Religious war is coming to America....

[Barrackubus]

Dictating what a woman can and cannot wear, who she can and cannot talk.too, is opression. I have discussed this with muslims of this nature and they pretty much treat a woman as if she is a peice of.property.

 

[Meow Mix]

Dictating what a woman can and cannot wear, who she can and cannot talk.too, is opression. I have discussed this with muslims of this nature and they pretty much treat a woman as if she is a peice of.property.

If "some" Muslims do that doesn't mean ALL Muslims do that.

 

[1robin]

If "some" Muslims do that doesn't mean ALL Muslims do that.

It does not matter if some do and some do not. The religion justifies the practice and where the religion is also the state it is enforced by eticate police on the street. I have seen them drag a young women off the street because there was something minor wrong with her head gear. Where ever Islam is the dominate practice women are oppressed. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.

 

[sojourner]

Christians had too much help failing in their whole purpose for existing. Because they are failing, instead of the Father's Kingdom growing and expanding liberty and sovereignty throughout the world, it's light is flickering and starting to grow dim. Since the "greater light to rule the day" is in massive decline, the "lesser light to rule the night" shall come in its wake. It has different parameters. It doesn't seek to establish itself through love and proselyting. It infiltrates and as soon as it garners enough power it takes it and uses it coercively.

We are about to go into Day 1 of a new Creation where everything is divided between two Kingdoms. Everyone had a choice.

1) The Kingdom of the Father, which Christians were supposed to look for and build up with rejoicing when it came because it would make our world a Paradise.
2) The Kingdom of the Adversary, which is the lunar Kingdom, which will take away everyone's individual sovereignty and force them to do what they should or off to the guillotines as infidels.

It isn't a coincidence that the Islamic religions have a crescent moon symbol.

All those who reject the Father's Kingdom shall be helplessly forced into Islam, in due time.

That will be the consolation prize for those who feel to pat themselves on the back for aiding the decline of and derailing Christianity from its whole purpose.

If the wacko extremists on both sides would simply cool their jets, there wouldn't be an emergency -- either real or perceived, because they're the ones who are causing the emergency in the first place!

 

[Meow Mix]

It does not matter if some do and some do not. The religion justifies the practice and where the religion is also the state it is enforced by eticate police on the street. I have seen them drag a young women off the street because there was something minor wrong with her head gear. Where ever Islam is the dominate practice women are oppressed. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.

And you don't think all religions have had similar episodes of despotic insanity? Christianity once had followers that were just as guilty of violent oppression (as the norm) in Europe and North America.

Don't blame the religion. Blame the culture's failure to adopt higher values and move on from bronze age tribalism. We're probably lucky that Enlightenment values ever even took hold at all; the most we can hope for is the equivalent of an Enlightenment in the dark places of the world.

 

[1robin]

And you don't think all religions have had similar episodes of despotic insanity?

NO, atleast none that were consistent with the bibles teachings. I do not care what a idiot who has a cross around his neck does. The bible says do not murder if he does so, that has nothing to do with the religion.

Christianity once had followers that were just as guilty of violent oppression (as the norm) in Europe and North America.

The actions of any people who called themselves Christians but who acted contrary to what the bible clearly demands have nothing to do with the religion, the Bible, or God. I can claim I am a member of meow mix religion and kill people. Will you accept responsability for it. What Muslims do in the context of my statements is justified in the Quran. There is a big difference.

Don't blame the religion. Blame the culture's failure to adopt higher values and move on from bronze age tribalism. We're probably lucky that Enlightenment values ever even took hold at all; the most we can hope for is the equivalent of an Enlightenment in the dark places of the world.

I reject your appeal to the obsurd. Morals have no basis outside God. Show me how you would prove what Hitler did was actually wrong with appealing to objective standards that do not exist without God. The Bible is still as relevant as it was 2000 years ago. The trick is to seperate the bogus religions from the real thing. G.K. Chesterton said that Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried. Christ is still the most benevolent example of human conduct in human history. This is what even a critic said.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

God is the only valid moral foundation for what society requires. That is why it was our maker that Thomass Jefferson (No Christian) said was the only basis for rights.

 

[Barrackubus]

The interesting thing about religion is that there are always extremists, those that go over the top, but we must remember they build that mindset with the equal amount of faith in the same religion that you yourself builds your divine relationship with. And because of the value that people give this faith, it creates enemies of that religion, thus creating the infidels of that particular religion. where the world is in some dire need of cleansing. And thus sometimes making enemies of one another, which historically has been the norm, whether or not they were acting not in the will of the holy book, for those that say not to do those things in those holy books, therw are those who would say the same holy book justifies their violent and extremists behavior, and a man who believes he is justifies by a god, has no conscience, for he is justified for not doing so, and this becomes a very powerful ingredient for violence...

