Atheist Alliance

[CarefulWetPaint]

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing

I think that's why I have such an easy time posting here vs the Christian Club(which I just tried to find, and I guess it's closed now anyway.)... I just said lolkthxbai and moved on when I read that. Didn't phase me, lol. Although, I am much more down to earth than most Christians I think... when you think about it, the Bible has accomplished three things. Lots of wars, lots of discrimination, and helping people go to heaven... and for someone who doesn't believe in heaven, that's not a very good track record.

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place.

Human's are causing those things because of the bible though. You can not forget what the past was like, if you didn't believe in god and you said so public, you were more then likely going to end up dead because the bible/religion was the highest power on the planet at the time and disputing anything said in the bible would result in you getting the opportunity to truly see if there was anything about heaven was true (ie you ended up dead).
You can not forget the wars because of religion that have happened in the past or of the massacres of people in the name of God by missionaries etc.

Saying it's not the bible itself is like saying its not a gun killing someone but the person holding the gun, which is true but without the gun perhaps there wouldnt have been that murder and without the bible perhaps there wouldnt have been the millions and millions of causalities in the bibles name/name of god.

I must admit I feel rather uncomfortable just saying the bible because I know its not the only religious scripture in the world and not the only one people have killed for, so me generalising and saying the bible is a bit harsh and I apologize in advance if it offends anyone.

[QuilavaKing]

Originally Posted by CarefulWetPaint

Saying it's not the bible itself is like saying its not a gun killing someone but the person holding the gun

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing

I think that's why I have such an easy time posting here vs the Christian Club(which I just tried to find, and I guess it's closed now anyway.)... I just said lolkthxbai and moved on when I read that. Didn't phase me, lol. Although, I am much more down to earth than most Christians I think... when you think about it, the Bible has accomplished three things. Lots of wars, lots of discrimination, and helping people go to heaven... and for someone who doesn't believe in heaven, that's not a very good track record.

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place. :P

I think it's part of hanging around with Andy. Like it's something you kind of have to know with him - if you just know him on the surface level because you know he's not a fan of religion you'd think he was 100% serious on that, but on a deeper level he's still definitely open to intellectual discussion on it because an exaggeration is just an exaggeration sometimes. :P

An interesting experiment in religion is to think of what religion would be like without the Old Testament. While many Christians do believe that the New Testament "overwrites" the Old Testament, they're still influenced by the images of overbearing violence (for example, in Exodus where half of the Israelites turned to worshipping idols while Moses was on Mt. Sinai, and the God-approved solution was that the people who are still loyal to God must slaughter the idol-worshipping people) in their ideas, and the idea of human beings passing judgement on one another. If their only source of influence was Jesus, who urged against judgement from human beings and pretty much only preached love and forgiveness for all people, do you think the Christian religion would have turned out differently?

Although, this raises another question for me personally, something I've been thinking about for a while. Often the violence of Christians is blamed on the angry Old Testament God. But, the violence of Christians is what's in the mainstream media, not other religions (except for radical Muslims, but that's not my point). If we agree that the violence of Christians comes from the Old Testament, then why aren't the Jewish people considered way more violent than Christians? Is it a matter of Christians coming to power while Jewish people were still being discriminated against, therefore giving them the ability to actually oppress based on their beliefs while the Jewish people had no such ability? If they had not had to deal with those hardships and had risen to popularity in the way Christianity has, do you think they would have the same level of violence?

Food for thought.

[Bela]

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place.

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that people just really want to kill others really badly, and are eager to find an excuse to do it. I don't happen to view humans so basely.

I contend that the Bible or other religious texts can in fact be a source for a person's violent actions, not merely an excuse for it. This would seem to be an attempt to whitewash the Bible or other religious texts of calling on their followers to kill in the name of their God. If you read through the Bible or other religious texts, you will find described as punishable by death things which we would today consider rather mundane practices. Your children misbehave?

Originally Posted by Exodus 21:17

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

(And as an aside, what exactly led us away from this sort of thinking? Was it God suddenly deciding that practice was no longer morally 'correct,' or was it secular morality forcing religion to abandon such dogma? And if it is a God who decides it is moral one day to kill your children if they misbehave and immoral the next, you have yourself but an arbitrary designation of morality that is not consistent nor has any self-correcting mechanism for determining what is moral.)

Consider the case of regular people who are convinced by their religion to kill. When a woman kills her children because she believes God told her to do so, is that her using religion as an excuse for her secret craving to murder? Just some regular housewife, who thinks God told her to do it. I think religion is directly responsible for this woman's behavior--it is like poison to a rational mind. How could she rationalize that her children should be killed? Surely the story of Isaac, something this woman would certainly be aware of, has more to do with it than some insatiable appetite to kill?

Can you really say the intent to kill is truly independent of what some religion may convince a person is the right thing to do?

[CarefulWetPaint]

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.

I'm really frustrated with how you seemingly ignored eveything else I posted and just took the one piece of a sentence that backed up what you said and took it completely out of context of what I was saying to make it seem like I was agreeing that people just want to kill people and the tool used it irrelevant.

