Jump to content

Home

Your view on Atheists


SykoRevan

Recommended Posts

Nancy, I've already pointed out that the Matthew 5:17 has jesus saying that he is not hear to break the old covenant. Even if you did quote scripture contradicting Mt 5:17, it would only show that there is yet another contradiction.

 

Were christians involved in many holy wars prior to christianity? Did they persecute many non-christians before christ? Because if they didn't then I can only assume that ALL christianity-related killing occured AFTER jesus allegedly walked the earth.

 

Since it clearly is not "nowhere", then it would seem that it is at least perceived to be part of the dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That doesn't address the point, Nancy.

 

Even if he did say that, which I'm sure he did, that only means that we have another contradition. That is all that means.

 

If you are making the claim that jesus' message was only one of peace and love, then you will need to defend that point. In the mean time, I will be more than happy to prevent evidence to the contrary.

 

If you are accepting that one of jesus' messages was peace and love, but are willing to admit that he had other messages that contradict this, then the argument that the bible is a decent and worthwhile moral compass is defunct.

 

Unfortunately, you have to make a choice because you cannot have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were christians involved in many holy wars prior to christianity? Yes. Did they persecute many non-christians before christ? Yes. Now answer the question, was killing considered just during and after Jesus' time? If you don't answer the question in your next post then I will have to assume that the answer is not it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were christians involved in many holy wars prior to christianity? Yes.
So there were christians before there was christianity? Hmmm, that's interesting. And all the christian holy wars happened before jesus? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

 

Did they persecute many non-christians before christ? Yes.
So christians (people that believed in jesus before anyone knew about him) were in a position powerful enough to persecute those that didn't believe (can't blame them considering there wasn't a jesus yet) and were doing so before jesus came? That seems a little difficult for me to believe.

 

Now answer the question, was killing considered just during and after Jesus' time? If you don't answer the question in your next post then I will have to assume that the answer is not it's not.
Yes, all of the killing that was done in jesus's name (after his alleged life and death, not before like your version) was justified to those that were doing the killing.

 

Thanks to paul, most of the early christians believed that Revelations would come about in their lifetimes, so all of the "house divided" and "love me more than your parents" and "cast non-believers into the fire" stuff was happening way back then.

 

Also remember that the concept of hell didn't exist in judaism (wonder if they stole it from the greeks and romans :)). It was a brand new invention in christianity that was used specifically to ensure compliance. So much for a message of peace, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there were christians before there was christianity?

 

By that people who you would say are Christian god followers, as opposed to followers of Jesus Christ.

 

And all the christian holy wars happened before jesus? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

 

As far as the bible goes yes. If you need to ask that come back in a few months after putting in the research.

 

So christians (people that believed in jesus before anyone knew about him) were in a position powerful enough to persecute those that didn't believe (can't blame them considering there wasn't a jesus yet) and were doing so before jesus came? That seems a little difficult for me to believe.

 

Those who believed in the Christian concept of god.

 

Yes, all of the killing that was done in jesus's name (after his alleged life and death, not before like your version) was justified to those that were doing the killing.

 

Show us where it says that they killed during or after Jesus' time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that people who you would say are Christian god followers, as opposed to followers of Jesus Christ.
There were no christians before christianity. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the same god (aka the god of abraham). Judaism first, christianity was second, islam was third. Before islam and christianity there was only judaism (polytheistic "pagan" religions notwithstanding for obvious reasons).

 

So to answer your question, the abrahamic god followers before christianity were jews.

 

As far as the bible goes yes. If you need to ask that come back in a few months after putting in the research.
How were there christians before christianity? Better yet, please name just one holy war involving christians before the beginning of the christian era (approximately 6 BC).

 

Those who believed in the Christian concept of god.
You mean jews. So the jewish, who have never believed that jesus was the messiah, were persecuting others (including themselves) for not believing in jesus? I'm afraid that I'm not the one that needs to be conducting research.

 

Show us where it says that they killed during or after Jesus' time.
This should get you started.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were no christians before christianity. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the same god (aka the god of abraham).

 

Which was who I was referring to.

 

How were there christians before christianity? Better yet, please name just one holy war involving christians before the beginning of the christian era (approximately 6 BC).

 

The wars between those who grew into Christianity, in other words Jews.

 

This should get you started.

 

It's funny that you broght this up as the first part talks about religious toleration, something I find lacking. However I'll point out a few sections here.

 

'Jesus commanded to love one's neighbour as one's self and love God more than anyone, and called this the summary of the Mosaic Law. He further taught his followers to love their enemies.'

