On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:03:18 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
<roger.pearse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
==>On 2 Jul, 00:17, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
==>> Whether the versions are similar or identical
==>> doesn't change the fact that the Bible is a
==>> contradictory collection of myths, fables and
==>> children's stories, written by anonymous and
==>> ignorant men, translated, re-translated, rewritten
==>> and finally compiled by a committee. Not one word of
==>> it can be regarded as factual.
==>A lot of the rich and powerful people would like us to think so.
Which "rich and powerful people? Historically, rich
and powerful people were almost always at least
allied with the churches and generally sup****ted
the established religious institutions, since religion
keeps the common folks meek and compliant which
is, of course, its purpose.
==>Ever wonder why? After all, if there is no right or wrong
Who says that without religion there would be no
right and wrong? That is one of religionists'
foulest lies.
Of course, without religion there is still right and
wrong -- the difference is, those judgments are based
on how people actually treat each other and the
consequences of people's behaviour, not on
an ancient tome of zero relevance to modern life.
==>what stops them
==>screwing us all over?
Rich and powerful people always "screw over" as much
of the rest of society as they can. That's how they
*became* and *remain* rich and powerful.
(Former New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard
Grasso just managed to grab $187.5 million when he
walked away from his job. How much do YOU earn,
Roger?)
Sheesh! Do I have to explain everything to you?
==> Ever wondered whether the permissive society
==>was a bribe?
You say "permissive society" as it were a bad
thing. Permissiveness is good, except to those
social fascists who want to substitute their own
moral judgments for everyone elses'. We need
more permissiveness, not less.
But then, we know that religionistas fear and loathe
(other people's) freedom and will do everything they
can to suppress it. Members of the Christian Right,
in particular, won't be satisfied until every last
mother****er in the world has been utterly
brainwashed, and humanity is transformed into an army
of blank-eyed zombies, marching obediently
and in lockstep to the churches, to be told what to
do by befrocked liars and child-molesters.
**** that. As The Who once sang, "We're Not Gonna
Take It".
==>We need a strict moral society, if only to keep the greedy bastards at
==>the top in line.
Really? And just whose morals will be strictly
enforced in this society? Yours? Those of one
particular religious sect, based on some ancient
scribblings? The church's? Which church's?
**** off, Roger. What we need is a free society
in which everyone is at liberty to live by
their own moral code, with anti-social
behaviour restrained by a reasonable, sensible
and *secular* criminal code.
Sort of like what we have now in all most of
North America and the rest of the developed
world.
God save us from other people's "morals."
(BTW, Roger, we don't disagree on everything.
I notice that in another post you wrote this:
"But of course this would not show that (ancient
texts) are divinely inspired or indeed contain
correct content."
In this you are absolutely correct. As I have been
pointing out forever, there isn't a scrap of credible
evidence that *anything* in either the Old or New
Testaments was divinely inspired or contain correct
content. Which is, of course, why people who
believe the Bible is some kind of supernaturally
inspired work are morons.)
"The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of
sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was
flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a
breathtaking example of emerging technology." -Sam
Harris
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