If you actually read what I said you'd understand that I was saying Yes, its not possible for the bible to kill someone by itself because the bible is unable to kill someone just like a gun is unable to kill someone without having someone using it.
The bible is iinciting the violence, just like the gun is delivering the bullet that kills.

I'll probably have to come back and edit this when im less frustrated so Im sorry if it doesnt make much sense atm.

[FrostPheonix]

Originally Posted by Bela

What you seem to be suggesting here is that people just really want to kill others really badly, and are eager to find an excuse to do it. I don't happen to view humans so basely.

I contend that the Bible or other religious texts can in fact be a source for a person's violent actions, not merely an excuse for it. This would seem to be an attempt to whitewash the Bible or other religious texts of calling on their followers to kill in the name of their God. If you read through the Bible or other religious texts, you will find described as punishable by death things which we would today consider rather mundane practices. Your children misbehave?



(And as an aside, what exactly led us away from this sort of thinking? Was it God suddenly deciding that practice was no longer morally 'correct,' or was it secular morality forcing religion to abandon such dogma? And if it is a God who decides it is moral one day to kill your children if they misbehave and immoral the next, you have yourself but an arbitrary designation of morality that is not consistent nor has any self-correcting mechanism for determining what is moral.)

Consider the case of regular people who are convinced by their religion to kill. When a woman kills her children because she believes God told her to do so, is that her using religion as an excuse for her secret craving to murder? Just some regular housewife, who thinks God told her to do it. I think religion is directly responsible for this woman's behavior--it is like poison to a rational mind. How could she rationalize that her children should be killed? Surely the story of Isaac, something this woman would certainly be aware of, has more to do with it than some insatiable appetite to kill?

Can you really say the intent to kill is truly independent of what some religion may convince a person is the right thing to do?

Here you're saying that people who kill because of religion probably kill because it tells them to do so. This could be true in some cases, but I don't think Christianity fulfills that. The verse is in my previous post, but Jesus does say to love your neighbor as yourself. Sound against this? I think so. As Toujours said above, most christians don't use old testament practices (i.e. the laws of the Pentatuech) as much anymore. That being said, most 'wars' fought through christianity are after Jesus' death and also after the writing of Revalations, the last book of the Bible. This would mean all Christians should know that Jesus does NOT want them to do this. The Crusades, the South American Conquistadors, all of them were mostly commanded by the Catholic Church to do so. I'm Catholic myself, but the practices back then were completely off from the true meaning of the Bible. They even sold 'forgiveness' from God in the form of Paper! I'd say the wars 'caused' by the Bible aren't really caused by the Bible but by people saying it means this and then making others believe this as well. Most peasants back then couldn't read and confirm this for themselves anyway.
There are also those modern Christians who kill people. Some of them truly believe the Bible wanted them to do that, but you have to realize that this isn't true. The same way Islam has been thrown into a bad light because of several terrorists (9/11 being just one of these attacks), a few misinterpreting Christians could paint the whole religion wrongly.

Originally Posted by Bela

(And as an aside, what exactly led us away from this sort of thinking? Was it God suddenly deciding that practice was no longer morally 'correct,' or was it secular morality forcing religion to abandon such dogma? And if it is a God who decides it is moral one day to kill your children if they misbehave and immoral the next, you have yourself but an arbitrary designation of morality that is not consistent nor has any self-correcting mechanism for determining what is moral.)

This is really complicated, but I'll try my best.
The Bible has two big covenants; the old covenant, made by God and Abraham, and the new Covenant, made by Jesus to us. This is really important, as it is like a cornerstone in Christianity. It is the first covenant, the old covenant, made with Abraham, that bound us to the laws of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). It was these laws one had to follow to achieve Salvation. But, mankind couldn't make it through these laws. So, Jesus came and fulfilled the covenant for us. We no longer were bound by the laws of the old covenant, Jesus was in our stead. In the new covenant, Jesus promises salvation if we accept him. I think that's it, simplified. So we don't have to exercise judgement etc anymore. Jesus died for us so that we may get the eternal salvation he promised. So the Old testament law no longer applies to us. Which doesn't mean we should just ignore it; we are also meant to learn from it, and not to make the same mistakes the Isrealites did. There are several books in the old testament that I think still apply to us; Proverbs, Psalms etc.

I hope I answered that part

I'll speak more later, gtg now.

[Barrels]

Originally Posted by Bela

Consider the case of regular people who are convinced by their religion to kill. When a woman kills her children because she believes God told her to do so, is that her using religion as an excuse for her secret craving to murder? Just some regular housewife, who thinks God told her to do it.

Interesting point, eloquently put. I've seen this particular example (Exodus) used many a time (and used to use it myself, in fact). I hope you won't mind if I share my two cents on the matter.

First... women don't tend to kill their children. It's awful and shocking and always makes the news when it happens - and I would contend that the women who do are never 'regular housewives'. For example...

Originally Posted by Bela

I think religion is directly responsible for this woman's behavior--it is like poison to a rational mind.

