Religious beliefs on bitcoin

[KeyserSoze]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

[1713493703]

1713493703

[1713493703]

1713493703

[KeyserSoze]

I have read/studied the bible from cover to cover and believe in it firmly...

So you believe in unicorns and a flood that we understand through science couldn't possibly have happened as described? You believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys? You believe females were formed form dirt? You believe Lot's wife suddenly turned into a pillar of salt? You believe in fire-breathing animals? You believe a human lived inside a fish for 3 days at sea? Firmly?

I hope you don't mind if I disregard whatever else you may firmly believe in...

[KeyserSoze]

No, the way it was done in the OT was that if someone had a message with a prophecy from God to declare, they would stand before the elders of that time and deliver it. The scribes would record and notarize it. That way, if it came true, it would be on the record who said it, and further attention would be paid to the other things they said. There was extremely little tolerance for false prophets, so such was rarely attempted. This is why we have the books of the prophets.

This sounds like it was more in line with mining bitcoins. If a "prophet" went on a lucky streak with his guesses then earned more street cred.

I like how you say "little tolerance for false prophets" yet according to you there was an entire system setup to record delusional rants. "Now serving Prophet #1,036,666. Step up and state your vision, please." What an interesting 9 to 5 that must have been for the scribe.

[KeyserSoze]

The Red Sea was parted to make a point as much as safe passage. I think this God can make his will known without the say-so  & stamp of approval from some old fogies.
Edit:  And just to shame you: "Then said Jesus unto him, Except you see signs and wonders, you will not believe." John 4:48, KJV

So now you think you know the mind of your god?
Fortunately for you he doesn't exist, there was no exodus, and if the Red Sea parted it could only have been from natural events.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2009/04/a_skeptics_guide_to_passover.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/coming-this-fall-exodus-conspiracy-dr.html
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-debunking/red-sea-crossing-t878.html

[ktttn]

BitChick, men often make for efficient abusers, they are trained from an early age to be so, and to consider women to be property. The most damning aspect of patriarchy and rape culture is forcing us  to feel shame about everthing, and mitigate that shame with penance to an Omni Man.
For any woman to be manipulated into worshiping a man is, to put it lightly, an abominable travesty. How dare anyone imply that someone who abused you should seek forgiveness not from you, but from BLANK.

To thank god you were not born in an era that produced your moral compass is an indication of a conflict. You realize this. This cannot be tolerated. The bastards need smashing, theyre the same bastards back then as now.

Do you think youre an exception to all these distinct MANGOD systems? You cannot be duped? NO. Unacceptable. You must grow out of this insane culture of self destruction.
You bought btc because you objectively realize it is more valuble than the toilet paper the fed stuffs us with.

[ktttn]

Also, I use the Bible as my moral compass as well when my own selfish desires get in the way of what really is the right thing to do.  

I don't want it to appear I'm picking on you. I'm just replying to what you post. However, you most certainly do NOT use the bible as a moral compass. It plainly tells you not to seek wealth, yet you've admitted to investing in bitcoin to make money. I hope you make a killing, but your god doesn't. I'm just curious why you say one thing and do another. It seems to be a common trait among the religious, who also claim their book of rules is "absolute". Curious, indeed.

This will sound weird to you but after praying about it, we felt like God wanted us to invest in Bitcoin.  Still not sure why.  We have not really made much yet (A little but we bought in when it was on the rise and our average price is about $120 for the relatively small amount we have), but maybe God wanted us to buy just so I would log in to this message board and share with someone on here my story?  Who knows really.  So, I disagree with you in that.  The Bible is my compass.  God is my pilot. I try as best as I can to listen to Him.  I don't always do as good of a job of doing that as I should, unfortunately.  He is patient with me, thankfully.  

I still do not understand why you think God does not want us to be wealthy?  Greed is bad.  Selfishness is bad.  But there were many wealthy people in the Bible that did great things.  So I just don't get it.

That said, as for your posts about the Old Testament rules, such as clothing, marrying a rapist, etc.  I sometimes wonder about those things too. I just know that culturally women were treated as property back then.  If a women was no longer a virgin, she was not allowed to marry (She was considered used property) so perhaps it was God intervening to cause her to at least have a family? Perhaps a merciful action based on the cruel society that they were living in at the time?  I am just speculating here. As a woman I should be thanking God that I was not born during that time in history!  And God had rules to set the Israelites apart from others at the time.  There was the laws on the clothing, the food (kosher) and various other things some of which was can analyze that there was some benefit, but others might make us scratch our heads and wonder.  

