The Dangers of Religious moderation

[Stigmata]

Your belief is mistaken then, because you wholly failed to address any of the points I made earlier on. Until such time as you have fabricated social laws out of scientific theory you'll find that the core social teachings inherent within all religions still serve a purpose within society.

That's actually beside the point - religion has created a few useful concepts, but with those useful ideas comes a book and a massive, misguided sect of nutjobs indoctrinating millions of people into a culture of misinformation and destructively fanciful thoughts.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Destructive global warfare wasn't an issue during the Crusades because there simply wasn't the technology for it. Fast forward to today or even just a few years from now when even the most insanely and dangerously religious nations will have the capability for nuclear warfare, and the context drastically changes. All it takes is a few devout nutjobs with such power to wreak havoc without any regard to their own lives. After all, Heaven's where all the good shit's at, right? Within such religious beliefs is an all too scary eagerness to fire back, if not fire first.

We survived the Cold War because both sides had an innate desire to live. It was their sanity that kept each other from subjecting the world to death and destruction. Religious fundamentalists have far fewer inhibitions. September 11th made that point demonstrably clear. And religious moderation, despite all its best intentions, covers for religious fundamentalism by telling everybody to respect and tolerate their beliefs despite how utterly ****ed up they are.



...

You better have some good reason to bring up such a retarded comparison. Nobody's converting you. Nobody's putting electrodes to your testicles or threatening your family. Nobody's brainwashing you. There is no oppression. Certainly not from secular (and/or atheistic) humanism.
A few outspoken people are rightly accusing theism as intellectually bankrupt and religious moderation internally illogical. That is a fact. If theists don't like that, then tough shit. They'll have to live with it, just like people who believe in a flat earth will have to deal with being marginalized in any discussion of importance. The time for dealing with religion with kid gloves is over.



And yet so many religious faiths do oppress, hurt and kill people. At least the two primary forces of Christianity and Islam. Religion is not some benign social construct. It is a powerful force that can severely devalue mortal life. Think of how many people will die because of impediments placed on stem cell research. Think of how many people would die if Al Qaeda got a nuclear bomb.

But nooo, let's not harshly critique religious beliefs! That's just rude! It's improper! It's mean.



You misrepresent me. Theists aren't retarded. Theism is retarded. If you finished watching the video (have you?), then you'd hear the part where he points out that it is possible for a man to become so well-educated that he could design and build an atomic bomb and still think he will get 72 virgins. It's the mental partitioning that allows you to solve "2 + 2 =" and still believe in a magical spaceman that lets you into his home after blowing up children.

I believe I and others have fulfilled the burden in proving how religious beliefs are fallacious, inconsistent, and with no basis in reasonable thinking. And if there is eventually a cataclysmic extinction of humanity, religion would certainly be one of the top contenders as the cause.

Do you have ANY facts/numbers to back that up other than theories? Seriously, "The will to live" didn't exactly stop WW1 and WW2 from devastating Europe, and my forfathers from raping the 3rd world with often hundreds of thousands of deaths.
As i said, you can "theorize 1 thing" but the numbers are clearly against you. Yes if some religious wacko ever gets a nuke there will be some fireworks, but the same will happen if Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine school kids or Charles Manson get a nuke.
Claiming the "will to live" is reduced because of religion increasing risk is pure bs, since there isn't anything other than cherry picked incidents and a more than a thousand year old cherry-picked war to back that up.
As i mentioned before, the average % of chance of a wacky criminal with non-religious apocalyptic views is much much higher.

Seriously there isn't much to back this stuff up... Funny enough, on the contrary, reality actually seems to counter this. 7 billion people, around 20% are considered atheist, so the majority of the world must not value their lives right? or value it less than an Atheist...maybe?
There are around 2.2 billion Christians, and 1.5 billion Muslims, yet only several hundred thousand lunies, mostly situated in non-secular uneducated nations throwing molotovs at embassies.
I guess 3.7 billion people value their live less than an atheist.

I dislike the Jehova's witness at my door just as much as you do, but this is no more than fear-mongering which belongs in the bin unless its backed by actual facts, rather than "theories" or 9/11 bomber examples, who actually did it because of frustration in POLITICS not religion (they might have used religion as their main motivator, but the US foreign policy in the middle-east was the reason).

If i misinterpreted you, please be more precise, and for what its worth, I 'm sorry if i'm sounding a bit like a dick/hostile, wasn't my intention.

 

[Kadayi]

That's actually beside the point - religion has created a few useful concepts, but with those useful ideas comes a book and a massive, misguided sect of nutjobs indoctrinating millions of people into a culture of misinformation and destructively fanciful thoughts.

LOL. I'm sorry but without the core behavioural teachings of religions we wouldn't even remotely be anywhere near as advanced a species as we are today in terms of technology, thinking and social advancement. It is ludicrous to thing otherwise. Our entire moral system, which drives our cultural sense of right and wrong in society is derived from religious definitions. It's not a few useful concepts, it's the foundation stone of human civilisation. The dogmatic teachings of Religion are certainly irrelevant (as I've already stated), but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have to provide a more relevant frame for them.

 

[Absinthe]

Your belief is mistaken then, because you wholly failed to address any of the points I made earlier on. Until such time as you have fabricated social laws out of scientific theory you'll find that the core social teachings inherent within all religions still serve a purpose within society.

What points? You tried to argue some stupid notion that Christianity with 65% of its objectionable material removed is still Christianity, or something similar.

You still failed to address the excerpts I provided you (at your request) regarding Jesus' validation of the Old Testament. So don't sit here and pretend I'm avoiding whatever argument-shattering points you're making when you won't even write one sentence in response to mine.

 

[Absinthe]

LOL. I'm sorry but without the core behavioural teachings of religions we wouldn't even remotely be anywhere near as advanced a species as we are today in terms of technology, thinking and social advancement. It is ludicrous to thing otherwise. Our entire moral system, which drives our cultural sense of right and wrong in society is derived from religious definitions. It's not a few useful concepts, it's the foundation stone of human civilisation. The dogmatic teachings of Religion are certainly irrelevant (as I've already stated), but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have to provide a more relevant frame for them.

This is absolutely absurd. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is a moral foundation of any kind. Behavioral teachings? Tell me, oh blessed one. Did you need to be taught that rape was a bad thing? Did you have a natural inclination for repeated murder until the Church curbed your destructive instincts?

Even if this were the case, what moral can such a religion be when it is based entirely on the fear of punishment? Would humanity be utterly and totally morally bankrupt if not for an ever-watchful deity that would smite us? What a gravely pessimistic and unproductive view of humanity you have. It's not enough that a sense of compassion and the golden rule can exist on their own.

If we were to even grant for a second that religious teachings were the foundation for morality, we've still clearly evolved to the point where we find better justifications for our ethical behavior and dispense with anachronisms that were for, in your own words, people living in the desert 2000+ years ago. The very fact that you embrace certain moral teachings while rejecting others from scripture is proof that they are being compared against independent moral standards.

IRT Ome_Vince

You have done a fantastic job of misrepresenting my posts and propping up straw man arguments. I never said all religious people don't value their lives. You've also done a fine job of completely ignoring my point about violent religious fervor in different chronological contexts. I'll dignify you with a response later when I'm not so pissed off at you. My apologies in advance for my tone, but I am quite irritated. By the way, did you even finish watching the video?