A rational mind? No. Anyone who can 'rationalize that her children should be killed' because of a book (or anything else, really) is dangerous and psychotic and has deep mental issues. As I type this, I'm remembering all the scandal that erupted over 'faith-healing' a while back - similar sort of thing. Most Christians - the overwhelming majority - have health insurance. They see doctors. They sit by their children's bedside in hospital when they fall ill and pay for expensive treatment. Only a very few outliers trust blindly in God to heal their children, failing to see just how irrational they're being - do they think that He will catch them if they fly off a motorbike? Do they think that He will always ensure that nothing bad ever happens to them? (He didn't stop their child falling ill in the first place, after all.)

Oh, sure, religion might help a lunatic decide what they're going to do next. But so might a funny-shaped cloud in the sky. I can't accept the argument that religion has the power to twist and warp 'regular people' to a murderous extent based purely on the fact that it doesn't. Most people aren't murderers.

Originally Posted by Bela

How could she? Surely the story of Isaac, something this woman would certainly be aware of, has more to do with it than some insatiable appetite to kill?

Can you really say the intent to kill is truly independent of what some religion may convince a person is the right thing to do?

No. No, of course not. You only have to look at the evidence to see that. But, crucially, this is a different point, entirely separate from your arguments about regular people.

The intent to kill has to come from somewhere. And I'd disagree that it is triggered by the Bible (if we're continuing to use that example). A messed-up serial killer may very well use the Bible as his own twisted justification, but I would be far more inclined to think that his murderous impulses are originally rooted somewhere far deeped in his psyche. You can use just about anything as an excuse, if you're determined enough.

Bottom line: I don't think mainstream religions tend to convince people that murdering is the way forward. If only because murderers are few and far between. A deeply damaged individual who's not completely sane - they may interpret religion as justification for their actions. But equally, they might interpret a cracked paving slab as the same.

...I come across as an arrogant little ****, don't I? Sorry. Please feel free to lob this all back with a blistering rebuttal!

EDIT:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

There are also those modern Christians who kill people. Some of them truly believe the Bible wanted them to do that, but you have to realize that this isn't true. The same way Islam has been thrown into a bad light because of several terrorists (9/11 being just one of these attacks), a few misinterpreting Christians could paint the whole religion wrongly.

...I've just realised that Frosty basically summed my entire point up far more succinctly and concisely than I managed to. xD

EDIT2, PLEASE READ:

Originally Posted by Bela

(And as an aside, what exactly led us away from this sort of thinking? Was it God suddenly deciding that practice was no longer morally 'correct,' or was it secular morality forcing religion to abandon such dogma? And if it is a God who decides it is moral one day to kill your children if they misbehave and immoral the next, you have yourself but an arbitrary designation of morality that is not consistent nor has any self-correcting mechanism for determining what is moral.)

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

This is really complicated, but I'll try my best.
The Bible has two big covenants; the old covenant, made by God and Abraham, and the new Covenant, made by Jesus to us. This is really important, as it is like a cornerstone in Christianity. It is the first covenant, the old covenant, made with Abraham, that bound us to the laws of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). It was these laws one had to follow to achieve Salvation. But, mankind couldn't make it through these laws. So, Jesus came and fulfilled the covenant for us. We no longer were bound by the laws of the old covenant, Jesus was in our stead. In the new covenant, Jesus promises salvation if we accept him. I think that's it, simplified. So we don't have to exercise judgement etc anymore. Jesus died for us so that we may get the eternal salvation he promised. So the Old testament law no longer applies to us. Which doesn't mean we should just ignore it; we are also meant to learn from it, and not to make the same mistakes the Isrealites did. There are several books in the old testament that I think still apply to us; Proverbs, Psalms etc.

Forgot about this! Which I shall slap myself later for, because it's really really interesting.

Bela makes a point that can't really be argued with - it's the logical answer. And while Frosty gives an excellent, in-depth explanation of how the Bible works, I don't think - forgive me - you really answered his question.

If mankind couldn't make it through the old laws, what does that mean, exactly? Did all the people who couldn't follow them go to Hell - and then get forgiven and accepted into Heaven later? (Seems only fair, if the whole reason for Jesus' coming was that the old laws were too hard - and they were, right? Stoning children etc.) And if all we have to do to find salvation is accept Jesus - again, forgive me, but that seems a fairly flimsy litmus test for Heavengoers. What's to stop a vile dictator from whole-heartedly accepting Jesus' existence?

And if the answer to that is that you can't just accept His existence but have to follow his rules, then what are those rules? Which bits? We're back to my pick-and-choose question, if some parts of the Old Testament still apply and some don't ('there are several books in the old testament that I think still apply to us; Proverbs, Psalms etc.'). Who decides? The Church?

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

I think, in the same way, God didn't like the concept of slaves. But, since Israel wouldn't have listened to him anyway, he tried making laws so that slaves and masters could live in harmony instead.

Finally... I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept any kind of justification for slavery. A God who lets slavers into heaven isn't a God I could ever worship. (And your argument sort of seems self-defeating - if Israel are going to listen to the laws, surely they'd listen to one that said they weren't allowed to keep slaves? And since in the Old Testament, God takes an active role in battles etcetera, couldn't he have backed a slave uprising? Still fairly confused.)