 

[Meow Mix]

NO, atleast none that were consistent with the bibles teachings. I do not care what a idiot who has a cross around his neck does. The bible says do not murder if he does so, that has nothing to do with the religion.

Ok, what about in Salem? Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, right?

What about the genocides depicted in the Old Testament? The Bible is full of commands to kill and murder. The thing is that with Enlightenment values, people are simply rational enough to ignore them.

The actions of any people who called themselves Christians but who acted contrary to what the bible clearly demands have nothing to do with the religion, the Bible, or God. I can claim I am a member of meow mix religion and kill people. Will you accept responsability for it. What Muslims do in the context of my statements is justified in the Quran. There is a big difference.

And Christians have historically justified their use of slavery, violence and murder with the Bible. There is no difference. You just have Enlightenment values, so you find ways to explain away the commandments to kill. That's what's going on here.

I reject your appeal to the obsurd. Morals have no basis outside God. Show me how you would prove what Hitler did was actually wrong with appealing to objective standards that do not exist without God. The Bible is still as relevant as it was 2000 years ago. The trick is to seperate the bogus religions from the real thing. G.K. Chesterton said that Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried. Christ is still the most benevolent example of human conduct in human history. This is what even a critic said.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

God is the only valid moral foundation for what society requires. That is why it was our maker that Thomass Jefferson (No Christian) said was the only basis for rights.

We can debate the foundation of morality if you like. Morality certainly isn't (and can't be) founded in theistic belief. I dispute also that the Bible (or the Biblical Jesus) has a morally upright character (I find the book to be laced with insane depravity interspersed with the occasional upright notion).

Please let me know if you'd like to have this discussion as I think it would derail the current thread to do it here. Rest assured, though, that it isn't correct that theism is required for morality or that the Bible has a fundamentally morally good character.

 

[1robin]

Ok, what about in Salem? Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, right?

You must not be familiar with the bible. Those very harsh laws were only given to the Jews and only for a specific time frame. They had very
good reasons that no longer exist. They have not applicable in over 2000 years. Nice try but no dice. It is funny how you critics can remember every verse that can by used to attack the bible but can't remember a single scrap of context.

What about the genocides depicted in the Old Testament? The Bible is full of commands to kill and murder. The thing is that with Enlightenment values, people are simply rational enough to ignore them.

THe enlightenment had no connection to the OT. You will have to bring up a certain war to discuss. Many in fact most were in defiance of God and he punished them for it. The ones he sanctioned were justified. You know the bible says do not murder not do not kill correct?

And Christians have historically justified their use of slavery, violence and murder with the Bible.

I do not care. Slavery which was almost always voluntary and was more like endentured servitude in the bible has not been allowed in two thousand years. No body can justify murder with a book that says you shall not murder. Come off it. Christians also used the bible to help end slavery. ONe group was acting according to the bible the other against it. It is also funny how you olny mention the ones that are acting contrary to it. Not funny more sad really. Bias is not a good basis for research. No one acting contrary to the bible has any bearing on it.

There is no difference. You just have Enlightenment values, so you find ways to explain away the commandments to kill. That's what's going on here.

Your reverence for the knowledge of man in no way way explains my morality. The same men who produced the enlightenment in the cradle and influence of Christianity without that influence left babies to die in Greece, decimated entire units in Rome, and enslaved 4/5 of the world in Persia. The depravity of man is held in check by the very thing you resist.

We can debate the foundation of morality if you like. Morality certainly isn't (and can't be) founded in theistic belief. I dispute also that the Bible (or the Biblical Jesus) has a morally upright character (I find the book to be laced with insane depravity interspersed with the occasional upright notion).

Your a trip. Prove any act ever commited was actually right or wrong without a transcendant standard. So much for mans wisdom.

Please let me know if you'd like to have this discussion as I think it would derail the current thread to do it here. Rest assured, though, that it isn't correct that theism is required for morality or that the Bible has a fundamentally morally good character.

I have it almost every day and it ends the same way. You un believers attempt to defend right and wrong, good and bad, until you see it is impossible and then you abondon absolutes for what no matter what words are used is opinion and preference which is insuffeceint for the needs of society. If you wish to do exactly what I described you name it. please excuse type Os

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Dictating what a woman can and cannot wear, who she can and cannot talk.too, is opression. I have discussed this with muslims of this nature and they pretty much treat a woman as if she is a peice of.property.

Just Muslims do this?