 

[Kadayi]

You still failed to address the excerpts I provided you (at your request) regarding Jesus' validation of the Old Testament. So don't sit here and pretend I'm avoiding whatever argument-shattering points you're making when you won't even write one sentence in response to mine.

Absinthe, there is nothing in either the old or new testaments that states that all Christians must actively address and kill all non-believers (contrary to what Mecha wantonly claimed in the first place). Please feel free to fly in the face of almost 2000 years of Christian religious instruction (by men far more learned in the bible than you or I) and find me the exact chapter and verse that demands such a Christian Jihad. I don't want any wishy washy half measured old testament 'kill adulterers' quotation. I want the 'all non-believers must be drowned in lakes of blood till all people recognise the one true god alone' quotation that supports the original remark.

 

[Absinthe]

My argument was solely that Jesus proclaimed the Old Testament to be valid, and you disputed this. You are confusing me with somebody else. Even so, Solaris did provide you with excerpts.

1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Granted, the little detail of "done in Israel" can be extrapolate upon, although I don't see why that should matter.
I realize at this point that I have missed a previous post of yours. I'll go back and read it, although I'll most likely give a full response tomorrow, unless we're already covering much of its argument at the moment.

 

[delusional]

find me the exact chapter and verse that demands such a Christian Jihad. I don't want any wishy washy half measured old testament 'kill adulterers' quotation.

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." Revelation 2:22-23

well i sort of concede on being able to find a verse where jesus orders the death of adulterers only the children of adulterers. But thats not any better.

 

[Absinthe]

The bottom line is this.

A) The Old Testament advocates many things we would consider morally deplorable, including the killing of those of other faiths.
B) Jesus proclaimed the Old Testament to still be valid and unchanged.

It logically follows that in order to be a true and proper Christian today, you are to follow the command to kill others.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not accusing Christians today of being bloodthirsty. I am accusing them of not being bloodthirsty enough in accordance with their religious teachings. But as condescending as that may sound, it's honestly a problem you want to have when all is considered.

 

[Kadayi]

This is absolutely absurd. There is no evidence to suggest that religion is a moral foundation of any kind. Behavioral teachings? Tell me, oh blessed one. Did you need to be taught that rape was a bad thing? Did you have a natural inclination for repeated murder until the Church curbed your destructive instincts?

Please you'll have to do better than to simply label something as absurd to dismiss it. As I've never raped anyone I can't honestly say whether I needed to be taught it was a bad thing, but because the society in which I have been brought up inherently believes that it is, I've kind of taken it on board as a given. Perhaps if I'd been raised in a feral society I might think differently. Dolphins are one of the smartest creatures going, but it's not uncommon for the young males to gang rape the young females in the wild. For such intelligent creatures they still thrive on might is right when it comes to their behaviour.

Incidentally what part of I'm not a Christian did you not quite get when I wrote it initially? I don't go to church, or pray or undertake any form of religious practice. however I have studied several religions, and see common threads that run through them, and am honestly able to acknowledge their impact in shaping the world in myriad ways (good and bad) rather than foolishly deny it.

Even if this were the case, what moral can such a religion be when it is based entirely on the fear of punishment? Would humanity be utterly and totally morally bankrupt if not for an ever-watchful deity that would smite us? What a gravely pessimistic and unproductive view of humanity you have. It's not enough that a sense of compassion and the golden rule can exist on their own.

About 24000 people in the US annually decide to kill other people because they suffer no moral compunction not to when the situation strikes them as favourable that they might just get away with it in society. I'm not seeing how some people checking their aggressive behaviour because of an illusionary higher power potentially judging them is a bad thing tbh.

If we were to even grant for a second that religious teachings were the foundation for morality, we've still clearly evolved to the point where we find better justifications for our ethical behaviour and dispense with anachronisms that were for, in your own words, people living in the desert 2000+ years ago. The very fact that you embrace certain moral teachings while rejecting others from scripture is proof that they are being compared against independent moral standards.

Because something is written in the bible as a religious law, does not necessarily make it a moral law that needs to be carried forward. In the modern day and age I see little reason to continue to not eat Shellfish, but I can see the sense in still not murdering people. Generally it's a matter of applying common sense to things.

 

[mortiz]

Forget this.

 

[Ome_Vince]

@Absinth
I actually did watch the video, but I don't agree with most of it. I agree that there is definately danger in religion, but all the guys examples are ancient examples in times where people easily burnt/killed each other over stepping on each others lawn, indoctrinated hot-head jihadists and extreme (not moderate) religious Christians in the US.
He doesn't take any of his examples into a broader perspective. For instance, many of these examples had a much more direct reason.
Inquisitions in Spain for instance, expelling and intolerance towards Spanish Muslims didn't simply come from religious reasons.
3 Moorish kings in a row had invaded and conquered Spain, with a 4th attempt (Marinids) underway, the fear was that the local Muslim population would yet again assist (as in previous invasions) the Moorish invaders.
The practical reason to fund such expelling of the Muslims was more direct and actually less religious than would be expected.
Same with the Crusades. Branded as a simple Christian assault, people think Pope Urban the second simply all of a sudden got the idea to invade the "Holy Land" which they didn't care about for 300 years.
The truth is, Arabic kingdoms had conquered, and were still conquering much of Europe, while European countries were fighting each other. Utilizing the current religious strength of Christianity in order for European kingdoms and Christianity to "survive" was a strategy to unite and push back the Islamic ever growing Empire.
A lot of a crusading kingdoms simply went for the excuse of a cheap land grab and wealth. One of the main examples of how this is illustrated is how even Holy Christian Constantinople was sacked by an enormous Crusading army because "it didn't pay up" a bill for protection.
Crusading armies got into a lot of fights over land and wealth which also lead to the end of the Crusades strength.
I also found it funny how it eventually was Austria who supplied Memmet II the cannons required to sack the Holy Christian city of Constantinople.
The list goes on. Jihadists,,.. most of the Jihady madmen are frustrated young people who despise the US/West for what they believe is its ****ing around with their nation/people. As a result they find their hatred in their belief and get indoctrinated by radical priests.
Look at any of the suicide attacks lately, even including 9/11 they were not for religious reasons...

I also love how he points at religious atrocities while the majority of the worlds atrocities have been fought over money, power, form-of-government etc. How millions today, in Africa and Asia die because of financial reasons, industrial pressure and/or sponsored corruption, all in the name of power. Religion is today's new Western scapegoat.
While we comfortably sit in our chairs wondering whats happening in the world, instead of digging deeper, seeing how money-power-industry is the constant source for problems, its much easier to find such a simple target as religion.

Might i remind not only the World Wars but, Iraq, Vietnam, etc, all of these massive devastating wars were not about religion, but pure power and politics.
What I'm trying to say here, is that in a broader perspective, looking at actual numbers, comparing them to vast amounts of regular human nutcases, and the full history you'll see the true meaning of these conflicts. Comparing those to today's conflicts, you'll see its always the same thing: money and power. Dig deep enough and that's what you'll see. Religious problems have been there, and will continue to be there, but are much smaller than we think.
However, there will indeed one day be an end to faith. Like all things mankind finds a patsy and blames everything on that, until it moves along and blames the next thing.
Tolerance is key, and only ends where intolerance begins, and thats exactly where fundamentalism begins. This, i agree has to be slapped down and stopped, but I just don't want to mindlessly hop on the bandwagon vs religion while I can clearly see thats not where the problems are coming from..