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

I think, in the same way, God didn't like the concept of slaves.

This is what's most interesting of all, however. And what I think may provide you with an answer to Bela's argument that Christian morality is arbitrary. If God has his own moral code that shuns slavery, surely that's the definitive morality? (Of course, it'd be nice if he set that down for us in writing, but perhaps that's the Ten Commandments. I dunno, I ain't no scholar.) Thanks, both of you, for providing such interesting food for thought.

[FrostPheonix]

Originally Posted by Barrels

If mankind couldn't make it through the old laws, what does that mean, exactly? Did all the people who couldn't follow them go to Hell - and then get forgiven and accepted into Heaven later? (Seems only fair, if the whole reason for Jesus' coming was that the old laws were too hard - and they were, right? Stoning children etc.) And if all we have to do to find salvation is accept Jesus - again, forgive me, but that seems a fairly flimsy litmus test for Heavengoers. What's to stop a vile dictator from whole-heartedly accepting Jesus' existence?

Yeah, I think when Jesus decended into hell for three days (the three days he was dead and carried the sins of mankind upon him), he tried to bring those who would have believed with him back to heaven. And yeah, nothing is there from stopping a vile dictator from accepting Jesus. But....:

Originally Posted by Barrels

And if the answer to that is that you can't just accept His existence but have to follow his rules, then what are those rules? Which bits? We're back to my pick-and-choose question, if some parts of the Old Testament still apply and some don't ('there are several books in the old testament that I think still apply to us; Proverbs, Psalms etc.'). Who decides? The Church?

Yeah, just accepting Jesus existed won't be enough. You need to accept that God is the true God, and from there follow his (Jesus') teachings. If you just believe, you won't achieve salvation. You have to accept him completely and change. As said before, I think that the laws of the Pentateuch, the commandments under which Abraham made the covenant, are the ones by which we are no longer bound. The rest of the Old Testament is a recounting of the history of Israel, prophecies, advice and praise. Its not pick and choose, but those specific laws are no longer in effect because the old covenant has been lifted.

Originally Posted by Barrels

Finally... I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept any kind of justification for slavery. A God who lets slavers into heaven isn't a God I could ever worship. (And your argument sort of seems self-defeating - if Israel are going to listen to the laws, surely they'd listen to one that said they weren't allowed to keep slaves? And since in the Old Testament, God takes an active role in battles etcetera, couldn't he have backed a slave uprising? Still fairly confused.)

This is what's most interesting of all, however. And what I think may provide you with an answer to Bela's argument that Christian morality is arbitrary. If God has his own moral code that shuns slavery, surely that's the definitive morality? (Of course, it'd be nice if he set that down for us in writing, but perhaps that's the Ten Commandments. I dunno, I ain't no scholar.) Thanks, both of you, for providing such interesting food for thought.

Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this... I may ask other christians about this as well, but at the moment I won't answer this. I'll try later on though, when I think I know I can give you a satisfactory answer.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Toujours

I think it's part of hanging around with Andy. Like it's something you kind of have to know with him - if you just know him on the surface level because you know he's not a fan of religion you'd think he was 100% serious on that, but on a deeper level he's still definitely open to intellectual discussion on it because an exaggeration is just an exaggeration sometimes. :P

An interesting experiment in religion is to think of what religion would be like without the Old Testament. While many Christians do believe that the New Testament "overwrites" the Old Testament, they're still influenced by the images of overbearing violence (for example, in Exodus where half of the Israelites turned to worshipping idols while Moses was on Mt. Sinai, and the God-approved solution was that the people who are still loyal to God must slaughter the idol-worshipping people) in their ideas, and the idea of human beings passing judgement on one another. If their only source of influence was Jesus, who urged against judgement from human beings and pretty much only preached love and forgiveness for all people, do you think the Christian religion would have turned out differently?

Although, this raises another question for me personally, something I've been thinking about for a while. Often the violence of Christians is blamed on the angry Old Testament God. But, the violence of Christians is what's in the mainstream media, not other religions (except for radical Muslims, but that's not my point). If we agree that the violence of Christians comes from the Old Testament, then why aren't the Jewish people considered way more violent than Christians? Is it a matter of Christians coming to power while Jewish people were still being discriminated against, therefore giving them the ability to actually oppress based on their beliefs while the Jewish people had no such ability? If they had not had to deal with those hardships and had risen to popularity in the way Christianity has, do you think they would have the same level of violence?

Food for thought.

Even if history had provided us with a violence-free Bible I think we would probably still have a lot of the same violence/wars/etc. owing simply to the fact that people are emboldened when they think they have all the answers. There are plenty of historical instances of Buddhists (including monks themselves) committing terrible violence. Religion just kinda gives people an "I'm-right-you're-wrong" mindset and then good ol' violence is often the result.

I can see why Jews aren't seen as violent. 1) There are far fewer of them in the world than Christians so even if they do commit as many violent acts their overall number will be smaller. Also, if you're in the minority you are going to be wary about picking a fight. 2) Related to that is the sheer number of Christians out there and only a few need to be violent to give the rest a bad name. Also, a single angry Christian leader can command a much larger group of followers to go out and do violence (a.k.a. the Crusades).

