So just as with Garden Fairies, we should be God agnostics in principle and God atheists in practice. Science proceeds by starting as a blank slate and looking to see what the evidence tells us about reality. So far, there is zero evidence for a God of any sort.

So I would appreciate it if I was not accused of posting bull. Everything I say is well though out; even if you disagree with me you should at least show some respect for reason. Note that I will also show respect for a well reasoned argument. I've not seen one from Serpicus in a huge number of posts, which is why I'm so darned disrespectful. For some reason religion is afforded a special respect it does not deserve, as though it is above criticism or analysis. I make no apology for breaking out of that viscious cycle which allows anyone to believe anything they like without those beliefs being tested. Ideas that go untested become weak or dangerous ideas, especially if you give them several thousand years to brew.

Ewm, I find that trying to communicate scientific reason to those who love supernatural irrationality, is like playing chess against someone who doesn't understand the rules. Most of the time you defeat them swiftly, other times they "defeat" you using incorrect or illegal moves, and then they bounce up and down on their chair shouting, "I won! I won!". And of course, the chess master finds this highly amusing (and frustrating?).

A case in point is where Serpicus tried to claim that I "flip flopped", temporarily acknowledging a creator. I did nothing of the sort; a scientist should always acknowledge the possibility of something, but the scientist is not obliged to accept the probability of that something. I simply acknowledged the possibility as a good scientist. This is no weakness on my part, in fact it is a strength and a key feature of how we reason. My argument has never changed; the probability of this deity being there is in the same territory as the celestial teapot. It would have made no difference if people had written holy books about the teapot for thousands of years; people have written about literally hundreds of different gods of even more bizarre description. As a scientist you cast all that aside, start with a blank slate, and then look at the evidence.

Maybe I should introduce my own god, Mahumbdalla, and thumb my nose at all the Mahumbdalla atheists by declaring, "you can't disprove the existence of His Mightiness!". I don't even need to explain how ridiculous this is; it's self-evident. And yet my intelligence is continually insulted by those who throw the same argument at me, in disguise.

Believe it or not, thievery, murder, war and even adultery have decreased considerably as the centuries have passed, and anyone honest enough to look at the cold facts will come to the same, simple conclusion. The biggest changes started roughly 4 centuries ago and despite fluctuations on decade and yearly scales, the trend has continued, such that if ancient male death rates due to violence had prevailed in the 20th century, 2 billion people would have died in the world wars. The 20th century gave the illusion of extreme violence due to a hugely bigger population, and widespread media reporting, something that obviously gets "worse" as communication technology improves, and the population explodes.

Asking why there is still "murder, rape, theft and wars" today is kinda like asking why there are still bacteria on the kitchen worktop after it has been disinfected. As always, religious people desperately search for anything possible to validate their beliefs. The most probable reason is that they want to believe there is life after death. As is usual in science, you acknowledge the possibility, but that does not oblige you to acknowledge the probability, and certainly not to believe it.

Science is the replacement for humanity's 'longing for God', it's just that in several centuries, half the planet have not accepted this. This longing is understandable but it is and has been a massive and dangerous distraction. How can you say that 'science is nothing but an interesting periphery'? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Science, by definition, is everything you see around you and a lot more, it is grander and more powerful than any of the confused and contradictory ideas you'll find amongst the world's religions.

You are throwing around the word "philosophy" without properly defining it. If you mean human deliberations and philosophy in general, then yes I agree, it's not much to rely on. But if you mean the philosophy of science, which is progressive and powerful, then I take what you said as a compliment. Not only do the 'magisteria' of religion and science overlap (contrary to popular belief), but science is better than religion at getting at the truth of reality. In fact religion cannot even answer its own questions, the questions on the turf of its own magisterium. The scientific method and the powerful results it leads us to may not solve all of our problems, but they are the best we have. It truly is all we can rely on, and is still the very best way of viewing the universe (dare I say it, the only real way). The other "methods" of viewing the universe are not methods at all, they are not worthy of respect. They simply result from people believing things without evidence. when it comes down it, it's as simple as that. Evidence or no evidence. Which one do you choose?

It is a repeated fallacy that we require a god or gods to suddenly sprinkle life with meaning. It's a strange irony that our friend Red spoke about philosophy, since there are many kinds of philosophy. Who was it that said, "I gain this from philosophy: that I do of my own free will what others only do through fear"? This is the opposite conclusion to Red. Needless to say, we can take the word 'philosophy' and slap any meaning we like on it, so long as we stay outside university philosophy and science departments.

There is nothing more worthy or fulfilling than to do good without the threat of death, armageddon or hell. In this sense, religion threatens to remove all meaning from your life by ending it. On the other hand, despite its (current) limitations, science is just starting to open up the possibility of extending our lives (much more than it already has I mean). My point is, at least with science we have that option. Since religion rests on the prior assumption that we may live forever, it is actually an empty promise, and while it gives the illusion of greater meaning, it actually has less. Religion claims to understand death when it actually knows nothing; science is making genuine, slow, steady progress in terms of understanding it. We will likely learn things that will make the religious view look very naive and simplistic.

We do not even understand time itself yet, which is a key component in what removes or gives our lives meaning, the passage of time. How silly will religion look if in nine centuries we remove time as an issue? As our technology continues to accelerate, we will discover wonders that will make the traditional and fundamentalist religions look even more small minded and short sighted than they already do. As Carl Sagan said, it is amazingly odd that religious people have not looked at science and thought, "this is far grander than I thought!", noting that this would draw forth reserves of reverence barely tapped by the world's religions (the full quote is in an earlier post I made).

We do not need a divine father figure to validate our existence (think about it: how then would God validate his existence, if he existed? If he does not need a creator to give his life meaning, then neither do we). Such an argument becomes an infinitely regressing, non-terminating nightmare, just like the argument from irreducable complexity, in which the universe gets more and more complex as you go further and further back in time. Incidentally, this is "solved" by terminating with "God", but it's amazingly obvious that this is just a fudge factor. Recent research in physics has shown that complexity can arise from simplicity without any outside influence, and not only does this not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but it takes advantage of it! The only known mechanism in the universe for generating complexity is from simplicity. Just like chess or qubits, very complex behaviour can arise from only a few simple rules.

I've digressed a bit but my point is a unifying principle, that we should not introduce a fudge factor just because we want God to exist (believe me, I'd love to believe in a God, but emotionless science says otherwise).