One of the major points missed, is that religion is often a psychological help to those who are in need. When people lose a relative dearly to them, thinking they'll see them in heaven won't decrease the pain but will help them live with it. Especially in poor countries where loosing relatives, often many kids is a natural thing in life, religion is of great support.
I keep thinking of one of the African people who worked for us who lost, during my living in Africa, 2 of his children. I was only 12 but i remember the guy crying thinking nobody saw him. He would sit before a cross with pictures of his kids, and I'm sure he believed he'd see them in heaven. It would be selfish of me to go to this person and tell him he's wrong, comfortably sitting behind my desk. Religion, for these majorities provides support. While our industries and countries rape their countries, should we now also go in and tell them there is no god? Because its what we're blaming the problems on?
I'm sorry, but I can't, and even if you claim "thats not what you mean" it is the effect of "The time of tolerating religion is over"...

 

[el Chi]

lol @ self-promotion

 

[Kadayi]

Even so, Solaris did provide you with excerpts.

None on which remotely support Mechas original statement. As I said before there is no obligation within either old or New Testaments for Christians to actively kill non-believers in some form of expansionist Christian Jihad.

 

[mortiz]

LOL. I'm sorry but without the core behavioural teachings of religions we wouldn't even remotely be anywhere near as advanced a species as we are today in terms of technology, thinking and social advancement. It is ludicrous to thing otherwise. Our entire moral system, which drives our cultural sense of right and wrong in society is derived from religious definitions. It's not a few useful concepts, it's the foundation stone of human civilisation. The dogmatic teachings of Religion are certainly irrelevant (as I've already stated), but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have to provide a more relevant frame for them.

The Bible says some nasty stuff, even in the new testament, if we simply followed the Bible we'd be stoning adulterers and homosexuals and slaughtering none-believers (oh, Christians already did that). The point is in order for us to choose which parts of the Bible to take notice of and which parts of the bible to reject we must already have some moral code outside of religion. That moral code is available to everyone, not just the religious. In fact it all stems from our Darwinian evolution.

The reason most don't murder and rape is because we feel some form of camaraderie with our fellow man. A camaraderie that was vital to our survival as we were evolving. Man evolved to live in social groups because working as a team is often better for survival than working solo; therefore it made sense for us to have respect and altruism for one another. You may need help from that person or group in the future and you need to get along to avoid being ostracized from the group and having your chances of survival drop sharply. Take the Great Apes for example, you can clearly see groups of apes expressing some moral code within their own group, they don't incessantly attack each other. They help, and groom each other in order to fortify social bonds. You can see respect from young apes for older members of the social group. Now Humans are a lot more sophisticated than the other Great Apes and as such our moral codes and social networks are also a lot more sophisticated. We've developed our morals over a long period of time, since way before The Bible and many other holy scriptures. We've done this because they've helped our species to thrive, and that's the aim of any species.

To take another example, some of the greatest civilizations known to man rose before the Bible, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and The Roman Empire. Now while they did have their own belief systems surely you don't believe in all their Gods? Not many people these days believe Zeus is real, or that there really is a Sun God called Ra. Now do you really believe that these powerful and majestic civilizations rose without some form of moral code? If their God’s didn’t tell these people how to live, who did? Without a God telling them a human must have. It's ludicrous to think that a human simply sat down one day and invented a society's morals, he must have been influenced by others. If the Sun God Ra and Zeus had very human beginnings then the morals of that society must have evolved with the society. There's just no way one person or one group came up with them all out of thin air. Religions are a reaction to the moral code of the time, not a cause. The Bible was most likely written to encompass morals that already existed. For instance the world didn't suddenly get moral as soon as The Bible was written; in fact the millennium after the Bible was written was very amoral. My point is we don't see a sudden jump in morality after the Bible, we see a steady progression because everything we are has evolved with us, you can't see any sudden "jumps" in history where you can say "at this point we were all barbarians, then at this point we were a sophisticated civilization" because that's not how it works, we've learnt over time. Scripture didn't tell us how to live together.

Religion may also have played a part in our Darwinian evolution. Religion can give people hope; maybe it played an important part in helping our ancestors through the hard times? My point is even if Religion did have a part to play in how we've developed in still doesn't make any particular religion true. It simply means religion developed in order to help our species to some end, not because a messiah descended from the sky and told us all how to live.

You’re right about one thing though, without religion the world would be a very different place. I think in the past religion has been very important. We wouldn’t have had some of the greatest works of art if it wasn’t for religion. I’m not even against people studying religion, as historical documents that give us insight into the past, not to find hidden truths about our species and the universe, since religious texts don’t contain any, only science can help you there. I believe we know enough about the world, our species and universe at a whole though to stop having faith in religion and start fully embracing ourselves as the Human Species rather than Christian, Muslim or Jew.

Though if you believe that Religion gave us our moral code, you must believe that there is a higher power. As I've stated without a higher power it means man first told the moral codes in scripture, and if a man did it then logically he must have been influenced, and if he was influenced others must have already had some form of moral framework by which to derive, thus morality was already present in the society previous to the scripture being written.

 

[PvtRyan]

None on which remotely support Mechas original statement. As I said before there is no obligation within either old or New Testaments for Christians to actively kill non-believers in some form of expansionist Christian Jihad.

Because Christianity isn't an expansionist religion, not like Islam at least. It's not out to conquer the world. It is however a highly intolerant religion, if the scriptures are to be believed.

So while it may not tell you 'go out and kill an infidel for bonus points', it does promote slavery, intolerance towards others, the killing of sinners etc. I fail to see how that's any better.

And no, 'those laws are outdated' just doesn't cut it. If God thought those laws were a good idea back then, they're still good now. Our society hasn't evolved since then, we abandoned his laws on our own according. Perhaps he still prefers them. Remind me, has God released a memo since then stating 'sry guys, OT is BS, wuz drunk lol'? What makes you think us moving away from a society that we perceive as primitive and barbaric is really the right thing? Perhaps we should consider going back 2000 years in our culture.

You got no real reason to state that the OT doesn't apply any more or only partially, other than trying to fit stone age values into a secular society. In short: you're just making shit up.

And I saw you hail the ten commandments as still relevant laws today. But why those? Isn't that cherry-picking? Why are those still relevant today and why isn't the whole slavery/rape/gay thing? I mean, the commandments are in Exodus, which also holds some terrible things (I can hold a Hebrew slave, awesome!), so one part of that book is outdated and irrelevant while the next chapter is true?

In the very same Exodus (chaper 34) is this:

I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

And even if the laws of the OT are irrelevant, you got to have it to make sense of the NT. The coming of Jesus doesn't make much sense without it, does it? And even without the laws it still shows God as an asshole.

