|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted April 07, 2010 12:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that there ARE so many different (and partly RADICALLY different) "versions" of Christianity is damning enough for the religion as a whole.
I hardly see how it is damning to have differnt denominations withing Christianity. Most of the differences are relatively minor. Is that also a damning indictment against "Scince" since all scientists don't agree on everything?
..... Drawing out a gigantic strawman are we? Science is not faith, it is merely a attempt to understand the world. Which means that quarreling is good until it can be tested.
Quote:
Quote:
With the general decline of importance of religion in the Western World it has stopped to become a major issue, but isn't it STRANGE, that not so long ago, that I couldn't remember anymore, friendship between Catholics and Protestants (especially) were frowned upon and marriage an anathema in Germany?
ACtually, atheism is in worldwide decline, not religion. I have linked to the source before, and can produce that again if you with.
If realizing that religion was not fact caused atheism, why would it decline? It would reach a certain treeshold regardless, like anything else.
It is simply nothing more than realizing that the socalled truth is nothing more than indoctrine and faith compared to a lot of other things.
Well, the real thing on the rise is agnosticism .
Quote:
It has more to do with the fact that religion in general doesn't come with "facts", and when it comes with what is supposed to be "facts", like manuscripts", these stuff is naturally open to interpretation.
Quote:
Lawyers "interpret" the Constitution and various laws in a number of ways. Does that mean the Constitution means anything you want it to mean?
There is a reason any constitution with selfrespect avoids anything that can mean more than the original intention is it not?
The bible was written over ages, translated slowly, and more. It is VERY open for interprention, hence it is not good to compare it to a lawbook of most nations.
Quote:
We see athsit tyrants slaughtering millions of hulman beings, many simply because they believe in God.
We haven't seen a grand coalition declare war against a enemy far far away before attacking them united in faith......
Oh wait, i think the Crusades involved rape and pillage like every war. And genocide too.
Quote:
You continue to make false claims about what Christianity teaches. And you have painted a false picture of Christianity is bein a spintered gourp of people who are hostile towards each other.
Last time i checked, this was exactly what happend, there was always splinter groups unless everybody was slaves(and indoctrined in fear).
There is a reason the fear movement won.
Of course it got better with time, and the numbers was reduced as everybody killed off everybody. Anything else would be naive.
____________
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:10 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 13:12, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
If there is ONE book, there is ONE way.
Oh really? But then tell me... if scientists observe one phenomenon how come that there isn't always one theory to explain it? So if you'd see god as the Phenomenon there are several interpretations of him within christanity. That can't be so hard to understand can it? The bible is one of those interpretations. The bible is of course a centerpiece of christianity but the focus isn't the same.
It doesn't go "And so on...".
Your notion to hold on to the thought that all Christians must believe in the bible as if it were the printed word of god speaks for what you want to believe about christians it does not change the fact that not all Christians take the bible as literal as you'd think, nor that they focus on the parts you quote so joyfully.
Here's my problem with many arguments some of you bring forth... you quote passages of the bible were god is depicted as a muderous and tyrannic lunatic without common sense and ask Christians (in this case Elodin lol) to say something about it. If the counterside then quotes passages where god/jesus is depicted as a benevolent, forgiving, all loving father you discard it as if it's nothing. Consistency? How can you quote the bible and feel like you're proving something when you don't allow contradictory bible quotes to have any meaning lol? The whole business of arguing with bible quotes isn't the brightest idea anyway since it's a) contradictory as hell b) it's a book not gods word dictated to man oO.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:20 PM |
|
|
Yet it is constantly quoted by lunatics as if it IS God's dictation to man 
And the main reason why Atheism might be on the decline is because most people who grow familiar with Atheism never heard of Agnosticism. In recent years, they do. Most people call themselves 'atheist' primost because they oppose religious instutions, regardless wether or not they believe in a God. Once they learn of Agnosticism, they correct themselves.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:26 PM |
|
|
@ Azagal
If you don't want to discuss with me, say so.
Until then, since it was my point, originally, the main point wasn't that there are different interpretations. The main point was, that even though this thing about love thy neighbour and enemy is supposed to be the crucial part, the different interpretations have been hostile against each other, even warring each other, for example in the 30-years-war and so on. Still, mind you, for example in Northern Ireland.