I think just about every single male on this planet thinks for some reason that he is in the position to dictate to a woman what he wants. Just about all of you think women are objects and property. And if a woman doesn't kowtow to the male aggenda she becomes a bwitch or shrew.

 

[Meow Mix]

You must not be familiar with the bible. Those very harsh laws were only given to the Jews and only for a specific time frame. They had very
good reasons that no longer exist. They have not applicable in over 2000 years. Nice try but no dice. It is funny how you critics can remember every verse that can by used to attack the bible but can't remember a single scrap of context.

The point is that people used these verses to justify killing.

In all honesty, are you really thoroughly familiar with verses in the Quran you're assuming justify murder? Are you thoroughly familiar with the context of those verses?

If not, then why are you claiming that the Quran justifies murder? If so, can you please elaborate before smearing an entire belief system publicly without backing it up?

THe enlightenment had no connection to the OT. You will have to bring up a certain war to discuss. Many in fact most were in defiance of God and he punished them for it. The ones he sanctioned were justified. You know the bible says do not murder not do not kill correct?

I suspect that the No True Scotsman fallacy is going to come into play here.

For instance, if I bring up Samuel 15 -- in which The Lord supposedly commands the genocide of an entire people -- which can be interpreted as a Biblical endorsement of murder and genocide committed in the name of God, what would your response be? It would be very bizarre if one were to claim it isn't murder if God commands it, methinks.

If the reasoning is that the Bible is morally good becauase even the most attrocious acts within it are actually "not bad" because they're commanded by God, who is good, because the Bible says He is good (regardless of how He acts)... that isn't really "reasoning" at all. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I just wanted to pre-emptively deny the efficacy of that mode of response. What say you?

I do not care. Slavery which was almost always voluntary and was more like endentured servitude in the bible has not been allowed in two thousand years. No body can justify murder with a book that says you shall not murder. Come off it. Christians also used the bible to help end slavery. ONe group was acting according to the bible the other against it. It is also funny how you olny mention the ones that are acting contrary to it. Not funny more sad really. Bias is not a good basis for research. No one acting contrary to the bible has any bearing on it.

I don't deny that the Bible was also used to justify ending slavery -- but that isn't the point. Don't mistake me: I'm not saying that religions like Christianity are all bad things. I agree they can be used for good. But so can Islam be used for good, just as it can be used for bad.

By rejecting those who use Christianity for horrible things by fiat ("no true Christian/Christian who's 'doing it right' would do anything bad!"), you're engaging in a fallacy called No True Scotsman fallacy, revealing your objection to be absurd.

Your reverence for the knowledge of man in no way way explains my morality. The same men who produced the enlightenment in the cradle and influence of Christianity without that influence left babies to die in Greece, decimated entire units in Rome, and enslaved 4/5 of the world in Persia. The depravity of man is held in check by the very thing you resist.

The depravity of man is held in check by defeating ignorance, not in adhering to bronze age mythologies. Religiosity doesn't disincline people from being depraved, as is evidenced by the fact that a majority of the people in the world follow some religion yet still often behave badly.

Nor is atheism a guarantee that one will behave morally. The point is that strong ethical positions don't rest upon the theism/atheism issue whatsoever. One's theism or lack thereof is irrelevant to one's moral character.

Your a trip. Prove any act ever commited was actually right or wrong without a transcendant standard. So much for mans wisdom.

I can prove that any transcendent standard can't possibly be God. Are you familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma? The question is whether God's commands are good because God commands them; or if what God commands are good because it is good.

If the former, then morality is in fact arbitrary and has no real transcendent standard (i.e., God can decide tomorrow that He will command us to rape and murder -- and it would be GOOD since He commanded it!). If the latter, then God isn't the transcendent standard for moral good since God Himself is merely subject to a standard transcendent to Himself if He commands things because they are good -- see how their goodness is external from God in that instance?

Neither position vindicates the notion that theism is the foundation of morality; and in fact it turns out theism can't be said foundation.

I have it almost every day and it ends the same way. You un believers attempt to defend right and wrong, good and bad, until you see it is impossible and then you abondon absolutes for what no matter what words are used is opinion and preference which is insuffeceint for the needs of society. If you wish to do exactly what I described you name it. please excuse type Os

I'd really rather you didn't say "you un believers" as though you're discussing with a group of people who have a worldview in common, thank you.

Also don't worry about typo's, if I know what you're saying that's good enough for me

Nice to meet you by the way.

 

[Barrackubus]

So does this mean the ethics of god is situational??
And if I were a minority, specifically african american, what kind of god permits slavery??
I mean why isn't owning them sinful, but if you had premarital.sex you got stoned to death??
See there calling me an unbeliever, should have called me an infidel, I believe.but.not in any bipolar, situationally ethical.deity...