Vince: You're making the classic mistake by thinking that people like Dawkins and Harris actually believe that religion actively tells people go out and hunt the infidels. Dawkins put it accurately by saying that religion is a divisive force, it creates an 'us' and a 'them'. There's of course more things that can do that, like politics, but subjects like politics are not irrational or 'holy'. They're open to debate and can be discussed. Religion can't be, my religion is the truth and there's only one truth. The only thing that will make two large religions live side by side is secular values and thus 'moderation'. What, for example, is the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Iraqi? Absolutely nothing yet their minimal difference in religion divides them. Is it also a conflict about power and politics? Absolutely. But what was the thing that created the two groups in the first place? Religion!

Of course 9/11 was the direct result of religion, anyone who doesn't believe in a glorious reward in the afterlife wouldn't throw themselves at a building at 500 km/h. Because that's a highly irrational thing to do. Now, what caused that irrationality? They sure weren't crazy, they were intelligent people with a complex plan, not madmen. What moved intelligent people to do that? A conflict over land? Perhaps. What kind of land? HOLY land!

I don't see how you can defend an irrational belief in an absolute truth. Which is what religion is. There's no reason that should be seen as 'good' or beneficial to someone. Ok, it gives 'comfort' to some people. What a lousy excuse, in that case, give 'em a stash of Vodka to 'comfort' themselves with. Because delusions are fun, right?

And I think the size of the extremist groups is a bit underestimated, from what I posted before:

As for radical Islam being "small", here's some numbers for ya:

These are the results of a survey held in 2002:
What the world thinks in 2002

It's the answer to this question, posed only to Muslims:


However, these results are skewed, "rarely justifed" is lumped in with "never justified". Which means that even if it's rarely justified in their opinion, blowing up innocent children is thought to be acceptable in some cases, which is just as bad.

Add 'rarely justified' to Yes and it looks more like:

Is it [i]ever[/i] justified?
Country       Yes    No
Lebanon       82     12
Ivory Coast   73     27
Nigeria       66     26
Jordan        65     26
Bangladesh    58     23
Mali          54     35
Senegal       47     50
Ghana         44     43
Indonesia     43     54
Uganda        40     52
Pakistan      38     38
Turkey        20     64

Remember, that's moderate countries. There's no Iraq, Iran, Syria in that list.

That's 2002, before Iraq, before Lebanon, I doubt it has improved. I find that scary.

 

[Cole]

Because Christianity isn't an expansionist religion, not like Islam at least. It's not out to conquer the world

Ha.. Hahhaa! Ha! HAHHAHAHAHAHA! It's out to conquer the world, maybe not violenty but it's sure out to conquer the world. That's modern day christianity i'm talking about, not jesus's teachings.

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

I like that.
God is perfect.
God is jealous.
To lead a perfect life you must be jealous. Although you shouldn't lead a perfect life. God might get jealous and send you to hell. OOO..what a hard situation.

 

[mastapenguin]

Two things.

1. The video was interesting, but I saw it as more of a condemnation of Political Corectness in general, as opposed to Religious moderation specifically. Thank goodness. I'm tired of people crying Intolerance when discussing things, or skirting around anything that is mildly Politically incorrect. The next time anyone claims "because its what I believe in", I'm going to ask them why that counts for anything more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

2. Yes, yes, people have been arguing the hypocrisy in taking the entire bible as the word of God, and the brutal verses throughout the text. Here's my take on it:
Yes, the Bible may be the "word of God", but it was interpreted by People.
God didn't drop a tome on Moses coming off Mount Sinai. The apostles didn't dream the entire texts in their heads. For many, Many years, the bible worked as both a Jewish moral code, and a handy place to write down more recent laws and property decisions. Entire chapters are devoted to laws and how many cows someone got because the guys in charge needed somewhere to write them. People in the same lifetime of the authors would refer to the bible to check their property, and the ruling elders used the bible to judge people because the guy currently in charge wrote them. Until the apostles, the Bible was a constantly updated, contemperary document of history and law.
So, all the Old Testament quotes about Thou shalt murder/stone/etc? It's documentation of history, a well recorded reference text saying "In the past, these were the laws, and Judaism prospered under these laws". We have our own laws now, and so far we're doing okay.

 

[Cole]

So, all the Old Testament quotes about Thou shalt murder/stone/etc? It's documentation of history, a well recorded reference text saying "In the past, these were the laws, and Judaism prospered under these laws". We have our own laws now, and so far we're doing okay.

Jesus said you have to follow the old laws.

 

[theotherguy]

Yes. I cite this video in religious debates whenever I get, "Just shut up and let people believe in what they want."

Well I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let people beleive in insane, illogical and harmful things, and I'm certainly not going to sit around like a religious moderate and accept what they beleive. And that goes for all religions, everywhere.

Moderates form a protective bubble of political correctness around fundamentalists and extremists, who can bubble and boil and spread their lies and hatred inside of it, growing ever stronger until they become mainstream (as they have here in the United States)

Now that is a very scary thought.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You can pull obscure scripture quoting this that and whatever out of the Old Testament to your hearts content [...] but the frank truth is the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus in the NT hold greater weight in terms of correct behaviour than any of the minor OT laws.

1) How can any scripture of the bible, written by GOD almighty who is infallible, be "obscure?" (See point 5)

2) You say the ten commandments hold greater weight than the old testament.
Five of the ten commandments are punishable by death if violated, according to the bible.

3) The ten commandments were written in the old testament.
Why are they valid and not the other OT laws?

4) Neither Jesus, nor GOD himself, have EVER taught anyone to replace the Old Testament laws. That's a total myth.
Those scriptures which claim the infallible OT laws were "cancelled" were written 50-100 years after jesus died by Paul of Tarsus, who as far as I can tell, had no divine powers and never even met Jesus.
In fact, for 100 years after the death of Christ, his followers still used the Old Testament. Hmmm

So where did Paul get the idea from, and how can it be accurate when...

5) Paul of Tarsus specifically contradicts GOD:

'The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.'
Numbers 15:15, Deuteronomy 4:2

'Keep them, put them into practice, and other nations will exclaim, "No other people is as wise and prudent as this great nation!" And what great nation has laws and customs as upright as the entirety of The Law which I am laying down for you today?'
Deuteronomy 4:6-7

'These laws I am giving you must remain in your hearts. You shall tell them to your children. And keep on telling them when you are sitting at home, when you are out and about, when you are lying down, and when you are standing up.
Fasten them to your hands and foreheads as a reminder.
Write them on your doorposts of your homes and on your gates.
Deuteronomy 6:6-9

'If anyone should think to himself, "I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart," Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him. And all the curses written in the book will come upon him. Yahweh will single him out for misfortune and blot out his name from under heaven.'
Deuteronomy 29:19-20

'If you are not careful to keep all of Yahweh's laws then all of the following curses will befall and overtake you.
Though you will get engaged to marry a woman, another man will rape her.
Yahweh will take delight in ruining and destroying you.
He will afflict you with hemorrhoids, scurvy, and the itch, and you will find no cure.
Yahweh will strike you with foul ulcers, boils, and tumors from which there will be no cure, from the sole of your foot to the top of your head.
Yahweh will strike you with madness, blindness, and confusion until you grope your way around at noon like a blind man groping in the dark, and your steps lead you nowhere.
You will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters.
Yahweh will strike you down with consumption, fever, rash, drought, blight, and mildew. And these will pursue you until your ruin. Your dead body will be carrion for all wild birds and all wild animals, with no one to scare them away.
All of these curses will befall you for not having obeyed the voice of Yahweh your God by keeping his laws which he has laid down for you.'
Deuteronomy 28

6) Paul of Tarsus specifically contradicts JESUS:

'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven. I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses the experts in The Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-21

Reminder: as you cannot present a single instance of Jesus ever saying that the entire infallible Old Testament became obsolete, because no such passage in the bible exists. You invented it in your imagination.