 

I think it's unnecessary to read into this the way others haves, make it out to be something like forcing people to Christianity. I take it at face value.

 

'According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus commanded people to withstand evil with good. Most Christians consider persecution to be an evil act.'

 

'According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus forbade to hate (cf. Luke 14:26, Revelation 2:6). Persecution implies hate.'

 

Maybe something to think about for those who want to stir and stir and push and push. Unless that is you would like to keep discussing Stalin's murder of theists.

 

'In the canonical Gospels, the Acts and the Letters, there is no description of any case of religiously condoned physical violence by Christians against non-Christians which could be used as a precedent for Christian persecution of other groups, apart from Jesus overturning the tables at Herod's Temple, (John 2:13-17, Matthew 25:31–46).'

 

Thank you for the link, you've just disproven your claims.

 

Now in reply to the evil committed in the name of religion, Allronix said something that I'll bring up here. The cardinal sin for anything is to take it too seriously. That goes for religion and that goes for Atheism as well. It is something that I am learning and something that I don't think some will ever learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which was who I was referring to.
I'm sure you'll be able to remember the term next time.

 

The wars between those who grew into Christianity, in other words Jews.
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question.

 

Are you now saying there were no holy wars involving christians before christianity? You've spend the last several posts insisting that there were, so I'm afraid that I'm more than a little confused.

 

Also, are you now claiming that the jews were warring against themselves? I'm not aware of this, but my knowledge of judaic history is limited.

 

You appear to have accidentally skipped a section your response. Allow me to repeat it:

 

So the jewish, who have never believed that jesus was the messiah, were persecuting others (including themselves) for not believing in jesus?

 

I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

 

It's funny that you broght this up as the first part talks about religious toleration, something I find lacking. However I'll point out a few sections here.
I'll be happy to complete the sections from which you've quoted.

 

'Jesus commanded to love one's neighbour as one's self and love God more than anyone, and called this the summary of the Mosaic Law. He further taught his followers to love their enemies.'

"Representing persecution as an act of love is considered irreconcilable to these teachings by many. However, some have interpreted "neighbour" to only include Christians. Others believe that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is doomed to spend eternity in Hell; therefore, doing anything possible to save them from that fate (by forcing them to convert to Christianity by any means necessary) is an act of love."

 

This is consistent with accounts of non-christians being tortured until they converted to christianity.

 

I think it's unnecessary to read into this the way others haves, make it out to be something like forcing people to Christianity. I take it at face value.
In other words, you've selected to cherry-pick the parts that make you feel warm and fuzzy and ignore the rest.

 

'According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus commanded people to withstand evil with good. Most Christians consider persecution to be an evil act.'

 

'According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus forbade to hate (cf. Luke 14:26, Revelation 2:6). Persecution implies hate.'

 

Maybe something to think about for those who want to stir and stir and push and push. Unless that is you would like to keep discussing Stalin's murder of theists.

Keep reading.

 

'In the canonical Gospels, the Acts and the Letters, there is no description of any case of religiously condoned physical violence by Christians against non-Christians which could be used as a precedent for Christian persecution of other groups, apart from Jesus overturning the tables at Herod's Temple, (John 2:13-17, Matthew 25:31–46).'

 

Thank you for the link, you've just disproven your claims.

Nancy, you've done a fine job of selecting a few lines from that page that, for the most part, appear to support your points. However you've failed to address anything beyond the groundwork the authors provided. Approximately 60% of that page lists detailed accounts of religious persecution carried out by christians, yet the few cherry-picked lines you provided are supposed to somehow support your point beyond all argument?

 

I'm not sure I get it. Do you have any response re: the historical accounts on the rest of that page?

 

Now in reply to the evil committed in the name of religion, Allronix said something that I'll bring up here. The cardinal sin for anything is to take it too seriously. That goes for religion and that goes for Atheism as well. It is something that I am learning and something that I don't think some will ever learn.
How does one take commandments from one's maker, who holds eternal salvation or damnation in his hand, "too seriously"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you now saying there were no holy wars involving christians before christianity?

 

How could there be?

 

So the jewish, who have never believed that jesus was the messiah, were persecuting others (including themselves) for not believing in jesus?

 

So the jewish, who have never believed that jesus was the messiah, were persecuting others (including themselves) for not believing in jesus?

 

Close, the warring factions (who were Jews to use a catch all term) fought over their belief of God, before Jesus.