 

[Thief]

So does this mean the ethics of god is situational??
And if I were a minority, specifically african american, what kind of god permits slavery??
I mean why isn't owning them sinful, but if you had premarital.sex you got stoned to death??
See there calling me an unbeliever, should have called me an infidel, I believe.but.not in any bipolar, situationally ethical.deity...

God gave Man dominion.
It is Man that allows the indiscretion.

But then there's all that dogma to sort through.
What we think God wants.

 

[waitasec]

God gave Man dominion.
It is Man that allows the indiscretion.

But then there's all that dogma to sort through.
What we think God wants.

yea, theres the dogma we have to sort through...

 

[1robin]

The point is that people used these verses to justify killing.

That is irrelevant. I could say winnie the pooh told me to kill someone. That does not mean winie the pooh is evil. Do you not understand this principle? Actions done against biblical teachings are not the Bible's or God's fault.

In all honesty, are you really thoroughly familiar with verses in the Quran you're assuming justify murder? Are you thoroughly familiar with the context of those verses?

Yes, I know Muslims domental gymnastics to attempt to diffuse what they say but the just sheer volume and scope make the effort useless. The Bible does not contain any general instruction to violence of any kind. The Quran makes many.

If not, then why are you claiming that the Quran justifies murder? If so, can you please elaborate before smearing an entire belief system publicly without backing it up?

Sure what sepcific action is it that you want a teaching that justifies it?

I suspect that the No True Scotsman fallacy is going to come into play here.

THis fallcy might work in philosophy but it has no purpose in theology. There are certain factors that make one a Christian. They are very clearly laid out in the bible and I and 2 bilion Christian's are testimony of that fact.

For instance, if I bring up Samuel 15 -- in which The Lord supposedly commands the genocide of an entire people -- which can be interpreted as a Biblical endorsement of murder and genocide committed in the name of God, what would your response be? It would be very bizarre if one were to claim it isn't murder if God commands it, methinks.

I do not know how the justification can be evaluated from our point of view. We have an infinitesimally small amount of the needed info and God has it all. IN some cases like with the Cannanites they I found out through secular books walled live children up in walls for luck, and they made their kids walk through fire for marduk. In this case adding in the biblical information and what I have gained through secular books on biblical war they were despicable people whom God had tried for years to change they refused and God wiped them out. I do not deny God justified genocide. I claim most instances justification can't be evaluated but in every one where it can he was justified. His allowance for war was only a small percentage of the wars waged by the Jews. He punished the Jews for it. It seems in summary he rarely allowed war but when he did he gave good reasons, the little that is known seems to justify it, and it was truly terrible.

If the reasoning is that the Bible is morally good becauase even the most attrocious acts within it are actually "not bad" because they're commanded by God, who is good, because the Bible says He is good (regardless of how He acts)... that isn't really "reasoning" at all. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I just wanted to pre-emptively deny the efficacy of that mode of response. What say you?

The reasoning is that you have no basis for declaring what God did atrocious. You do not have a meaningfull fraction of the info needed to determine that. This time period does not have many ercords and very little is known. This is not the same for 1500 years later in Islam. You are also evaluating it in a vacume that dismisses God's reality and purposes. For instance when he did not bring war and just left things alone the Jews always chased after the neibor's Gods and women. This made them unfit for the Purpose to which they were called. It also would have made the impact of Christ's life much less, which would have doomed many souls to hell. You do not include these factors. In one battle he ordered Saul to kill the queen. He did not and her son grew up and ordered the death of every Jew in Persia. You would have probably said God was cruel and let her live as well, unfortunately as I have said you do not know enough to judge this and if God hadn't stopped it your action would have killed tens of thousands.

I don't deny that the Bible was also used to justify ending slavery -- but that isn't the point. Don't mistake me: I'm not saying that religions like Christianity are all bad things. I agree they can be used for good. But so can Islam be used for good, just as it can be used for bad

I am sure Islam can be used for good. I care about what they say and more importantly which is true. In every category used to decide these issues the bible exceeds every other religion.

By rejecting those who use Christianity for horrible things by fiat ("no true Christian/Christian who's 'doing it right' would do anything bad!"), you're engaging in a fallacy called No True Scotsman fallacy, revealing your objection to be absurd.