You cannot invent words and stuff them into Jesus's mouth.

(Point 6 continues after the next quote)

The Christian Church had a good 500 or so years of fairly peaceful existence behind it, before the Crusades. Converting nations through the teachings. The Church certainly had the money and the manpower to wage war against the Muslim nations, but they didn't because there was no compunction in the Church to wage war against non-Christians. Thou shalt not kill, and turning the other cheek were the overriding principles.

The commandment actually says "thou shalt not murder."
Killing is allowed if it follows the laws.

Jesus disagrees with your Pauline falsehoods, like peace:

'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

'I have come to bring fire to the earth. And how I wish it were blazing already!'
Luke 12:49

'Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but hostility! From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.'
Luke 12:51-52

'If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.'
Luke 14:26

So now it is PROVEN that the Old Testament is not obsolete, because Paul of Tarsus was a fraud. Unless you can present counter-evidence, of course. Prove that jesus declared the Old testament obsolete.
Without that evidence, we can only conclude that either Paul or Jesus is a liar.

Until then, your quote up there leads us to Point 7:

7) Jesus says to kill all people of other religions, not out of hate, but simply because he commands it.

Jesus says to follow the Old Testament word-for-word. You need to become an expert at it, and be extremely faithful, or you will go to hell. These are the words of your GOD. He has told you that they must be obeyed.

'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt.'
Deuteronomy 13:13-17

'Put to death any man or woman among you who is a necromancer or magician. Stone them with stones.'
Leviticus 20:27

'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder, and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'
Deuteronomy 13:1-6

You're probably saying this isn't real because Jesus wants you to love your enemy, but that's a distortion. Tons of people kill their loved ones, for a variety of reasons. All people can love and kill simultaneously:

'Love your enemies.'
Luke 6:27

'When you go to war against your enemies and you take prisoners, put the entire male population to death.'
Deuteronomy 21:10, 20:13

I'm not holding onto anything, because I'm frankly not a Christian (never been to a Church in my life to pray..maybe to look at the Architecture a bit). However I did study the Christian religion for two years whilst at college, so unlike some, my understanding is derived from a proper education not a five minute rent a quote study of some anti-Christian websites.

Did you read the entire bible?
I have.
These are not "obscure quotes". This is the entire foundation for Christianity: the Laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ.
Everything I am saying is true, under the Bible's internal logic.

Jesus is infallible. Jesus says you must follow the laws of the Old Testament.
This is basic stuff.

If you violate the bible's internal logic, as you and Paul have, then you aren't using the bible. You are bringing something else in from outside.

Is the Bible still relevant to modern society? As I said before the vast majority of the OT is pretty much just a do's and don't of day to day living guide for a people living 2500 years ago in Israel. The majority of that stuff can readily be dumped.

'All of these curses will befall you for not having obeyed the voice of Yahweh your God by keeping his laws which he has laid down for you.'

'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven.'

You have been taught Pauline christianity. Paul is a proven fraud.

However when you get down to the core codes, 'thou shall not steal', 'thou shall not Murder', etc then I'd say they retain a lot of relevance, because they provide a tangible set of rules for acceptable behaviour amongst and between peoples, that stands up pretty well.

Five of the ten commandments are punishable by death.

These include "disrespecting your parents", "adultery" and "working during a sunday."

There are no "core codes". The bible is all-or-nothing in its teachings

'anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven.'

What is the standard then, for your "core codes"?
Clearly all you've done is take the handful of laws that aren't very extremely stupid. But even then, you take them even further out of context. You're happy that the bible is anti-murder, but you ignore that murder in the bible has a mandatory death penalty.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The whole of western society is built upon the moral framework of those core Christian teachings. Through the laws, the education system and the cultural sense of what is socially considered right and wrong behaviour. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is one of the most sensible rules to life going (feel free to argue that one).

There's no need to argue it. It's generally agreed that western society is based primarily on the philosophy of ancient greece, and you have presented no counter-argument to that conclusion.
That's possibly why the bible is so disposable to you today.

How many christians, specifically in positions of power, follow the "golden rule"? Since when is basic empathy a christian construct?

Without those social codes of behaviour you would be inviting chaos and a descent into the might is right world of the herd animal. You aren't born a human being you are raised to become one through social instruction. Whilst the core codes that religions possess hold some social benefit, then yes I'd say they retain some modern day relevance.

It's fairly obvious that you aren't a psychologist or any sort of biologist if you think that religion is all that separates humanity from cattle.

Yet even cattle don't follow some kind of "ten cows enter one cow leaves" thunderdome philosophy.
Herd behaviour is designed to protect the largest number of individuals possible in a group by working together as a whole. It is an very moral system, and it is a rudimentary form of society.
Read up on psychology and biology to even a minor extent and you'll discover that society is a hardwired evolutionary instinct in most higher animals, and they have evolved that way specifically to reduce suffering and death in their populations.

Use some logic here: you say all religions are equally valid at saving us from our baser instinct. However, all religions believe in a different God, so only one can be correct.
Therefore, religions are mostly/entirely human inventions.
Therefore, the "morality" you attribute to religion actually precedes it by millions of years.

Of course, I've proven that christian morality isn't actually moral unless you replace vast chunks of it with secular logic.

Therefore, secularism is the only source of morality, worldwide.

A lot of people talk big about being atheists, but their denial of a god (or gods) doesn't count for much given they are still adhering to the cultural moral codex they have absorbed through life through mimicking the actions and learning from those around them. A true atheist would be like a feral dog, unbounded and unhindered by social rules and moral issues. Such unbounded people do exist, you generally find them in Prison on charges of murder, rape and Child molestation.

You're a terrible liar, which is further proof that you haven't read the bible:

The bible (and, in fact, no religion I have yet encountered) has a law against pedophilia.

Check for yourself, if you wish.

There is absolutely no law against pedophilia in the bible.

In fact, under biblical law, a molested girl becomes sold as the wife of her molestor.

(more after the quote)

Don't get me wrong. I've nothing against Atheists, I'd just like it if they defined themselves in the positive rather than the negative. You don't order a sandwich from a shop by telling the assistant what you don't want in it. Far too many people adopt a reactionary approach of 'I don't believe in a godhead = therefore all this is rejected'.

You've got nothing against atheists - except that just you called them all inherently amoral child molesting rape-killers.

Here's something positive:
Atheists use logic. Logic tells anyone with a functional brain that child molestation is actually wrong.