[SwiftSign]

Ooh so much activity since I last was here.

Anyway I'm just going to add my two cents about the video - I would rip up a bible to make a point.

Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?

Actions speak louder than words. He was just making a point.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

Yeah, just accepting Jesus existed won't be enough. You need to accept that God is the true God, and from there follow his (Jesus') teachings. If you just believe, you won't achieve salvation. You have to accept him completely and change. As said before, I think that the laws of the Pentateuch, the commandments under which Abraham made the covenant, are the ones by which we are no longer bound. The rest of the Old Testament is a recounting of the history of Israel, prophecies, advice and praise. Its not pick and choose, but those specific laws are no longer in effect because the old covenant has been lifted.

Originally Posted by Romans 10:9

...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Originally Posted by John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life

I think you're changing Theology a bit to suit what you think must be right based on what you know of this world in relation to who gets into Heaven. Question: Why do you believe that those particular laws are no longer followed? Do you have reason beyond "I don't like them"? What about verses such as this:

Originally Posted by Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You can't say "it's not pick and choose" and then...pick and choose from the Old Testament with no justification, lol. In addition, the old covenant has not been lifted. The New Testament fulfills the covenant from the Old Testament. It doesn't replace it. Another question: Exodus is part of the Pentateuch, therefore the 10 Commandments. Do they no longer apply as well?

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by SwiftSign

Ooh so much activity since I last was here.

Anyway I'm just going to add my two cents about the video - I would rip up a bible to make a point.

Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?

Actions speak louder than words. He was just making a point.

I'm reminded of what happened a short while ago in Afghanistan where several damaged copies of the Quran were accidentally burned along with a bunch of other material at an American military base and the resulting anger and protests and terrorist attacks left dozens of people dead.

I'm not saying they were right to attack people over this - they're not - I'm just saying that to destroy someone's religious book is a risky thing and people can and do react thoughtlessly and violently. It's not something I would do publicly just for fear of my safety.

[Shining Raichu]

The gun analogy CWP and QK were talking about further up the page got me thinking about an exchange from 7th Heaven, which I used to watch many years ago before I was quite so jaded against religion

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE!"

For the sake of the analogy, lets replace the word 'gun' with 'religion'.

"Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH RELIGION KILL PEOPLE!"

Now, going forward, I know that religion is not the only reason people kill each other. There are a multitude of them: jealousy, rage, insanity, personal gain... the possibilities are endless in a system as complex as the human brain. But consider this scenario:

A Christian and a Satanist walk into a bar. They do not know each other personally, but they are aware of each other's religions because in this world each person is required to advertise on their person what faith they follow. Therefore the Christian is wearing a white T-shirt with a powder blue C, while the Satanist is wearing a maroon shirt emblazoned with an orange S. They enter from opposite ends of the room and on sight pull their guns out of their belts and shoot each other in the head, spraying scarlet blood over the plain grey shirts of the bar's other patrons, who are all without religion.

Do you think, had these two men been wearing the same shirts as the other people in the bar, they would have hated each other on sight and been galvanised into murderous action? Had religion not been involved, would they have sorted through the Rolodex of possible reasons to hate a person and killed each other anyway? No, and it's a serious underestimation of the human race to think that they would.

That's because the analogy is flawed from the beginning; it implies that people kill each other not because they have an actual reason to motivate them, but simply because they happen to have a gun in their hand. More troubling is the implication that if they didn't, they'd pick up a sword. Religion is not the gun, it's the reason that people pick up the gun. One of many possible reasons, yes, but the reasons are not interchangeable. If religion had never existed, it would not mean that the deaths that would have been caused by religion would be evenly distributed among the other potential reasons for murder. It would mean that one of the reasons would be removed and less people would be dead.

[Bela]

This hypothetical is more clear and to the point of what I wanted to say with regard to the suggestion that religion is just an 'excuse' for people 'wanting' to kill. <3 Andy.

[FrostPheonix]

Originally Posted by SwiftSign

Anyway I'm just going to add my two cents about the video - I would rip up a bible to make a point.

Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?

I would just like to point out, there is a drastic difference between Harry Potter and the Bible. Nobody (I hope) believes Harry Potter to be true. Millions (if not billions) believe the Bible to be true. I think destroying religions' text has much more significance in the face of its believers; its like a slap in the face for them. So yeah, I'd say it's insensitive.

Originally Posted by SwiftSign

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?

Actions speak louder than words. He was just making a point.

Not all Christians follow the Pope. Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox Christians all don't recognize the Pope. And I don't think any Roman Catholics would either if he suddenly dictated something against the Bible.

Originally Posted by Toujours

I think you're changing Theology a bit to suit what you think must be right based on what you know of this world in relation to who gets into Heaven. Question: Why do you believe that those particular laws are no longer followed? Do you have reason beyond "I don't like them"? What about verses such as this:

My answer:

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
-John 14:21

In fact, 'believe' in many verses comes from the word pisteuo; which means "commit unto, commit to (one's) trust, be committed unto, be put in trust with, be committed to one's trust", which is taking up Jesus' teachings and no just saying 'Yeah, I believe he existed' but to also make the commitment to follow him.

Originally Posted by Toujours

You can't say "it's not pick and choose" and then...pick and choose from the Old Testament with no justification, lol. In addition, the old covenant has not been lifted. The New Testament fulfills the covenant from the Old Testament. It doesn't replace it. Another question: Exodus is part of the Pentateuch, therefore the 10 Commandments. Do they no longer apply as well?

Jesus fulfills the old covenant for us, and so we are no longer bound by it. Its not lifted but fulfilled through Jesus. And, the two commandments I talked about before (Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself) kind of sum up the 10 commandments. And many things Jesus wanted us to do are also there in the new testament, which for me sum up everything Christians now do.
Also, the old testament is also not to be ignored; we are to learn from them. So these laws and the story of Israel are supposed to help you develop spiritually as a Christian.

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

The gun analogy CWP and QK were talking about further up the page got me thinking about an exchange from 7th Heaven, which I used to watch many years ago before I was quite so jaded against religion

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE!"

For the sake of the analogy, lets replace the word 'gun' with 'religion'.

"Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people."
"PEOPLE WITH RELIGION KILL PEOPLE!"

Now, going forward, I know that religion is not the only reason people kill each other. There are a multitude of them: jealousy, rage, insanity, personal gain... the possibilities are endless in a system as complex as the human brain. But consider this scenario:

A Christian and a Satanist walk into a bar. They do not know each other personally, but they are aware of each other's religions because in this world each person is required to advertise on their person what faith they follow. Therefore the Christian is wearing a white T-shirt with a powder blue C, while the Satanist is wearing a maroon shirt emblazoned with an orange S. They enter from opposite ends of the room and on sight pull their guns out of their belts and shoot each other in the head, spraying scarlet blood over the plain grey shirts of the bar's other patrons, who are all without religion.

Do you think, had these two men been wearing the same shirts as the other people in the bar, they would have hated each other on sight and been galvanised into murderous action? Had religion not been involved, would they have sorted through the Rolodex of possible reasons to hate a person and killed each other anyway? No, and it's a serious underestimation of the human race to think that they would.

That's because the analogy is flawed from the beginning; it implies that people kill each other not because they have an actual reason to motivate them, but simply because they happen to have a gun in their hand. More troubling is the implication that if they didn't, they'd pick up a sword. Religion is not the gun, it's the reason that people pick up the gun. One of many possible reasons, yes, but the reasons are not interchangeable. If religion had never existed, it would not mean that the deaths that would have been caused by religion would be evenly distributed among the other potential reasons for murder. It would mean that one of the reasons would be removed and less people would be dead.

First point I'd like to make:
Christian would not shoot Satanist on sight. That goes completely against Jesus' teachings.
Secondly, any murders made by Christians based on the Bible are few, compared to how many Christians there are. They are a sadly mislead minority. So there may be less people dead, but not many. you can't really help the fact that these people don't read the Bible properly. The Bible, or religion for that matter, wouldn't have been the direct cause, rather the person who taught them this or their own misinterpretation.


I have exams soon, so I won't be replying much until they are over ; like talking to you guys though. Its really thought provoking.

[CarefulWetPaint]

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

First point I'd like to make:
Christian would not shoot Satanist on sight. That goes completely against Jesus' teachings.
Secondly, any murders made by Christians based on the Bible are few, compared to how many Christians there are. They are a sadly mislead minority. So there may be less people dead, but not many. you can't really help the fact that these people don't read the Bible properly. The Bible, or religion for that matter, wouldn't have been the direct cause, rather the person who taught them this or their own misinterpretation.


I have exams soon, so I won't be replying much until they are over ; like talking to you guys though. Its really thought provoking.

That is completely incorrect. Missionaries did everything for the bible and they killed millions of people.
Not to mention all the other crusades in the bibles name, and all the people put to death because of writing in the bible. Also saying religion does matter is another silly point. There has been plenty of people killed because of their religion by people of other faiths.

[FrostPheonix]

Originally Posted by CarefulWetPaint

That is completely incorrect. Missionaries did everything for the bible and they killed millions of people.
Not to mention all the other crusades in the bibles name, and all the people put to death because of writing in the bible.

I think the Crusades were... unfortunate. The Pope was corrupt, people didn't understand the Bible, and went on a killing rampage. Although I agree, they did kill millions supposedly by the order of the Bible, I think that was different, because they did that on order of the Pope, and not by their own thoughts. This could have happened even without religion, where the Pope may have been a corrupt politician of a sort.
And I'm not sure what you mean with missionaries... today missionaries don't kill at all. Rather, many of them get killed.

Originally Posted by CarefulWetPaint

Also saying religion does matter is another silly point. There has been plenty of people killed because of their religion by people of other faiths.

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I'm getting that.

[Shining Raichu]

I don't think that it really matters whether it was their own misunderstanding of the Bible or a corrupt Pope that caused them to kill all those people. It doesn't make them any more alive than it would if they were killed from a correct understanding of the Bible. If the Bible is being misunderstood it's the fault of its own openness to interpretation and is therefore liable regardless.

If you kill in the name of Christianity either by the words of the Bible or by your own interpretation of them, you're still killing because you believe it's what religion is telling you to do. You're right though, the Crusades were indeed unfortunate.

[CarefulWetPaint]

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

I think the Crusades were... unfortunate. The Pope was corrupt, people didn't understand the Bible, and went on a killing rampage. Although I agree, they did kill millions supposedly by the order of the Bible, I think that was different, because they did that on order of the Pope, and not by their own thoughts. This could have happened even without religion, where the Pope may have been a corrupt politician of a sort.
And I'm not sure what you mean with missionaries... today missionaries don't kill at all. Rather, many of them get killed.



Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I'm getting that.

-Edit- The part I wrote about missionaries was incorrect and I apologise for that. It was late when I wrote it and I had them confused with something else. Again I apologise.

And you are just brushing off murders done in the name of the bible here. The thing is there's a good chance this wouldn't have happened if there was no religion because at that time religion was the highest power in the world.

Second I meant to say
"Religion doesn't matter" Sorry about that typo. But saying that, people of a different religion have been put to death because of their religion by people who have a different religion if that makes sense.
I'm going to use this as an example so it makes more sense, don't hate:
A Satanist is put to death by Christians because of the two conflicting views on religion and deities.

[Went]

As a Spaniard, I'm going to add the Inquisition to the list of crimes in the name of religion. Hell, the Fascist Francoist dictatorship used religion as an excuse for the 1936 Civil War- one Archbishop even called it "A 20th-Century Crusade in the name of God". Tell that to the 500,000 dead people.

It's true that the hierarchs behind all that were highly corrupt, but that doesn't speak really well about their system of belief :\

[SwiftSign]

----------Removed--------------

Originally Posted by FrostPhoenix

I would just like to point out, there is a drastic difference between Harry Potter and the Bible. Nobody (I hope) believes Harry Potter to be true. Millions (if not billions) believe the Bible to be true. I think destroying religions' text has much more significance in the face of its believers; its like a slap in the face for them. So yeah, I'd say it's insensitive.

Ah, see, theoretically there is a difference - but in reality there is not. A Bible may be sacred, but unless it is your own personal copy of the Bible it is totally irrational to get emotional about one being ripped. Cast off Bibles are no doubt burned, wrecked or recycled these days.




Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the original laws of God apparently got turned over because they weren't good enough?

You would think an all powerful God would manage to get some simple laws right the first time.

[droomph]

Originally Posted by SwiftSign

Ah, see, theoretically there is a difference - but in reality there is not. A Bible may be sacred, but unless it is your own personal copy of the Bible it is totally irrational to get emotional about one being ripped. Cast off Bibles are no doubt burned, wrecked or recycled these days.

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the original laws of God apparently got turned over because they weren't good enough?

You would think an all powerful God would manage to get some simple laws right the first time.

Yeah, you should see my brother's. You couldn't tell it's a bible, but if you looked closely you can barely read it.

And no, the laws were "perfect" so to say but the people weren't so God decided to send down Jeebus. The old rules are still in effect, and you still have to follow the rules but now it's more of a focus on "try" rather than "achieve".

However you have to be at still least somewhat decent with your results. It doesn't have to be much, but what they recommend is that you actively try to follow the name of God and his teachings and try to spread the word, while not forcing it. So yeah, the Crusades and the Inquisition were totally wrong in that sense. And if it is right I really don't see a point, because God loves Roman Catholics and Lutherans and Protestants and Muslims and Taoists and Buddhists and that weird Jedi religion in Australia and that's it and everybody else in the whole entire universe, as long as you follow his short list of rules, which consist of "You are to acknowledge my purple username accept me as your Savior" and "respect everyone".

[Barrels]

Originally Posted by Scarf

I think we would probably still have a lot of the same violence/wars/etc. owing simply to the fact that people are emboldened when they think they have all the answers. Religion just kinda gives people an "I'm-right-you're-wrong" mindset and then good ol' violence is often the result.

This. Because an '"I'm-right-you're-wrong" mindset' is conflict waiting to happen.

Originally Posted by SwiftSign

Sure it may seem insensitive, but is it really? Destroying a book does no destroy someone's faith, even if the symbolism implies it, it is just a book. If I were to rip up a Harry Potter book in front of an avid fan they would probably be mad, but the majority of people would think they were being silly, no?

And realistically, if the Pope can dictate people to be sinners, say people of certain lifestyles are wrong - which is worse?

Well... you can't really contrast the two, to be honest. I love Harry Potter and don't believe in God, but while I reckon JK Rowling is a bonafide genius, I don't live my life stringently according to the rules and testament laid down in Chapters 10:12 of Deathly Hallows. If someone rips up a HP book, sure, I'll think it's a terrible waste, but in the end it's just a difference of opinion and the ripper is absolutely entitled to theirs.

tl;dr: while I fully support anyone's right to rip up whatever they want whenever they want (including holy books), I wouldn't do it in the case of a book someone lives their life by unless there was a damn good reason. And since I'm sure Savage thought long and hard about the ripping beforehand - and since he appears to be a moral man from his establishment of the It Gets Better foundation - I think he must have been pretty sure he had one. (I haven't watched the speech, though, so I can't comment on whether I think it was a good reason or not.)

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

Hmmmmm.... I'll have to think about this... I may ask other christians about this as well, but at the moment I won't answer this. I'll try later on though, when I think I know I can give you a satisfactory answer.

Thanks for your explanation and consideration of my opinions! I really hope you can tell me your answer later.

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

The gun analogy CWP and QK were talking about further up the page got me thinking about an exchange from 7th Heaven, which I used to watch many years ago before I was quite so jaded against religion

If religion had never existed, it would not mean that the deaths that would have been caused by religion would be evenly distributed among the other potential reasons for murder. It would mean that one of the reasons would be removed and less people would be dead.

Jaded, dude? You? Never. xD

I'm with you as far as removing any reason for murder obviously removes the murders caused by it. But, as I implied earlier, a hell of a lot depends on the person when it comes to reasoning. That funny-shaped cloud in the sky can constitute a reason for murder in the mind of a killer. Doesn't mean we should automatically set to work designing a Great Big Fan with Super Suction Power! to get rid of all the clouds, just in case someone happens to interpret one as a sign.

...Question for the Christians out there - is there any instance in the Bible where it's implied that murder is ever OK? Because if not, the Bible's just as little to blame as that cloud. (I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, incidentally. Not trying to be snarky.)

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

I think the Crusades were... unfortunate. The Pope was corrupt, people didn't understand the Bible, and went on a killing rampage. Although I agree, they did kill millions supposedly by the order of the Bible, I think that was different, because they did that on order of the Pope, and not by their own thoughts. This could have happened even without religion, where the Pope may have been a corrupt politician of a sort.

Another problem here is really 'what-do-you-do-with-the-ones-who-honestly-thought-they-were-in-the-right', I think. Most knights and squires and peasants probably reckoned they were on a mission from God - and if they were peasants, there's no way on earth they could have afforded the time to learn to read the Bible for themselves. So what about them? Sure, they disobeyed the Biblical law, but they didn't mean to... in fact, they actively tried not to.

...The reason I characterise this as a problem is that what do you do when the knight and the people he murdered meet in Heaven? Surely seems a little unfair to them.

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

If the Bible is being misunderstood it's the fault of its own openness to interpretation and is therefore liable regardless.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. To an extent. The original writers probably never dreamed people would try to translate it from the Hebrew - might have viewed it as sacriliege, in fact. But apparently it's wildly contradictory even in its purest form.

Originally Posted by Went

It's true that the hierarchs behind all that were highly corrupt, but that doesn't speak really well about their system of belief :\

don't ban me please supermod

But did they actually believe? If they'd read the Bible they'd have had a job convincing themselves it was telling them to go have a Civil War. So perhaps they just decided to use it as an added opiate for the people... lol, probably just about every war since the beginning of time has started with the leaders telling their infantry, 'God is on our side! Not theirs!'

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

Not all Christians follow the Pope. Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox Christians all don't recognize the Pope. And I don't think any Roman Catholics would either if he suddenly dictated something against the Bible.

xD yeah, but what about the ones that do? This has reminded me of something else I've always wanted to ask - do the anti-gay passages in the Bible still apply? Is it generally considered that they do or they don't? (Cos for me, the main reason I detest Benedict XVI with a passion is his inflammatory rhetoric against homosexuality - gay marriage 'undermines the future of humanity itself,' apparently.)

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

In fact, 'believe' in many verses comes from the word pisteuo; which means "commit unto, commit to (one's) trust, be committed unto, be put in trust with, be committed to one's trust", which is taking up Jesus' teachings and no just saying 'Yeah, I believe he existed' but to also make the commitment to follow him.

Yeeeaaaah... but if we're going to run with the whole 'it's not been translated properly' thing, we have to take into consideration the school of thought that ventures that perhaps even the most well-known of the Commandments doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means. (Seriously, read that link. It's thought-provoking.) This is one of my other main troubles with ancient holy books - you can never be 100% certain you've actually translated it right.

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

Christian would not shoot Satanist on sight. That goes completely against Jesus' teachings.

Trudat. :D

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

The Bible, or religion for that matter, wouldn't have been the direct cause, rather the person who taught them this or their own misinterpretation.

Again, way more concise than I managed.

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix

I have exams soon, so I won't be replying much until they are over ; like talking to you guys though. Its really thought provoking.

Same!

[CarefulWetPaint]

Barrels there is a few passages I believe where it say's its okay to kill people if they work on the sabbath or if a male cuts their hair to short. I cant remember them exactly but I'll try and find them for you and edit this post with them.

[droomph]

Originally Posted by CarefulWetPaint

Barrels there is a few passages I believe where it say's its okay to kill people if they work on the sabbath or if a male cuts their hair to short. I cant remember them exactly but I'll try and find them for you and edit this post with them.

But the Sabbath doesn't really apply anymore other than "celebrate and rest".

Besides it's not okay to kill anyone unless it's an absolute accident (which if it is only God knows the truth and he'll judge accordingly).