I never even said anything about whether they are truly born again or not I have no way to know. I sad their actions if contradictory to the bible are no reflection on it. However it is possible but very unlikely that a bunch of actual Christians would have made crusades. As history shows they were robbers, thieves, and power hungry noblemen who used the Bible and the Pope to justify falsely taking land and wealth. Actually it began by stopping Turkish Muslims from killing pilgrims and that was good but it went way off the tracks. A true Christian has the Holy Spirit which greatly resists unGodly acts.

The depravity of man is held in check by defeating ignorance, not in adhering to bronze age mythologies. Religiosity doesn't disincline people from being depraved, as is evidenced by the fact that a majority of the people in the world follow some religion yet still often behave badly.

Ignorance concerning morality is exactly what you get without God. It can't even be meaningfully discussed without him. I do not defend al religions. I defend Christianity and believe all other false. The hundreds of Hospitals, entire public school systems, and billions in aid by Christians and Christian nations is more than proof that my religion makes a large benevolent contrabution, that the world is sorely missing in tother areas where it isn't dominant.

Nor is atheism a guarantee that one will behave morally. The point is that strong ethical positions don't rest upon the theism/atheism issue whatsoever. One's theism or lack thereof is irrelevant to one's moral character.

Stalin a most commmited athist and chosen for his hatred of religion murdered 15 million people. Hitler used evolution to justify killing millions. In fact the great mass murdering Tyrants were mainly atheists. I do not say that atheists are evil they can be very good they just can't suffeciently justify it. Atheism has no way to justify the sanctity of life, the dignity of man, or his equality. That is devestating. I will address the rest in a bit.

Nice to meet you by the way.

Likewise, I do not agree with you but you are polite and knowledgable.

 

[1robin]

I can prove that any transcendent standard can't possibly be God. Are you familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma? The question is whether God's commands are good because God commands them; or if what God commands are good because it is good.

Yes and it is begging the question. When I debate objective values I avoid the technical semantic terms because they are irrelevant. God's moral's if objective are universally binding, and accountability is universally absolute. If they are subjective they are still universally binding, and accountability is universally absolute. Only an idiot would worry more about the semantics than the effects. His values can be shown to be objective but that technicality is a waste of time. I debate practical issues not word fights.

I'd really rather you didn't say "you un believers" as though you're discussing with a group of people who have a worldview in common, thank you.

What is it that you will allow me to refer to you as a class of bible critic?

Also don't worry about typo's, if I know what you're saying that's good enough for me

I am glad you do. I know what I said was right but sometimes I screw it up so much I can't figure out what it was.

 

[Meow Mix]

That is irrelevant. I could say winnie the pooh told me to kill someone. That does not mean winie the pooh is evil. Do you not understand this principle? Actions done against biblical teachings are not the Bible's or God's fault.

I understand your point that claiming allegiance to something and behaving badly doesn't make that something evil (please remember this when you bring up Stalin and Hitler, by the way -- can't have your cake and eat it too).

The Old Testament is rife with ridiculous death sentences, both in the form of commands and punishments directly from God that appear prima facie blatantly unjust. You've already pre-emptively rejected some OT examples by saying they were justified at the time and in the situation the Jews were in -- which is arguable, but I'll move on from there, then, to other things. For instance, somewhere in Matthews (I'd have to look it up) I believe it's commanded to put those to death who curse their parents.

Do you believe it's fundamentally just to kill those who curse their parents? Is the punishment proportional to the crime -- or am I missing context here? (I admit that I might be!)

Now, one thing I will agree with is that the NT contains practically no exhortations to violence; but it was also formed during a time period where mysticism and metaphysical reflection were more the norm (Roman mystery religions) than the strict survivalism in the bronze age OT or the desert tribalism of the Quran.

In many ways, that's entirely expected; but Christians don't only affirm the righteousness of the NT, they must affirm the justness of the OT as well -- and that's much more difficult.

Yes, I know Muslims domental gymnastics to attempt to diffuse what they say but the just sheer volume and scope make the effort useless. The Bible does not contain any general instruction to violence of any kind. The Quran makes many.

It appears to me as though Christians and Jews also perform mental gymnastics to diffuse the injustice in their respective texts -- I agree with you about the Quran, I just think you have a blind spot with respect to your own foundation.

Sure what sepcific action is it that you want a teaching that justifies it?

Well you're the one making the claim that the Quran implores wanton violence in full context, you have the burden here.

THis fallcy might work in philosophy but it has no purpose in theology. There are certain factors that make one a Christian. They are very clearly laid out in the bible and I and 2 bilion Christian's are testimony of that fact.

I don't see the reasoning -- a fallacy is a fallacy; and you've traded one for another here (now you've moved on to argumentum ad populum). I think as a rule of thumb the presence of fallacies in an argument should be a red alarm to re-evaluate the thought processes behind those arguments.