Logic says to follow the golden rule, because, logically, a free society is beneficial and a free society cannot exist without a basic and unequivocal standard of morality that applies equally to all mankind.
Religion cannot provide this standard, because it is inherently divisive. If morality comes from god and all nations have different gods, then all nations have conflicting and therefore failed moralities. Conflicting moralities cause war.
The only laws that are agreed upon are the logical, secular ones. The golden rule makes sense to you, while you ignore Jesus's command that unmarried men should castrate themselves.

Why is it that you think Jesus was brilliant and essential for saying "don't steal things" and then totally gloss over the part where he tells you to slice off your penis?

Clearly religion stumbled upon logical, secular morality purely by accident if it fired so many blanks before hitting a handful of not-awful teachings.
That is why you ignore a good 90% of the Bible's teachings. You're a secularist (but you're not very good at it because you don't use proper logic).

As the entirety of all religious/science arguments focus around the irrelevant dogma (how old the earth is, can Gods existence be proven...can you show me a Neutron? ) rather than the core social codes inherent in the teachings (of Christ, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, etc) there really is no relevance to any debate along those lines. Science certainly can uncover the mysteries of the universe, but it doesn't provide you with the rules to live within that universe at peace with your fellow man. Which is more relevant to most people, proving god doesn't exist or living a fruitful life?

You are clearly unschooled in logical thought if you think that atheism relies only on rejecting "irrelevant dogma" to exist.
Rememeber that I have actually read the bible before analyzing it and drawing conclusions.
Have you read any important atheist text?
Such as, say, The End of Faith which uses only logical deduction based on the essential elements of all religion to make the solid researched conclusion that religion is inherently immoral because it's not secular enough?

I didn't think so.

In fact, you've shown nothing but prejudice about atheists with your pedophile crack and painfully weak straw man arguments.
Frankly, you come across as woefully unresearched. I don't mean that as an insult. I think you should examine the logical framework behind what you say before you say it.

Your morality clearly doesn't come from religion, so you've got to recognize that it's only coming from inside your head. the fact that you can choose which bible quotes are stupid and which are not proves that you have a good sense for real, logical morality. You just need to start actually applying that logic to reality and not to the maintenance of the defunct.

Finally:

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

 

[Kadayi]

Mecha

Nice bunch of personal attacks upon my opinions there, but let's not get distracted. You claimed that Christians are obliged to wage war against all non-believers and I've asked you for factual evidence to support that position. If you can't support that position then have the good grace to concede your error. Lamely attempting to belittle me and cast aspersions doesn't make your wild claims any more real or cover up for their notable absence. Your mod status seems to have clearly gone to your head when it comes to deciding what is a fact and what is opinion.

Just a reminder of What you said:_

Being another religion, however, is punishable by execution. Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions, because the bible says so.

Chapter and verse in full please.

For the purposes of this exercise I'd appreciate it if the infallible Mecha alone answered this question.

 

[mortiz]

11 PETER 2:6-8

God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorra, destroying them with fire, and made them an example of what will happen to the godless. (GNB)

JUDE 1:7

Remember Sodom and Gomorra, and the nearby towns whose people acted as those angels did and indulged in sexual immorality and perversion: (and going after strange flesh -AV) they suffer the punishment of eternal fire as the plain warning for all. In the same way also, these people have visions which make them sin against their own bodies (GNB)

 

[Kadayi]

Mortiz.

And exactly where in all of that is the demand for the Christian faithful to kill all non-believers? Seems to me God himself punished those Cities for their immorality, not their lack of belief in him.

*waits for Mecha to answer the original question

 

[PvtRyan]

Exodus 31:14
14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.

It tells you to actively kill those who violate this. Non-believers don't follow the Sabbath. Thus: you must kill the non-believers.

QED

 

[Kadayi]

It tells you to actively kill those who violate this. Non-believers don't follow the Sabbath. Thus: you must kill the non-believers.

Care to add the context of that statement in? The people to whom it relates? Because by that rationale the Jews should be killing everyone.

*Patiently waits for Mecha to answer his question

 

[PvtRyan]

Care to add the context of that statement in? The people to whom it relates? Because by that rationale the Jews should be killing everyone.

Yup, they should be. And the context is Exodus 31, not hard to look up.

But Christians follow the Sabbath too, in the sense of the Sabbath being the Lord's day: God's resting day on sunday for Christians.

*Patiently waits for Mecha to answer his question

I just answered it. But is it really relevant whether or not the Bible actively tells people to go and hunt infidels? I think its intolerance towards many kinds of people is clear, which is just as bad.

 

[Kadayi]

Yup, they should be

Then explain why they didn't and haven't since. Could it be that the laws relate only to those within the tribe of Israel?

 

[Solaris]

Then explain why they didn't and haven't since. Could it be that the laws relate only to those within the tribe of Israel?

No its becuase they're cowards, hypocrits and fools.

sorry for sp my finger is broken

 

[CptStern]

sorry for sp my finger is broken

someone kick you in the bum?

 

[ComradeBadger]

No its becuase they're cowards, hypocrits and fools.

sorry for sp my finger is broken

The... irony.. is.. killing... me

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Nice bunch of personal attacks upon my opinions there, but let's not get distracted.

Show me a single "personal attack" that I have made.
You might be offended by what I say, but that does not mean I am attacking you.
An attack is when I make conclusions about you that are not supported by solid deduction. I have made no such conclusion.

You claimed that Christians are obliged to wage war against all non-believers and I've asked you for factual evidence to support that position.

Actually, I said specifically that non-belief isn't punished by christians under biblical law.
Only being a different religion is punished. Atheists are safe.

That's the definition of a straw-man argument. You are actually responding to a weaker version of the arguments that I made, instead of the actual argument.

Still, I have already provided the relevant biblical quotes, and made a logical argument around them. Your goal, now, is to refute what I have presented, with counter-evidence.
Here is the logical argument I am making:


1) Given that:

A: Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus.
B: Jesus teaches them to follow the entire Old Testament in Matt. 5:17-21.

We must conclude that:

C: Christians must follow the Old Testament.


2) Given that:

C: Christians must follow the Old Testament.
D: The Old Testament says, repeatedly, to hunt down and kill people practicing other religions in Deuteronomy 13.

We must conclude that:

E: Christians are supposed to hunt down and kill people practicing other religions.



That's a logical argument, supported by evidence that I have provided in the form of relevant biblical quotes.
Now, it is up to you to disprove any of these premises or conclusions.

For me to be wrong, you must prove at least one of the following claims:

a: christians are not supposed to follow Jesus's teachings.
b: jesus declared the old testament obsolete.
c: the old testament does not command people to kill those of other faiths.

So far, you have proven none of those points, even though it should be fairly easy to support them.

If you can't support that position then have the good grace to concede your error. Lamely attempting to belittle me and cast aspersions doesn't make your wild claims any more real or cover up for their notable absence. Your mod status seems to have clearly gone to your head when it comes to deciding what is a fact and what is opinion.

I presented multiple relevant quotes, I have made no errors, I made no personal attacks and I was actually hired as a mod because of my ability to use logical argumentation.
You are striking out here.

I said:
"Being another religion, according to the bible, is punishable by execution. Christians MUST kill all people of all other religions, because the bible says so."
You want the references I used to make that claim, with chapter(s) and verse(s) listed in full.
Here they are again:


Here is the first quote. It is a quote of jesus speaking.

