From: steve (arborealman@comcast.net)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 23:27:45 GMT
hello, To Poot ; You are right that things may be skewed.As I understand it
the original wording from the Hebrew, should have been translated thou shalt
not murder. the difference being huge. killing is often the morally correct
thing to do. as in self defense or if someone were attacking your
girlfriend.----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Poot" <mattpoot@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: MD An atheistic system?
> Hello
>
> DMB:The religious beliefs subscribed to by the majority of Americans
> is, and I say this without exaggeration, childish and idiotic.
>
> -=*POOT*=- Yes. I consider peoples fanatical beliefs in the dogmatic
> traditions
> of religion, be it christianity, islam, or what not to be silly. I
consider
> concepts such
> as 'creationism' to be idiotic.
>
> As has been said, if you don't take it too literally, there is much
> interesting things
> to find, and that are useful in day-to-day life. An example of this,
would
> be
> the pacifistic nature of christianity. Jesus was a pacifist. YET, we
have
> "Christians",
> such as George Bush, who, by any stretch of the imagination are nothing
> close .
> This has been going on , since the Romans times (300ad?)
>
> I had an interesting conversation with my ex-girlfriend, who happens to'
be
> a 'Jehovas Witness.
> She basically takes the bible literally, as 'the word of god'. My
> 'argument' was(taking the position that there is 'god)
> that the bible is just various peoples interpretations of god, not the
> actual words of god himself.
> I said that since it is the interpretations of what god meant, then it is
> bound to have been skewed
> *(by each persons static life history of experiences)
>
>
> I agree with Dave, when he says that a 'non-theistic' system is 'better'.
> If you subtract the dogmas,
> associated with scriptures of various religions.
>
> Example: Thou Shalt Not Kill
>
> Dogmatic: If you kill someone, then you will be punished by god, and go
to
> hell.
> Non-Dogmatic: Killing someone is morally incorrect. Killing does not
solve
> any problems, provide any answers.
> It only causes pain, suffering, and grief for others. You have no right
to
> take the life of another.
>
> The difference betweent the two? The Dogmatic view is basically : Don't
do
> this , or you'll be punished!
> If you take the un-dogmatic view: You shouldn't do it, regardless of
whether
> you'll be punished, on the basis that it is
> 'wrong'.
>
> I think that if you take the atheistic view, then you automatically
discount
> all that has been said in various scriptures,
> even if it is valuable.
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> Matt Poot
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 23:29:10 GMT