And since you are a German like me, if I got that one right, you should know, that there have been some areas in Germany with a very strict religious view on things: Bavaria, for example, has been firmly in Catholic hands, and it's not that long past that protestants had a hard time there. On the other hand the ex-Prussian areas are mainly protestant. You see that, for example, when you look at the old Catholic Carnival thing, which the North has nothing to do with.
And if the Bible is just a contradictory book, as you say, what makes it so special that a religion is based upon? I don't see the logic in dismissing it on one hand and picking out a certain motive on the other to base a religion upon it. Can you explain that?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:27 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 14:50, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If there is ONE book, there is ONE way.
Oh really? But then tell me... if scientists observe one phenomenon how come that there isn't always one theory to explain it?
Sorry, but this is a wrong comparison. No scientific "phenomenon" tells millions of people how they have to live their life and what is good or bad. Have you ever heard thousands of scientists (and people who find science intersting) changing all of their habbits because of a scientific phenomenon?
Quote:
So if you'd see god as the Phenomenon there are several interpretations of him within christanity.
As written above, a phenomenon doesn't have that impact on my life as a book has for millions of christians. And if some scientist discover the earth isn't flat, of course others can say "THE EARTH IS FLAT, OTHERWISE AUSTRALIANS WOULD FALL OFF!!", so their interpretation of that "phenomenon" will be different. But is that of any interest? Will the australians now all put glue under their shows to NOT fall off the planet? No...
Quote:
That can't be so hard to understand can it? The bible is one of those interpretations.
The bible may be one of those interpretations for ALL kind of religions, that's true. But those, who claim the bible is THE book, and THE words of God, can't interpret it that different. Then either the book isn't written very well, or 99% of those groups who all proclaim they listen to God's words are doing wrong.
Elodin quoted passages out of the bible which seem to make clear God and Jesus are the same person. Then how on earth other religious groups (catholics) can then say "No, that's wrong!!"
Dare to explain?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[...] the thought that all Christians must believe in the bible as if it were the printed word of god [...]
I don't think we're discussing the people behind christianity, at least that's not my impression. I thought we were talking about the validity of christianity (and religion in general) itself.
Quote:
you quote passages of the bible were god is depicted as a muderous[...] If the counterside then quotes passages where god/jesus is depicted as a benevolent, forgiving, all loving father you discard it [...] Consistency?
Quote:
How can you quote the bible and feel like you're proving something when you don't allow contradictory bible quotes to have any meaning
I think the important question is what one wants to prove. Not all thing is relevant towards a certain proof.
E.g. I think some have tried to show that God, as described by the bible, is not always good, eventhough that's the general idea. Showing parts were God does good is not very relevant to such a proof.
Quote:
since it's (The Bible red) a) contradictory as hell b) it's a book not gods word dictated to man oO.
Exactly, and I think that's what many tries to show Elodin. Because I understand it as that Elodin actually believe the bible is the word of God (to the degree of possible translation), eventhough it's impossible to prove without at least defining God and prove the definition holds true.
I honestly think many religous people are quite smart, they use the bible, not as a measure of absolute truth, which is the dangerous thing to do, but as a source of inspiration, which I think is the smart thing to do (and the way one should relate to anything). Because many things of the bible are quite smart, like turning the other cheek, though one must self through ones own ability to justify information decide if they agree with it or not, and that's why the bible probably have something for everyone. The problem starts when people accepts passages just for the sake of accepting passages, such as one must follow the commandments of God, without questioning, etc.
So it's honestly not a problem when people only takes certain parts out of the book and if they call themselves christians or not, no I think the problem starts when people either:
a) Decides to accept information without justifying it (E.g. that there were only 6 days of creation, that all animals are as they've always been, etc.)
b) Decides to limit others freedom due to the words of the book (E.g. Forces opinions down on others, like telling others they can't call themselves christians, or they've to accept the whole book, or nothing at all, that God owns the life of others (which imply, if one is convinced of following the word of God, they won't let others life stand in their way), etc.)
Quote:
Most people call themselves 'atheist' primost because they oppose religious instutions
Reminds me, I earlier often got those very irritating pamplets from various religious organizations. Now I also get them from an atheist organization. I don't get what's with people forming groups (and to some extend, thereby enemies) over such trivialities.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 03:46 PM |
|
|
@-OhforfSake:
This thread is so funny you can leave it and come back months later and the argument remains the same. Why can't it just be simple, why can't a group of people get together and act as though the red words in the great leather bound book was actually the words and thoughts of God and Jesus without a nonbeliever telling them they are wrong?
On the other-side (no pun intended)why can't a nonbeliever sit around and worship the numbers 666, or worship a little horned guy playing in fire?
What is it? Have your damn beliefs, keep the **** to yourself as to what you believe and let it go. If this forum teaches you anything it should teach you that it does not matter what the hell you think.
It only becomes a issue when one side pukes their "reasons" for believing what they do. Like " I believe in God because my Great Granny used to read this book to me then make me regurgitate it at mass while the Holy Father was rubbing one out behind those tacky red drapes."
Or, "I believe that the Devil is all mighty because my father used to write me from prison and tell me that he would one day have a seat next to the ole' guy himself someday and if I was naughty too then I may go Hell with him, can't wait!"
Stupid...No one can think for themselves anymore be it religion or politics its all just BS groups that want to control what you think.
Aren't you over it yet?
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 04:54 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:00, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
..... Drawing out a gigantic strawman are we? Science is not faith, it is merely a attempt to understand the world. Which means that quarreling is good until it can be tested.
No, only showing it is illogical to claim that everyone, even though everyone has the same set of fact available to them, will come to the same conclusion.
People have misunderstands of things that they read, things they see on TV, what others say to them, ect.
Quote:
If realizing that religion was not fact caused atheism, why would it decline? It would reach a certain treeshold regardless, like anything else.
It is simply nothing more than realizing that the socalled truth is nothing more than indoctrine and faith compared to a lot of other things.
I don't understand what you have written.
Quote:
There is a reason any constitution with selfrespect avoids anything that can mean more than the original intention is it not?
There are lawyers in every society and they all interpret the laws and Constitutions differently.
That does not mean that the laws are poorly written but that there are always people who have misunderstandings.
Quote:
The bible was written over ages, translated slowly, and more. It is VERY open for interprention, hence it is not good to compare it to a lawbook of most nations.
No, I have addessed Bible translation before, and within probably that last 8 pages of this topic. The Bible is not a translation of a thranslation of a translation. The Bible is translated directly from the original language into English or German or whatever.
Oh, just how well do you know the Bible? Do you put time into stydying it? With the exception of end-time prophecy most things are very straighforward.
Quote:
Oh wait, i think the Crusades involved rape and pillage like every war. And genocide too.
I have addressed that numerous times. No Christian hates or murders according to the Bible. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. There are wolves in sheeps clothing as Jesus has warned us.
Quote:
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quote:
Quote:
You continue to make false claims about what Christianity teaches. And you have painted a false picture of Christianity is bein a spintered gourp of people who are hostile towards each other.
Last time i checked, this was exactly what happend, there was always splinter groups unless everybody was slaves(and indoctrined in fear).
There is a reason the fear movement won.
Of course it got better with time, and the numbers was reduced as everybody killed off everybody. Anything else would be naive.
I can make no sense for your statments. The statement was made that Christianity is just composed of differnt groups of people who are hostile to each other.
I asked for proof as that does not fit with what I have experienced throughout my life.
Show me studies from a reputable source such as gallup that Baptists are hostile to Methodists, Episcopals are hostiale to Pentecostals, ect. And explain why America is not a bloody battlezone with so many differnt denominations all existing together in peace.
Quote:
Yet it is constantly quoted by lunatics as if it IS God's dictation to man
It is God's Word to man. 
Quote:
How can you quote the bible and feel like you're proving something when you don't allow contradictory bible quotes to have any meaning
There are no contradictory quotes if all passages are kept in context.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 05:04 PM |
|
|
@VF
Yes, but that's also what I'm pretty much saying. Sure everyone can decide to believe something eventhough it's not documented, and yes it may not be a problem (just not very wise), the problem does first arrise when someone limits others freedom unnecessarily, which after all also is b), and I believe a) is what most often leads to b).
@Elodin
Quote:
There are no contradictory quotes if all passages are kept in context.
In what context should it then be understood that first it is eye for an eye and later it is turn the other cheek?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 05:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh wait, i think the Crusades involved rape and pillage like every war. And genocide too.
I have addressed that numerous times. No Christian hates or murders according to the Bible. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. There are wolves in sheeps clothing as Jesus has warned us.
Then there exists no Scotsman, EVER. Logical fallacy much?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You continue to make false claims about what Christianity teaches. And you have painted a false picture of Christianity is bein a spintered gourp of people who are hostile towards each other.
Last time i checked, this was exactly what happend, there was always splinter groups unless everybody was slaves(and indoctrined in fear).
There is a reason the fear movement won.
Of course it got better with time, and the numbers was reduced as everybody killed off everybody. Anything else would be naive.
I can make no sense for your statments. The statement was made that Christianity is just composed of differnt groups of people who are hostile to each other.
I asked for proof as that does not fit with what I have experienced throughout my life.
We have had almost 2600 years or something to clean it up, why do you think there are so few groups left?
The jews gather up parts of others, which again also got a turn of 2 MAJOR split-offs which went of and got a different audience. By that time i think we should be able to kill of the ineffecti groups no?
Its sosial darwinisme at its best ya know.
We are now living in an era where if you look for it, genocide is something that has happend over and over again in the past.
Don't belivie me? Look at history, besides kings wanting more power we also got religious wanting more power. Or fanatics purging the infidels, or worse. Take up the scale to an entire continent, add on that there does not exists a "civilized" civilisation yet. Nor enough of them civilized for there to actually be reason.
In the past 100-150 years there have been more surviving splinter groups of anything compared to before that, there is a reason for this.
Quote:
Show me studies from a reputable source such as gallup that Baptists are hostile to Methodists, Episcopals are hostiale to Pentecostals, ect. And explain why America is not a bloody battlezone with so many differnt denominations all existing together in peace.
Ask yourself this, if we started behaving like back in the dark ages we would have been thrown into prison quite fast, no?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@VF
@Elodin
Quote:
There are no contradictory quotes if all passages are kept in context.
In what context should it then be understood that first it is eye for an eye and later it is turn the other cheek?
Eye for an eye in the Old Testament means judges shall make sure that justice is carried out in the manner the Law prescribes and shall be equitable for all.
Quote:
Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Lev 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Lev 24:21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Personal revenge was not allowed even in the Old Covenant.
Quote:
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Some rabbis had taught that a person was free to take revenge in an "eye for an eye" principle. Jesus corrected that, and siad, no, an individual must turn the other cheek and leave any punishment up to the law.
Quote:
Then there exists no Scotsman, EVER. Logical fallacy much?
No. It is not a logical fallacy to say that sheep don't go "oink."
I proved the Bible says that no one who hates or murders is a Christian. The Bible defines who is and is not a Christian.
Quote:
Quote:
Show me studies from a reputable source such as gallup that Baptists are hostile to Methodists, Episcopals are hostiale to Pentecostals, ect. And explain why America is not a bloody battlezone with so many differnt denominations all existing together in peace.
Ask yourself this, if we started behaving like back in the dark ages we would have been thrown into prison quite fast, no?
You did not answer the question. I asked for proof of the sttment that the various Christian denominations are hostile to each other as someone claimed they are.
Also I asked for an explaination as to why if the different Christian denominations are hostile to each other America is not a bloodbath.
I gave examples of myself being friends with people of different denominations and never having experienced this alleged hostility of Christians of differing denominations.
The painting of Christianity as being composed of denominations that are hostile to each other is quite simply false.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In what context should it then be understood that first it is eye for an eye and later it is turn the other cheek?
Eye for an eye in the Old Testament means judges shall make sure that justice is carried out in the manner the Law prescribes and shall be equitable for all.
Quote:
Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Lev 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Lev 24:21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Personal revenge was not allowed even in the Old Covenant.
Quote:
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
I agree that by the basis of your quote and under assumption of continuety of logic in the bible in general (which is what I believe you claim) that the eye for an eye concept was not based on the idea of people taking revenge by themselves.
In relevance to my question, I see there needs not to be a logical fallacity in this regard.
I however have some concerns and questions.
First of all, as it's the question about context, how do you know it's the judge to judge, and it may not be regarding to say, e.g. God who is to judge and thereby man is to not interveen at all?
Also, I find it unclear if the law is made for civilizations on Earth or is the laws of Heaven.
Under the assumption on that you're right that it is in fact about judges of society and human law (eventhough I don't see it justified), I find it to be a great concern that you cannot seperate the act of society and act of a community, for what I know.
I understand a community as a group of people under the law of society, which consists of all people of society.
On Earth the different socities are the different countries and the different communities are stuff like the people of the local soccer club. If I confuse the words, i.e. not using them as you understand, then sorry about that and please ask into it, so it can be corrected.
So let's assume a community of people who've been brought up unknown to civilization, thereby to them defining what we see as a community, as a society. Now these people follows the words of the bible and judges by those words.
Assuming a man in the community did something that according to the bible means he should be killed, maybe being a killer himself, then the society (here being that community) who follows the bible kills him.
Now in the view of society as we would percieve it, the country and their laws, they find out about how a group of people in their own community killed off someone, because that person in turn killed someone.
Society would then judge by the laws that the people of said community (in specific the executioner) is guilty for murder, and depending on if they follow the words of the bible or not, will order the execution or jail the person(s).
Now we zoom even more out. An alien civilization have advanced to such a degree that they've decided to split different parts of the universe known to them into their societies (or countries if you want). To them, we're some kind of stupid animal, however like children as well, because they see great potential in us.
Now they finally reach Earth and claim Earth as a part of their society, claiming their laws are to be upheld on Earth, and that people who resists violently will be punished and people who disagree can vote like in a democracy at the great space meeting (which they will get free trip to). However there are so many people of this society that the voice of the people on the Earth is much below 1% of the total and they'll never get rid of this oppression, because they don't have a choice if they want to be part of this society/country in the first place, all they can do is to decide to move to another place (if they are so lucky to get a lift, and even there, there are laws of other societies).
Now getting back to what I'm trying to tell, with all the prerequiretsment done, I believe, this society makes contact during, or shortly after, the execution of the given person(s), and as it happens this society also might follow the bible, sees Earth as a community, not a society, and judges upon the executioner according to their laws.
All in all, it is a negative spiral, and my point is, it doesn't matter if it is society by some laws that decides to kill or if it is a person alone, killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter what.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then there exists no Scotsman, EVER. Logical fallacy much?
No. It is not a logical fallacy to say that sheep don't go "oink."
I proved the Bible says that no one who hates or murders is a Christian. The Bible defines who is and is not a Christian.
From 6000+BC to around 1850 hate, rape, murder and pillaging was common.
Ergo there was no christians in this periode.
After 1850 hate rape and pillage was still common, ergo there is almost no Christians.
____________
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:41 PM |
|
|
"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18"
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:45 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:46, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
First of all, as it's the question about context, how do you know it's the judge to judge, and it may not be regarding to say, e.g. God who is to judge and thereby man is to not interveen at all?
Because it is about man carrying out the punishment. In the Old Covenant the priests were judges. If a village did not have a priest there the village elder was the judge.
Trials were held at the city gates for all to see. If the person was found guilty and it was a capital offense the witnesses to the crime cast the first stones and the rest of the village joined in.
Quote:
Also, I find it unclear if the law is made for civilizations on Earth or is the laws of Heaven.
The Law was given to the Jews when they came out of Egypt.
Quote:
Assuming a man in the community did something that according to the bible means he should be killed, maybe being a killer himself, then the society (here being that community) who follows the bible kills him.
The Old Covenant was completed in Christ. The Old Covenant no longer exists. The New Covenant does not authroize Chrisitans to kill anyone. The church is not authorized to punish sin in any way beyond disfellowshipping people who claim to be Christians but who are living in sin.
Quote:
All in all, it is a negative spiral, and my point is, it doesn't matter if it is society by some laws that decides to kill or if it is a person alone, killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter what.
I disagree that excuting murderers is wrong.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:05 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 19:07, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Old Covenant or New, it was the same God, Jesus' father, who ordered Jews to kill unbelievers. It wasn't Zeus who commanded sinners should be killed too:
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
____________
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:09 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 19:10, 07 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
I disagree that excuting murderers is wrong.
Quote:
Christians are not authorized to punish any sinner for any sin
What's it gonna be?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Old Covenant or New, it was the same God, Jesus' father, who ordered Jews to kill unbelievers.
Israel was a theocracy. Every person in Israel took a vow to follw the Law. If a person chose to worship a pagan deity he should have moved to another nation rather than lying and saying he would follow the Law.
Quote:
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
And??????
The Law was that the only legal sex is sex within marriage. Israel was a theocray where everyone vowed to follow the Law and repeated the penalty for breaking the Law.
Quote:
Quote:
I disagree that excuting murderers is wrong.
Quote:
Christians are not authorized to punish any sinner for any sin
What's it gonna be?
The context of may statements makes if very clear. Individual Christians are not authorized to punish sin. The church is not authroized to punish sin.
It is the job of the government to punish evil, not the job of individuals.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
@Mytical
Quote:
On a totally random note. If in the beginning there was only chaos..and in the end things will return to only chaos..that would make sense. Since Chaos would be the Alpha and the Omega (the beginning and the End) that would mean that God is Chaos. Since he is apparently above his own laws, and doesn't have to obey them, it would make perfect sense. God IS chaos, so that means it doesn't matter if he contridicts himself...
The devil or 'evil' would not be just Order..but rigid unyeilding order. Chaos is special in that it has no limits. Chaos' randomness can make it order also. Order however, can not be chaos..for it has rules and guidelines.
For simplicity's sake I simply combined your two posts.
A couple of comments.
1) I'll start with "the end". This has been touched a few times, but I don't think, we can make ANY halfway safe conclusion about "the end". Entropy needs a closed system, and AT PRESENT, what we know about "the creation" is easier to explain, if we assume that the universe we know about - Einstein's space-time continuum - is NOT a closed system.
2) that makes the beginning somewhat less chaotic as well: whether big bang or steady influx of stuff - we have nothing, that would point to the conclusion we would know everything that exists, on the contrary.
3) Chaos as such. Is the differentiation between Chaos and order real or just an idea? Or, in other words - does Chaos really exist as a real possibility? Defining something via the absence of something is problematic, because you have to prove that in reality an absence is possible at all. You could compare it with "nothing", the absence of everything.
Personally I doubt that something like Chaos can exist. Laws and rules are a question of perception, of finding them. "Chaos theory" in mathematics has already proven that basically everything "natural" that LOOKS chaotic or random in fact isn't but follows rules and laws. The only problem is to find them. In nature's case it is in fact pretty simple, as was to be expected (simple doesn't mean dumb, by the way; on the contrary).
4) Randomness is something else, though. You can get really random series of numbers with irrational numbers. The series of numbers right of the decimal point from Pi, for example, follows no law, no rule: if you see such a series it will look absolutely random - but of course, with the series being Pi it isn't random, because it is generated in a certain way. The series IS random, but follows a generation algorithm, a rule
Which means, that probably EVERY random series of numbers won't be random but may be interpreted as the part of an irrational number that is right of the decimal point; the difficulty is obviously to find that number.
So where does that leave Chaos?
I've no idea.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
Just because someone is forced to either follow a law or leave their home, does not make the execution of that law the right thing to do.
If 5 people together, with the power to make their sayings, to a certain degree, true upon me by force, decides to make a law for the six of us and I can either follow that law or leave my home, is it then right?
If 50 people together, with the power to make their sayings, to a certain degree, true upon me by force, decides to make a law for the six of us and I can either follow that law or leave my home, is it then right?
If 500?
If 5000?
If 5000000?
It's not the law itself, or the support of the law, that makes the law right or wrong, in my opinion. The problem is the lack of ability to choose to not be part of the law, the community and the society (the government), without having to move from ones home. I believe the very same problem still exists today.
Quote:
It is the job of the government to punish evil, not the job of individuals.
But how can one differ between those two (underlined)?
Isn't a government not just a bunch of people who for various reasons can decide the faith of others?
What differs this with individuals doing the exact same thing, using the power they've to decide the faith of others?
To me, the only difference is in power, unless type of government is specified and then the natural question is: "what if the individuals have got that power through the exact same process in a smaller scale?", which basicly means one can't differ at what level of power one can say it is government and at what level one can say it is individuals.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