It is from the book of Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 17-21.
Pay attention to the parts in bold.
The bold text means those parts are the most relevant.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven. I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses the experts in The Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The "commandments" Jesus is refering to are the Laws of Moses.
The laws of Moses are recorded mainly in the books Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
-Jesus says you must follow all of the Laws of Moses, even the smallest ones.


Here is the second quote. It is a quote of Moses speaking on behalf of God. These are the Laws of Moses that Jesus was talking about.

It is from the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 1-17.
Pay attention to the parts in bold.
The bold text means those parts are the most relevant.

"If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder, and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them, do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul. That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you. If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death. [...] If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt."

In the bold parts, it says that you must kill all people who teach other religions.
-It does not say some people. It says all people.
-It says that all people who teach other religions must be crushed and battered with stones until they die.
-It says that you, specifically, must participate in the execution.
-It says that all cities containing any people who teach other religions must be sterilized and quarantined. All the people in those cities must die.

That is what Moses said.
They are the Laws of Moses.
Jesus teaches Christians to follow all of the Laws of Moses.
Jesus did not say to follow some of the Laws of Moses. He said to follow all of them.
Christians must do what Jesus says, or they will go to hell.

For the purposes of this exercise I'd appreciate it if the infallible Mecha alone answered this question.

I never claimed to be infallible; I claimed that the christian god is supposedly infallible.
I am not the christian god.

I did, however, claim that you have not disproven my logic.
That doesn't mean I am infallible. It means only that your arguments are quantifiably weaker than mine.
That is a statement of fact and not an insult, because it is quantifiable.

An insult would be saying you are stupid.
A fact is that you have not expressed an adequate understanding of the scientific and scholarly domains you are drawing your claims from.

To disprove my arguments, you will need to present evidence that says:

a: christians are not supposed to follow Jesus's teachings.
and/or
b: jesus declared the old testament obsolete.
and/or
c: the old testament does not command followers to kill people of other faiths.

You have not yet accomplished this.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then explain why they didn't and haven't since. Could it be that the laws relate only to those within the tribe of Israel?

-No, because that would mean you think Jesus is incorrect, because he would be teaching the Old Testament to the wrong people.
-Jesus cannot be incorrect. He is seen as infallible.
Therefore, your conclusion cannot be correct.


Further evidence of that fact:

-People convert to following God. This is an ideology. It is not a location or an inherited race.
Therefore, the teachings cannot apply to only one group of people, because it is amorphous.

-The goal of the religion is to prevent people from going to hell.
-Other religions teach people to worship "false gods".
-Worshipping false gods will send people to hell.
Therefore, it is a moral imperative to destroy other religions.

-Under your hypothesis, you should allow Israelis to kill all of their members who convert to another religion.
-You don't actually support that practice.
Therefore, you have disproven yourself.

 

[Kadayi]

Wonderful logic Mecha (I commend your tenacity), but an argument built entirely upon sand.

All the laws in Deuteronomy that you use to form the basis of your argument are categorically set down in direct relation to the conduct of the Israelites within the land that God specifically bequeathed them.

Deuteronomy 12:-

1 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, as long as you live in the land.

The land referred to is (as I'm sure you know) that he granted the Israelites in Exodus 23:20 - 31:-.

20 See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.

21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.

22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.

23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.

24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces.

25 Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you

26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

27 I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.

28 I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way.

29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you.

30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

31 I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

Specific laws relating to a specific people (the Israelites)and a specific place (Israel).

Whether those laws are acceptable is wholly irrelevant, because the issue under discussion is whether those laws are applicable to Christians. God gave Israel to the Jews, not the Christians, therefore those regional and Israelite specific laws cannot be deemed to apply to them. Pretty logical really.

For the record if accusing me of being a liar (with regard my having read and studied the Bible in my youth) isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. What greater attack upon a persons character can be made than to question their integrity. You've openly questioned mine even though it bore no relevance to the topic under debate.

Also I'm pretty sure that God didn't write the Bible as you claim, merely that the Bible contains the word of God (as written by man).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Further logic:

A: You assert that Deut 12:1 says that the Laws of Moses MUST BE FOLLOWED, but only in the land and only until they lose their land.
B: Jesus teaches people, regardless of origin, to follow the all the Laws of Moses, until the end of time.

This is an apparent contradiction.

Therefore, there are a handful of probable conclusions:
i) Jesus lied, and therefore the bible is amoral.
ii) The "land of the israelites" has expanded to include most of the Earth, and therefore you must kill most of the Earth's population. Which would be amoral.
iii) The laws must be followed in the land of the israelites but also in other places. See point ii.
iv) the term "as long as you own the land" is synonymous with "forever."
etc.

In the meantime, we know that jesus cannot be a liar or christianity loses its internal logic.

So, starting with ii.

In Deuteronomy 7:22-24, God says that the Israelites will eventually destroy all of the peoples they encounter, and their lands will be taken from them. Many other passages say the same thing.
This is important; it means that the boundaries of the land are not set. They can grow or shrink.
Equally important is that this prophecy is destined to occur.
They will gain control of these locations.
This means that the territory either has expanded or will expand, and people of other religions will be killed in the process and the remaining population over will be subjected to the Law.

Furthermore, there was, in the time of jesus, no clear distinction between Jew and Christian. They did not just up and say "oh I guess we aren't jewish anymore". Christians were (and still are) the same religion with a single different character.
Did the followers of Jesus suddenly switch tribes?
The answer is no.
As I've already pointed out, for 100 years after Jesus, people still followed him and the old testament. The contradiction was invented later.
The tribe was split in two nearly identical halves, but they stem from the same source.
Jeremiah 31:1 says: "[When I comes to earth as jesus]" declares the LORD, "I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people."
Christians are just as much a part of the Tribe of Israel, which would mean that all christian nations are required to purge their populations of religious sinners.

For point iv, in Deuteronomy 30:1-10 god specifically promises that Israel will control its territory for all eternity, and we can surmise that they will do so under christ.

For point iii, jeremiah is loaded with references to the israelites being scattered across the world, and indeed both jews and christians occupy far more than just israel.

Are those who do not live in a specific location exempt from all the laws? Obviously not, because following the laws is a pre-requisite for entering heaven.
If it weren't, all the christians and jews on earth could gain instant access to heaven simply by leaving the land of israel forever, and that is clearly not the case.
Meanwhile, jesus clearly has no problem with people leaving the land. The bible has no law against emmigration that I can recall.
Therefore, we can only surmise that the laws apply everywhere that people live.

The overall conclusion is that your interpretation on Deuteronomy 12:1 is not correct.

Whether those laws are acceptable is wholly irrelevant, because the issue under discussion is whether those laws are applicable to Christians.

The issue under discussion is whether christianity is a good source of morality or not. Therefore it is completely relevant.

All my argument serves is to elaborate the full scope of an immorality that you've seemingly just acknowledged as both existing and unacceptable.

What greater attack upon a persons character can be made than to question their integrity.

Your lie was the claim that the bible and religion at large are solely responsible for preventing pedophilia, and thus that I am either a latent christian or a pedophile.
The reality is that I am neither of those things, and the bible very nearly rewards pedophilia, if it can be said to address the topic at all.