I do not know how the justification can be evaluated from our point of view. We have an infinitesimally small amount of the needed info and God has it all. IN some cases like with the Cannanites they I found out through secular books walled live children up in walls for luck, and they made their kids walk through fire for marduk. In this case adding in the biblical information and what I have gained through secular books on biblical war they were despicable people whom God had tried for years to change they refused and God wiped them out. I do not deny God justified genocide. I claim most instances justification can't be evaluated but in every one where it can he was justified. His allowance for war was only a small percentage of the wars waged by the Jews. He punished the Jews for it. It seems in summary he rarely allowed war but when he did he gave good reasons, the little that is known seems to justify it, and it was truly terrible.

Now we have the fallacy of engaging in special pleading. This is not sound reasoning; it doesn't and can't justify the genocide because fallacies never justify anything. So here we have an example of unjustified injustice -- a most grievous injustice at that.

The reasoning is that you have no basis for declaring what God did atrocious. You do not have a meaningfull fraction of the info needed to determine that. This time period does not have many ercords and very little is known. This is not the same for 1500 years later in Islam. You are also evaluating it in a vacume that dismisses God's reality and purposes. For instance when he did not bring war and just left things alone the Jews always chased after the neibor's Gods and women. This made them unfit for the Purpose to which they were called. It also would have made the impact of Christ's life much less, which would have doomed many souls to hell. You do not include these factors. In one battle he ordered Saul to kill the queen. He did not and her son grew up and ordered the death of every Jew in Persia. You would have probably said God was cruel and let her live as well, unfortunately as I have said you do not know enough to judge this and if God hadn't stopped it your action would have killed tens of thousands.

But if you're going to engage in special pleading, then a special pleading response could just be "You don't have enough information to judge that what God did was justified." Do you just assume that it was justified, then, despite the appearance of the contrary? With no explicit justification for how you assert it was justified? Could you please read this page on wikipedia: why your argument doesn't hold water

I am sure Islam can be used for good. I care about what they say and more importantly which is true. In every category used to decide these issues the bible exceeds every other religion.

I disagree that the Bible exceeds many other religions, but I don't suppose that's surprising that either of us hold these respective views from this segment

I never even said anything about whether they are truly born again or not I have no way to know. I sad their actions if contradictory to the bible are no reflection on it. However it is possible but very unlikely that a bunch of actual Christians would have made crusades. As history shows they were robbers, thieves, and power hungry noblemen who used the Bible and the Pope to justify falsely taking land and wealth. Actually it began by stopping Turkish Muslims from killing pilgrims and that was good but it went way off the tracks. A true Christian has the Holy Spirit which greatly resists unGodly acts.

I agree that Christianity can't be blamed if someone behaves in a way that Christianity doesn't teach -- that isn't what's disputed here, please know that I do understand your point here.

There is still a problem, however, of interpretation: for instance, some people believe Christianity does teach transubstantiation and consider those who don't not to be Christian (just as a trivial example). How to proceed from there to determine who is "behaving truly like a Christian?"

Ignorance concerning morality is exactly what you get without God. It can't even be meaningfully discussed without him. I do not defend al religions. I defend Christianity and believe all other false. The hundreds of Hospitals, entire public school systems, and billions in aid by Christians and Christian nations is more than proof that my religion makes a large benevolent contrabution, that the world is sorely missing in tother areas where it isn't dominant.

Morality and ethics are meaningfully discussed without Christianity and without theism all the time; there's a thriving "industry" in philosophical discussions and research which do exactly that. The assertion that theism or Christianity are transcendental requirements have already been refuted in an earlier point of the discussion -- though I understand at some point in this response you said you'd address more later, perhaps that's still to come.

As for the hospitals and aid given by Christians, there's no dispute there -- and I'm thankful that those Christians have taken it upon themselves to help the needy. That's great! Let's not forget the non-Christians that contribute as well, though.

(Continued...)

 

[Meow Mix]

(Continued...)

Stalin a most commmited athist and chosen for his hatred of religion murdered 15 million people. Hitler used evolution to justify killing millions. In fact the great mass murdering Tyrants were mainly atheists. I do not say that atheists are evil they can be very good they just can't suffeciently justify it. Atheism has no way to justify the sanctity of life, the dignity of man, or his equality. That is devestating. I will address the rest in a bit.

Stalin didn't murder because he was an atheist; his killings were ultimately politically motivated: religion didn't mesh well with his bizarre brand of "communism." Atheism is not a worldview (though atheists, like anyone else, possess worldviews), so it would be absurd to attribute his atrocities to atheism itself.

Hitler didn't understand evolution very well if he used it to "justify" attempted genocide -- and evolution isn't even a worldview that exhortates any action whatsoever, certainly not murder.

Atheists have no problem with the dignity and equality of man. It depends on the particular atheist's worldview just as it depends on anyone's worldview how they treat and view other people: worth, values, these things are the purview of worldviews (which atheism is not).

I'm a humanist: my worldview hinges around the equality, worth, and well-being of fellow sapients. I have no trouble or inconsistencies holding these views without theistic inclination. I know you believe that I'm rejecting some transcendental foundation that I must stand on in order to have these views -- as C.S. Lewis puts it, cutting off the branch I'm sitting on -- but I assure you, I'm not ignorant of the metaphysics; and I can demonstrate why a god isn't transcendental to the use of logic, reason, or moral predisposition.

Likewise, I do not agree with you but you are polite and knowledgable.

So are you! These may be strong issues we're discussing, but you're very civil. I can count you amongst friends I think!

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes and it is begging the question. When I debate objective values I avoid the technical semantic terms because they are irrelevant. God's moral's if objective are universally binding, and accountability is universally absolute. If they are subjective they are still universally binding, and accountability is universally absolute. Only an idiot would worry more about the semantics than the effects. His values can be shown to be objective but that technicality is a waste of time. I debate practical issues not word fights.

Ok, that's more sensible if you're just speaking to the universally binding aspect of God's commands rather than their objectivity -- but that also denies their transcendence. Keep that in mind when making claims that they're transcendental, as that has a specific meaning that you deny when you speak only to God's commands being binding rather than objective.

Also, I'd like to point out that now you're only essentially saying "might makes right," if all we're concerned with is that God can make commands and back them up rather than explicitly discussing whether the commands have a je ne sais quoi which makes them good. See the issue there?

After all, God could command that we rape and pillage; and it would be "absolutely binding," would it not? But would we call that "good?" In essence, you haven't answered the objection. You've pointed out perhaps that if God makes His wishes known that we had better pay attention, but you have yet to speak to the actual goodness -- and this particular part of the debate is about exactly that: the foundation of morality, of goodness. You must abandon the notion that you have a transcendental foundation for morality that atheists lack unless you attest to the goodness, not the power behind a command.

Otherwise there's just a guy with a big stick and you happen to be on his side. That isn't necessarily good. Recall your Hitler example.

What is it that you will allow me to refer to you as a class of bible critic?

Oh you can call me an unbeliever (that's not an offensive term), I was objecting to the grouping nature of "you unbelievers," plural, as though skeptics are a group with any sort of large-scale collective worldview -- that certainly isn't the case! I probably disagree with a great deal of other "unbelievers" on a great many things, and they with each other; it's like trying to group together "non-blondes" under one umbrella -- or herding cats, as they say.

I am glad you do. I know what I said was right but sometimes I screw it up so much I can't figure out what it was.

Haha! I know what you mean!

 

[1robin]

I understand your point that claiming allegiance to something and behaving badly doesn't make that something evil (please remember this when you bring up Stalin and Hitler, by the way -- can't have your cake and eat it too). [ quote] I am not attempting to. Hitler used consistent evolutionary principles contained in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. to justify racism. That is confirmed by the statement Dawkin's made that In evolution it can't really be stated whether what he did was in fact actually wrong. If Stalin had a belief in the sanctity of life that his atheism could not produce then he might have thought twice. Their actions are consistent with or at least nothing in their beliefs can be found to contradict their actions. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

The Old Testament is rife with ridiculous death sentences, both in the form of commands and punishments directly from God that appear prima facie blatantly unjust. You've already pre-emptively rejected some OT examples by saying they were justified at the time and in the situation the Jews were in -- which is arguable, but I'll move on from there, then, to other things. For instance, somewhere in Matthews (I'd have to look it up) I believe it's commanded to put those to death who curse their parents. Do you believe it's fundamentally just to kill those who curse their parents? Is the punishment proportional to the crime -- or am I missing context here? (I admit that I might be!)

If you kept reading this injuction was only for the Jews and only for a specific time. It was meant to make their example unique in the world to heighten the impact of Christ when he came. It also says that both parents must consent, it also adds that even then the issue must be taken to a priest. Only if all three agree was this done. It is easy to see that only the most desparate cases would have been folllowed through with. Considering that the stakes are millions of future souls saved or lost by Israel's actions it is not unreasonable. Either way it is no general injuction.

Now, one thing I will agree with is that the NT contains practically no exhortations to violence; but it was also formed during a time period where mysticism and metaphysical reflection were more the norm (Roman mystery religions) than the strict survivalism in the bronze age OT or the desert tribalism of the Quran.

The Jews were fiercly inclusive. They had long ago quit straying away from their religion. They did not adopt outside influences under any circumstances by this time. In fact they were so fiercly resistant that they killed Jesus because they mistakenly thought he was bringing something new. There is no evidence that any outside influence had any effect on Christianity. They especially resented Roman and resisted everything Roman. By the way there are no general injunctions to violence in the old testament either.

In many ways, that's entirely expected; but Christians don't only affirm the righteousness of the NT, they must affirm the justness of the OT as well -- and that's much more difficult.

If you will look up progressive revelation you will understand hopefully. Just the same as a child has different rules as he grows so too mankind.

It appears to me as though Christians and Jews also perform mental gymnastics to diffuse the injustice in their respective texts -- I agree with you about the Quran, I just think you have a blind spot with respect to your own foundation.

Do you think that my admission that it happened and sober explenations are gymnastics?

Well you're the one making the claim that the Quran implores wanton violence in full context, you have the burden here.

I will provide it but I need an area. How about general violence on unbelievers?

I don't see the reasoning -- a fallacy is a fallacy; and you've traded one for another here (now you've moved on to argumentum ad populum). I think as a rule of thumb the presence of fallacies in an argument should be a red alarm to re-evaluate the thought processes behind those arguments.

Do you believe that anything qualifies as a bowling ball? Of course not. A tree is not a bowling ball. Some things are bowling balls and some things are not. This is no fallacy. It does have an application but not in Christianity.

Now we have the fallacy of engaging in special pleading. This is not sound reasoning; it doesn't and can't justify the genocide because fallacies never justify anything. So here we have an example of unjustified injustice -- a most grievous injustice at that.

So there has never been a suffecient reason to destroy a culture? If you can prove that then I will entertain your fallacy.

But if you're going to engage in special pleading, then a special pleading response could just be "You don't have enough information to judge that what God did was justified." Do you just assume that it was justified, then, despite the appearance of the contrary? With no explicit justification for how you assert it was justified? Could you please read this page on wikipedia: why your argument doesn't hold water

If you can prove you have sufffecient knowledge to prove God's actions wrong then please do so. I am sure Saul thought something along these lines when he refused to kill Hamen. Turns out as usuall he was wrong and God was right. Is it a fallacy to leave people alive who torture children as the Cannanites did. What about the Aztecs that cut more that 30,000 hearts out of victums each year while alive for their false God's. My theological clarity (or in this case Cortez's) allows me to act where your philosophy causes you to debate as thousands die. You can debate Hitler and discuss fallacies I will terminate his actions. That is why God and objective standards are appealed to when it really matters.

I disagree that the Bible exceeds many other religions, but I don't suppose that's surprising that either of us hold these respective views from this segment

The bible is the most textually attested book in ancient history. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of antiquity. Simon Greenleaf the greatest expert in evidence presentation in human history said the Gospels meets every standard of modern law. I wouldn't challenge me on this if I were you.

I agree that Christianity can't be blamed if someone behaves in a way that Christianity doesn't teach -- that isn't what's disputed here, please know that I do understand your point here.

Very well.

There is still a problem, however, of interpretation: for instance, some people believe Christianity does teach transubstantiation and consider those who don't not to be Christian (just as a trivial example). How to proceed from there to determine who is "behaving truly like a Christian?"

A difference about the wafer or music in church does not allow anyone to mistake though shall not murder for go kill everybody. There is no connection here but I do admit many third and fourth tier issues are disputed. I do not see how the most cherished and contended book in human history that deals with the most profound subjects human face would ever be perfectly agreed on, however that does not mean the crusades are God's fault.

Morality and ethics are meaningfully discussed without Christianity and without theism all the time; there's a thriving "industry" in philosophical discussions and research which do exactly that. The assertion that theism or Christianity are transcendental requirements have already been refuted in an earlier point of the discussion -- though I understand at some point in this response you said you'd address more later, perhaps that's still to come.

They have no basis what so ever outside of God. The bast you can get is preference and opinion. Wrong and right have no actually meaning.

As for the hospitals and aid given by Christians, there's no dispute there -- and I'm thankful that those Christians have taken it upon themselves to help the needy. That's great! Let's not forget the non-Christians that contribute as well, though.

The difference is that Christians have an absolutely suffecient justification for their actions. Atheist can do them they just can't suffeciently justify any actual meaning to them. Why without God is sympathy good? Or I should say prove it is actually good without God. I am gone, for a few hours. Shalom