"DIY destroy what distorts you"
Reject it and grow out of it. Could not be simpler. I goddamn expect better out of you, and as a rule, I think less of people who have yet to escape their theist chains once they have the key in their hand, as you do now.

[BitChick]

How dare anyone imply that someone who abused you should seek forgiveness not from you, but from BLANK.

"Forgiveness" is an area that I think many of Christians get wrong. I actually don't think we should offer forgiveness to anyone unless they ask.  The Bible says to be "ready to forgive."  My abuser never did ask me for forgiveness.  So I put him in the hand of God to deal with him.  I felt very sad for his soul.  I cried for him because I knew that if he did not repent, or ask for forgiveness, he was doomed for destruction.  I prayed that he would change.  The reason I had a change of heart was because I was willing to forgive at that point (before then I wanted revenge and was filled with hate)  Looking back now I can see that God was very patient with him.  Perhaps he had a chance, or two, or three, before he was "accidentally" killed in a freak accident.  I am not sure.  It is tragic, really.

[crumbcake]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

[KeyserSoze]

I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality.

Now you're just being ridiculous, of course there is a separation between murdering someone, and sentencing someone to death because they have murdered.

There is a difference because murder is a relative moral. I am still awaiting your absolute moral.

The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.

Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".

Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc.

Morals are not created by those using the moral system (first point), God is still good(second point), and empathy is not a valid source of morality(third point). I suppose I could take three paragraphs to say what I just said, but that would be a waste of space.

What is a waste is your bothering to answer as you have. Simply concede or maybe just don't answer at all. I can say red is green but that doesn't make it so. You don't provide any evidence or argument but simply state a position. That is your concession on these points.
[/quote]

So multiple people get together and decide what is moral? Like the German government?

They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.

The rest of your argument is "the ten commandments are bad, your morals are bad". The ten commandments are good, a 10th grade could not create a better 10 commandments, and moral relativism = utilitarianism, both are evil, an 10th grader could make a better ideology than moral relativism.

I didn't think you'd give up this easily.

The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone."

The choice of writing material is a human one,. God shows a clear preference for stone in the creation of the ten commandments. The amount of effort put forth by the Jews in their preservation of the Torah is quite incredible, stone sounds fun, until you realize the practical limitations of it. You need a good source of well hewn stone, you need enough stone to write the Torah, and finally you need more effort to record in stone than papyrus.

The law of God was meant to be used by the people, and stone is not very practical.

Well, I suppose I should be happy you even tried to argue your point, thin as it is. Why would the choice of writing material be any more a human choice than the words written? The argument sounds pretty arbitrary. You'd be better off just saying "faith has no need of logic" and leave it there.

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

This is not being simply naughty, this is flat out rebellion by the child. And do not assume young child either, glutton and drunkard are listed as well.
Furthermore this passage is more a protection to the child, in that the child must be taken to the elders of the city to determine whether of not the child's rebellion deserve death, I would imagine this was not a common occurrence. This is not a commandment to stone all rebellious children. Due to the patriarchal system, this stops the parents from simply stoning the child.

Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to condone child abuse. One would think I'd know better by now. At least your values can serve as a warning to others to steer a wide course around religion.

Slavery Slavery in the context of the bible is very widely misunderstood. First, when you say slavery, everyone get's the image of the enslavement of the Africans, however man-stealing in the bible is clearly punishable by death. I imagine this would have been a counter-cultural thing to say.

Exodus 20:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Slavery was allowable in the bible, such as in the repayment of debts or captives in war. However all slaves were granted freedom in the year of jubilee, every 49 or 50 years (at regular intervals of time, if a slave was captured 10 years from the year of jubilee, they were granted freedom 10 years later). Furthermore, all hebrew slave were to be let free 7 years after their enslavement.

What seems to be misunderstood is that slavery is a bad idea but your god condones it. Period.

In what context is slavery good? If it was "right" back then and "wrong" now then it is another example or moral relativism, or that your god was wrong, take your pick.