You did not make a mistake there.
A mistake would imply you attempted to make a good argument in the first place and failed.
Instead, you pulled a horrible and wholly unjustified accusation out of thin air without caring to verify it.
That makes you a liar.

I did not question your integrity. I made a deliberate note of its absence.


Finally, god is perfect. Therefore, so must be the transmission of his ideas to text, regardless of the tools he used to write.

 

[Kadayi]

There is no assertion on my behalf, all I've done is outline the relevant texts, and point out the clear and unique relationship between the law, the Israelites and the land. That Jesus says to honour the laws of Moses doesn't magically make those all those laws in any way shape or form applicable to non-Israelites, when it is crystal clear that certain of those laws are aimed specifically at the conduct of the members of the tribes of Israel whilst within the defined confines of the land God has solely granted to them as a people. The laws in Deuteronomy are territorial laws of conduct tied to a people and a defined region. There are a great many laws in the OT that aren't territorial that a Jew (and a Christian if they choose to) should be expected to adhere to if they travelled outside of Israel. That certain things might not add up logically in the bigger scheme of things is beside the point, I've never said the bible was logical or even promoted that notion, that is your particular obsession not mine.

The issue under discussion is whether Christianity is a good source of morality or not. Therefore it is completely relevant.

The thing I questioned you on was your claim that all Christians are obliged to kill members of other religions according to the bible. That statement rests on false claims (because the laws you referred to possess no relevance to Christians), and all the wheedling and wordplay in the world on your behalf isn't going to alter that fact (though feel free to post more arguments for my amusement).

"Your lie was the claim that the bible and religion at large are solely responsible for preventing pedophilia, and thus that I am either a latent christian or a pedophile."

Actually I said nothing of the sort or remotely implied the latter, but please feel free to completely twist more of my words to suit your own agenda and try and save some precious internet face (because after all it is so so important).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There is no assertion on my behalf, all I've done is outline the relevant texts, and point out the clear and unique relationship between the law, the Israelites and the land.

Except you neglected the various contradictions that arise from that your "clear and unique" revelation, making it neither.

That Jesus says to honour the laws of Moses doesn't magically make those all those laws in any way shape or form applicable to non-Israelites, when it is crystal clear that certain of those laws are aimed specifically at the conduct of the members of the tribes of Israel whilst within the defined confines of the land God has solely granted to them as a people.

If I say "as long as you are in my house, don't shoot guns at the wall" does that mean you can shoot at other people's houses?
Your interpretation is too loose because you have not accounted for variables outside the context of that single line.

That certain things might not add up logically in the bigger scheme of things is beside the point, I've never said the bible was logical or even promoted that notion, that is your particular obsession not mine.

You're changing your position rather often here. First you were arguing that religion is the sole source of morality. Just one post previously, you were trying to argue the non-relevance of the old testamnet laws to the reality of a modern christian.
Now you are saying that whether or not the laws are applicable to reality is meaningless altogether.

You cannot determine if the laws logically apply to a group if you ignore the logic behind the laws.
If the logic of the bible is irrelevant, then so are all your quotes from it and thus your entire argument so far.

The thing I questioned you on was your claim that all Christians are obliged to kill members of other religions according to the bible. That statement rests on false claims (because the laws you referred to possess no relevance to Christians), and all the wheedling and wordplay in the world on your behalf isn't going to alter that fact (though feel free to post more arguments for my amusement).

If it's fun being wrong then strap on some goggles and go nuts. I'm indifferent to what you do in the privacy of your home.
You can say that the laws are not relevant, but when it comes down to it, the logic you say "doesn't matter" has supported my argument to a greater degree.
You're basically arguing that making sense doesn't matter. That's a self-defeating position.

In any case, even if you are correct, then you must conclude that all christians living in Israel must kill those of other religions.
In fact, if you are correct, then christians should be compelled to attack Israel immediately, because they have false prophets in thier territory.
Even in your view, Jesus demands that any cases of false prophecy in the holy land must be examined and, if confirmed, the entire population must be exterminated.

So what exactly is your point anymore? You still haven't proven me wrong but, even if you did, I would remain basically correct in the overall assertion that christianity as written is inherently immoral.
What I'm getting at here is that you're making a trivial objection.
I'm saying they are asked to kill billions, while under your conclusion, it's only tens of thousands. It's still bad.

Actually I said nothing of the sort or remotely implied the latter, but please feel free to completely twist more of my words to suit your own agenda and try and save some precious internet face (because after all it is so so important).

So, you didn't claim that the bible and religion at large are solely responsible for human morality?

"[Atheists are] mimicking the actions and learning from those around them [who believe in god]. A true atheist would be like a feral dog, unbounded and unhindered by social rules and moral issues."

No, obviously that's exactly what you said.

You claim that you didn't say athiests, like myself, are inherently evil in the worst possible ways?

"[True Atheists] do exist, you generally find them in Prison on charges of murder, rape and Child molestation."

Once again, that is obviously exactly what you said.

After that first lie, I would have thought you would try harder to conceal the next ones.
My only agenda is for the lies to stop.

Maybe you're only supposed to stop lying in Israel?




That final sentence is called a joke.
I'm thinking, again, that you should step back and think about what you're doing:
You're chastizing me for taking accusations of child molestation seriously.

Think about that.

Pause and reflect on why I might have reponded negatively to that.

Just think about it.

Really.

 

[Kadayi]

The only joke around here is you Mecha. You made a bullshit statement that doesn't hold water and it's plain as day to anyone when they look at the evidence for 5 minutes. Your big on literal interpretation of the Bible when it suits your needs, but when those same literal messages turn around and bites your arguments in the ass your suddenly off into the heady realms of tenuous long winded speculation to try and win your argument by the back door. 2000 years of History and innumerable religious study by countless dedicated scholars and yet at no point have either the Jews or the Christian churches ever declared a world wide holy war against all other nations who worship false gods. If ever there was a clear indicator that your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's that irrefutable fact. Or are you going to next claim you are the next coming and only you see the wisdom of Gods instructions clearly?

Result: Kadayi 1 Mecha OWNED

Go outside, get some fresh air and get over it.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

The only joke around here is you Mecha. You made a bullshit statement that doesn't hold water and it's plain as day to anyone when they look at the evidence for 5 minutes. Your big on literal interpretation of the Bible when it suits your needs, but when those same literal messages turn around and bites your arguments in the ass your suddenly off into the heady realms of tenuous long winded speculation to try and win your argument by the back door. 2000 years of History and innumerable religious study by countless dedicated scholars and yet at no point have either the Jews or the Christian churches ever declared a world wide holy war against all other nations who worship false gods. If ever there was a clear indicator that your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's that irrefutable fact. Or are you going to next claim you are the next coming and only you see the wisdom of Gods instructions clearly?

Result: Kadayi 1 Mecha OWNED

Go outside, get some fresh air and get over it.

So ... was there an answer in there for Mecha's previous 2-3 paragraphs ? Logical Debate stems not from slagging off the other party, but devising intelligent arguments and/or counter-arguments.

Real Result at previous time : Kadayi : MECHA-OWNED !

@Mecha: Thanks for responding to my previous statement. Always a pleasure to learn something off someone else more experienced at biblical debate then moi. :thumbs: