Your ‘logic’ being that you’re right and anyone who disagrees is mistaken? With nothing but empty claims that others assertions are inadequate? Simply in effect saying, Na, Na, Na I can’t hear you?

It is not I who is twisting in the wind but you who are ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ to avoid answering my quiet specific rebuttals.

But then, you’ve acknowledged your game playing, I hope its fun playing by yourself.

If someone doesn’t know your thoughts because you failed to describe them, means you have a problem, not anyone else. Washington’s not speaking for you and you’re not speaking for him. It’s a great way to be opaque and obtuse on purpose, based upon nothing more practical than intellectual laziness.

I’m of course showing a lack of seriousness. It’s the obvious and most practical rebuttal to Brit’s claim that I’m too attached to whatever he was arguing over. Now, if I’m unserious in replying to the argument, this obviously means Brit, you, were quite wrong about my connections, or lack of them, to the subject that you were arguing about.

The logic seems clear to me, why are you twisting about in the wind though?

“It sounds from your tone in (1) and (2) that you have added the caveat, “except people who’s belief system is different from mine” to (3). Would that qualify as a “selective interpretation” of the word all? Hummm, I guess (1) could apply to you as well…”

hey, you said you’re working on your bliblical scholarship. i’m working on my ‘humanism’. i gotta tell you, it’s tough though.

peace

Dagon-

The story of Lot and his daughters is a historical account–it is not explicitly making the point that incest is acceptable, whereas Leviticus explicitly condemns this behavior (contrary to what you seem to be implying, not every passage in the Bible is a command or a law.) I don’t see that as being contradictory as there is an obvious difference between a historical account of an event and explicit commands regarding what is right and wrong. You made a claim and I wanted to see if you could present evidence from the Bible to support it–we’ll have to leave it up to other readers to decide your success.

“i would have to say that my knowledge of the ‘bible(s’ is about as shallow as anyone else’s; particularly selective interpretists such as bookworm or yourself.”

I disagree—that’s a muddled, relativistic viewpoint since you are saying that everyone’s viewpoint (no matter how learned the individual on the subject matter) is basically equal to anyone else’s. Based on your logic, there would be no reason for colleges (or any school for that matter) as reading, and in-depth analyzing of text (in this case it just happens to be the Bible) wouldn’t render a person any more of an expert in a given subject area than someone who perhaps watched a TV show on the same subject. Many people know bits-and-pieces of the Bible but are you honestly making the claim that one can gain (or offer) significant insight on ANY book based on having read a few random passages?

1) “it must be nice to adhere to such a flexible belief system that basically accomodates whatever sick interpretation that you desire to justify your bloodlust or prejudices.”

2) “…but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress”

3) The Wikipedia link you offered states: “Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people.”

It sounds from your tone in (1) and (2) that you have added the caveat, “except people who’s belief system is different from mine” to (3). Would that qualify as a “selective interpretation” of the word all? Hummm, I guess (1) could apply to you as well…

“You presuppose that either ‘all killing is wrong’ or ‘games with semantics’ are being played.”

–when it comes to interpreting the bible, yeah…that pretty much sums it up. i’m a moral relativist out here in reality …
You are a ’selective’ moral relativist who is denying the difference between murder and justifiable killing and attempting to attach that presumption to the Bible. When your assertions are disputed you revert to ad hominem attacks…

“you sure went a long way around the block to basically just confirm my original assertion that you are little more than a ‘cafeteria’ christian who interprets jesus’ words so as to justify your basest impulses.”
Characterizing my responding to your assertions point-by-point as ‘longwindedness’ is a perfect example of ‘deflection’ in argument when disinclined to respond appropriately.

“what’s telling is that in light of the existence of sects that believe that ALL killing is wrong, you choose to align yourself with a belief-system that gives you some ‘wiggle-room’. now why would that be?”
More veiled implications of dishonorable character. You are seeking to have it both ways. In another argument you would characterize those sects who believe that ‘all killing is wrong’ as absolutists, lacking an understanding of ‘nuance’.

“by d_brit’s standard of “How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”
The Bible, in context does indicate disapproval for Lot’s daughters behavior. The Bible clearly indicates God’s condoning of ‘righteous’, neccessary killing, both in the Old and New Testaments. So, your attempt to use my ’standard’ falls apart.

“all men are hypocrits. but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress.”

All men have ‘blind spots’ and commit sinful [erroneous] behavior.
That is NOT the same thing as behaving hypocritically.
Hypocricy is knowingly behaving in an unethical manner while applying a standard to others that is not personally met.

You are doing a bit of ‘projecting’ on to others, what may be personally true of you. Whether so or not, ALL men are NOT hypocrits.

As for your assertions about religion, it is undeniable that there are ‘insane’ practioners. The same is true of secular moral relativism, which has done at least as much harm.

It is as wrong for you to apply the ‘broad brush’ of opprobrium to religion as it would be for me to apply it to ‘all’ secularists.

Now, who’s asking who to do the others work?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”George Washington

“Let us[inclusive use]with caution [carefully consider]indulge [give the benefit of the doubt]the supposition [an unproven presumption], that morality [our sense of permissible and inpermissable behavior] can be maintained [sufficiently supported]without religion [a codified set of spiritual beliefs and precepts]

Of the 9 quotes provided, 5 specifically mention Christianity in a supportive context. 8 specifically extend support to ‘Revealed Religion’. 2 specifically condemn Diesm.

Playing ‘games’, presenting ‘fronts’,”a little game i play, I suppose, since I’d like to see how good people are at interpreting the psychology of others they see on the internet, just by reading their typed words. I’ve gotten to some degree of skill with that ability, so far. What can I say, I’m bad when it comes to logical thinking like that which chess requires, but I hold my own in terms of non-linear, crooked, thinking that requires subtlety.”
“So I can read a step beyond a person’s actions, via the net. I’m trying for two steps at the moment.”

The above indicates a lack of seriousness and a considerable degree of intellectual vanity.

If Ymarsakar, you can’t acknowledge the clear conflict between Washington’s statement and your assertion that I highlighted previously, then moral obtuseness must be added to your character flaw of intellectual vanity.

You have lots of fun playing with those of like mind.

to answer your question about my belief system i can best say that i am a pragmatist, believing that the perpetuation of the species as an imperative naturally requires a set of universal ethics. i’m running short on time but here are some links to info on the basics:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=schick_17_3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist

peace

“As you say, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea (and btw, not everyone who sins is turned into a pillar of salt.)”

–well, since they had just garnered gods’ favor and escaped the destruction of sodom, it’s more than a little relevant that god didn’t have boo to say about their escapades in that cave.

and re Leviticus 18:6-18, all you asked me to do was to prove that i could justify incest by citing a few passages from the bible. by d_brit’s standard of “How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”, i did just that. it’s not my fault that the bible is as contradictory as it is.

“I have to agree with Bookworm that your knowledge of the Bible is rather shallow but don’t despair as that describes a majority including many, many people who call themselves Christians (and I don’t exclude myself from that assessment but at least I’m trying.)”

–since there about as many volumes and interpretations of the bible as there points in your iq, i would have to say that my knowledge of the ‘bible(s’ is about as shallow as anyone else’s; particularly selective interpretists such as bookworm or yourself.

but then again, i don’t claim to be an expert on aesop’s fables or druidic alchemy either; both of which hold about as much importance to me as biblical scholarship does.

“Based on your previous posts to this thread, it appears your contempt for Christianity (and I guess all religions) is based on a belief that adherents are hypocrites”

–of course they are hypocrites. all men are hypocrits. but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress. that trumps any problem that i might have with hypocrisy.

peace

As you say, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea (and btw, not everyone who sins is turned into a pillar of salt.)

Now, regarding explicit instructions on incest, let’s turn to Leviticus 18:6-18 (New International Version)

6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

I have to agree with Bookworm that your knowledge of the Bible is rather shallow but don’t despair as that describes a majority including many, many people who call themselves Christians (and I don’t exclude myself from that assessment but at least I’m trying.)

Based on your previous posts to this thread, it appears your contempt for Christianity (and I guess all religions) is based on a belief that adherents are hypocrites (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m curious as to what ideals you live up to that enable you to be the paragon of virtue? Why not state them explicitly here and now and allow others to judge how well you live up to the tenets of your belief system? What are they based upon and why is that basis better than someone else’s? It basically comes down to the question of why I should allow someone with an ethereal belief system judge me as a Christian.

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

–now, i know that the bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea but since none of them was turned into a pillar of salt, it kind of makes you wonder.

plus there’s this from d_btit:

“How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”

–we done yet?

peace