I don't know if I'll ever understand when christians answer the question of slavery nearly the same every time by saying, "slavery is wrong but god did allow it for 10 or 20 or maybe 50 years per slave anyway." It's as if you don't even listen to yourself speak.

I'd rather hear a christian say, "yeah, slavery is a pretty big fuck up in the bible. What can I say? I believe in god but I also believe he wasn't perfect, or maybe he was and the bible was just a manmade guideline for life in the medieval world."  The strict adherence to such absurd illogic as perfection simply turns an educated populace away from your cause, and the world's populace is experiencing a massive education boost with access to the internet.

Christians also never point out "the catches" with releasing slaves, like one's own daughter given to slavery couldn't be released, or if a slave had a family they weren't released.

[crumbcake]

The Red Sea was parted to make a point as much as safe passage. I think this God can make his will known without the say-so  & stamp of approval from some old fogies.
Edit:  And just to shame you: "Then said Jesus unto him, Except you see signs and wonders, you will not believe." John 4:48, KJV

So now you think you know the mind of your god?
Fortunately for you he doesn't exist, there was no exodus, and if the Red Sea parted it could only have been from natural events.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2009/04/a_skeptics_guide_to_passover.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/coming-this-fall-exodus-conspiracy-dr.html
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-debunking/red-sea-crossing-t878.html

I tried answering you once, in detail, a few pages ago.  You've ignored it.  Reply to that post, and I'll see what I can do

[KeyserSoze]

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.

If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another.

I smiled at this but it's probably a No True Scotsman fallacy. I would rather say he wasn't a skeptic.

[QuestionAuthority]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

This reminds me of a friends funny story: his mother had cancer and got a colostomy (a plastic bag is glued to your stomach and waste goes in the bag). The mother couldn't stand this new pastor that took over for the old one at her church that she knew for years. Sunday morning the new pastor would stand at the exit after the sermon and shake everyone's hand as they left (the old pastor didn't do that). This made leaving the church very slow as people would stop to talk. He said his mother would poke a pin into the bag right as she got to the pastor to shake his hand releasing the gas inside and refused to let go of his hand for a long time. This happened every Sunday for a month. The new pastor stopped greeting everyone at the door.

True story.

[KeyserSoze]

You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.

For an atheist, being "angry at god" is like being angry at Voldemort.

[KeyserSoze]

Rejecting god, and then coming to realize that it's all nothing but a fairy tale was the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I have been happy ever since!

Congrats on releasing yourself from the shackles of religion!

[crumbcake]

This reminds me of a friends funny story: his mother had cancer and got a colostomy (a plastic bag is glued to your stomach and waste goes in the bag). The mother couldn't stand this new pastor that took over for the old one at her church that she knew for years. Sunday morning the new pastor would stand at the exit after the sermon and shake everyone's hand as they left (the old pastor didn't do that). This made leaving the church very slow as people would stop to talk. He said his mother would poke a pin into the bag right as she got to the pastor to shake his hand releasing the gas inside and refused to let go of his hand for a long time. This happened every Sunday for a month. The new pastor stopped greeting everyone at the door.

True story.

[crumbcake]

You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.

For an atheist, being "angry at god" is like being angry at Voldemort.

There are 20+ page atheist threads raging against Voldemort

[Missionary]

[KeyserSoze]

That said, I do feel like there is a movement towards Christianity being less accepted, or popular, in our society than it used to be.  This is my own perception of course. 

Christianity is on the decline in the U.S. It is still disproportionally high, however. You should expect a bumpy ride down since the U.S. is @75% Christian and Europe is something like @13% (depending on types, yadda). It is expected as America matures that fundamentalism in particular will subside to European levels.

It is still growing I believe in Africa and I think China of all places, last I looked. I think the Chinese Christian rise is tied to the "Christian materialism" movement in the U.S. which comes to countries of wealth. It is just cherry picking the bible of course; another branch that chooses to ignore certain bible teachings over others.

[KeyserSoze]

I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.

If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another.

Not how I see it, but fair enough, you kinda had to be there. I'm confident that if I could write a long enough book I could demonstrate just how seemingly logical of a progression it was. That stuff is a lie, but also just real enough to be incredibly dangerous.

You're still "there," in the midst of more lies. When you talk of those other beliefs you are describing your current one.

[KeyserSoze]

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

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

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.