Cirmentia
Ultimate Member

It's the same with buddhism, any philosophy which instructs you to temper thoughts is suspicious to me. Catholicism seems particularly weird to me, however, but I guess it's more a religion of conquest than others are.
Perhaps zoomorphic is a better word, since that was the aspect I was referring to, much of the first mystical drawing and cave art is of that description, and so is Hinduism- the world's oldest practiced religion. Older religions additionally appear much more sexual, again Hinduism and it's holy book of kama sutra.I think that describes those older more instinctual and 'animalistic' cultures well, whereas in more modern religions sex is only for babies and reproducing to grow more massive armies to war with the practically identical culture 'over there'. Something must have happened to militarise people between then and now
Well apparantly not all men are created equal. ;3 The laws of religions clearly are for specific cultures, even if they claim everyone has to obey.

I think that's likely, religion usually bares a punishment for having 'wrong' thoughts, so surpressing those thoughts might become habitual.
Yes, it's carved from mammoth ivory, I researched it as part of My Art A level. The deities of very old religions seem to be more anthropomorphic than the more modern, hyperbolic human-image gods, I suppose because that's a more generic and transferable religion to spread through conquest.
From discussions with fundies they sometimes say that their god treated different people with different appropriate laws, and attempt to draw parodies with a teacher or parental figure. This still goes little way to explaining why being left handed should ever be considered evil and it still hosts the web of paradoxes you pointed out- the human gods, in their hyperbole seem to share people's greatest flaws more often than their greatest wisdoms.

I'm sure these people must be aware, deep down, that their reasoning and quotation styles are unstable [afterall, I made blackie admit that by his standards of evidence the loch ness monster exists and the loewenmensch proves stone age europe was inhabitated by a race of furries.
Oh my, a self contradiction, no surprises there. x3 If it weren't for the fact people believed it then these archaic cultures would make pretty interesting movies, because there'd be a lot of plotholes to resolve [and plenty of spin off series]
Hm, I think you're right. Instead, the 'jesus changed the old laws' is the favourite rationalisation for why they still eat bacon or have a foreskin and wear composite clothing. [although this rationalisation is hardly used to give left handed or gay people a break either].

He quotes ficticious and fallacious sources. In general, from the majority of the 'fundies' on JV, I can find streamlined versions of their arguments on AiG or Kent Hovind etc, such as the 'kinds not species', argument, which is well propogated amongst these sources and a favourite mantra of fundamentalists on the web.
Was he? I imagine the bible would perhaps criticise south paws because armies functioned dextrously at the time, and marauding christian armies wanted to be successful in their invasions, 'course it's easier to say sinistrous=sinister than 'these are our plans to invade alexandria'.
I agree that religionists usually fall back on 'it's metaphorical' as an excuse for their own behaviour, but are relluctant to grant other people the same excuse, I presume because they're selecting quotations to heed or ignore based on the beliefs they and their community already have- if you replaced their bible with a granth I don't think you'd see any difference in their behaviour.

What I found funny was quotations from the daily mail, which is regarded as reading material for racists and bigots.
Well...brevity is the soul of wit. ;3 ...although I rarely heed shakespeare's advice.
Yeah...I think blackie's posts are an example of when huge long posts detract from the impact, because as time goes on the chance of mentioning bullshit that contradicts the other bullshit approaches one.

His post was exactly as I expected, it's odd that he quotes statistics twice to support himself than preferentially states he will ignore statistics I post concerning guns...
Anyway I think I've made a way too massive post, because so many other posts caught my eye. This turned out to be pretty much what I expected, a divide along religious lines, and there's unfortunately little capacity to reason with people who think they are the light which shines out of Jesus's bottom. x3

<insert link here that takes you to an explanation>

i didn't mean it like that

Oh I had to go so I couldn't play with you, sorry.

What about now? XD

;-;