 

"Representing persecution as an act of love is considered irreconcilable to these teachings by many. However, some have interpreted "neighbour" to only include Christians. Others believe that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is doomed to spend eternity in Hell; therefore, doing anything possible to save them from that fate (by forcing them to convert to Christianity by any means necessary) is an act of love."

 

Which is exactly what I meant by people reading too much into it, making it out that these actions are justified.

 

I'm not sure I get it. Do you have any response re: the historical accounts on the rest of that page?

 

Yes, I would say these people ignore the command not to kill. Either that or they just had an axe to grind and used religion as an excuse for their actions.

 

How does one take commandments from one's maker, who holds eternal salvation or damnation in his hand, "too seriously"?

 

By killing, by breaking the word of god and damning oneself. By screaming that the sky is falling over 'the rapture' while claiming that it's fiction. By bombing abortion clinics because of their religious beliefs. By killing those who follow religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could there be?
I don't know, it was your claim:

 

"As far as the bible goes yes. If you need to ask that come back in a few months after putting in the research."

 

Close, the warring factions (who were Jews to use a catch all term) fought over their belief of God, before Jesus.
What warring factions of jews? How did the beliefs of these faction differ in their belief about god?

 

Which is exactly what I meant by people reading too much into it, making it out that these actions are justified.
It's absolutely justified within the context of their religion. Most rational people would reject such behavior as immoral, hence why neither religion nor the bible should be considered a legitimate source of morality. It's far too subjective for my comfort level and that appears to be the case for you as well.

 

Yes, I would say these people ignore the command not to kill. Either that or they just had an axe to grind and used religion as an excuse for their actions.
But they follow the commandment to kill those that god has told them to kill as well as those that god has told them to kill via revelation to christianity's spiritual leaders.

 

By killing, by breaking the word of god and damning oneself. By screaming that the sky is falling over 'the rapture' while claiming that it's fiction. By bombing abortion clinics because of their religious beliefs. By killing those who follow religion.
Not damning one's self if you're killing those that god told you to kill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now answer the question, was killing considered just during and after Jesus' time?

The first of the Crusades began in 1095 AD. They were sanctioned by the Pope, and carried the full support of the church. In fact, all who answered the call to fight were told that were they to die all of their sins would be forgiven.

 

Sounds like they considered the killing to be just...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, it was your claim:

 

In terms of the people who are portrayed in the Bible, those who would become Christians as well as those who would remain Jews, then yes it would all happen before Jesus.

 

What warring factions of jews? How did the beliefs of these faction differ in their belief about god?

 

Things such as the Canaanites and the Hitites, the Jebusites, ect. Those that broke away from Moses for example, or the battle of Jericho.

 

But they follow the commandment to kill those that god has told them to kill as well as those that god has told them to kill via revelation to christianity's spiritual leaders.

 

By Christian standereds they were in the wrong, particularly today when we are meant to be at war with such radicals. I know that this was a Christian act, but obviously they didn't read or otherwise ignored the command not to kill.

 

Not damning one's self if you're killing those that god told you to kill.

 

This is very much splitting hairs, as it ignores the point of the command not to kill.

 

A question, if I may. Why are you parading this rapture business about? If you don't believe in god then you'd know it won't happen.

 

The first of the Crusades began in 1095 AD. They were sanctioned by the Pope, and carried the full support of the church. In fact, all who answered the call to fight were told that were they to die all of their sins would be forgiven.

 

Sounds like they considered the killing to be just...

 

I admit that in the past religion has been the cause of evil, there has even been a calling for violence. Therefore I say test us. Test whether or not this is presently true of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the people who are portrayed in the Bible, those who would become Christians as well as those who would remain Jews, then yes it would all happen before Jesus.
Anything before jesus would be a jewish conflict, not a christian one. Futhermore, you've been presented with evidence that there have been religious wars and persecutions carried out by christians since the inception of christianity. I would say this argument has been soundly refuted.

 

Things such as the Canaanites and the Hitites, the Jebusites, ect. Those that broke away from Moses for example, or the battle of Jericho.
I'm aware that there were different tribes, but I'd never heard them described as warring factions.

 

By Christian standereds they were in the wrong, particularly today when we are meant to be at war with such radicals. I know that this was a Christian act, but obviously they didn't read or otherwise ignored the command not to kill.
It's impossible to point to one thing in the bible and called it "the standard" and then point to a contradicting verse and call it "the standard". There can only be one standard. I understand which interpretation you've elected to adopt, and I think it's a good one. Where I get hung up is that you seem to want all the individuals that have different interpretations to bear sole accountability for choosing the "wrong" interpretation when there's is just as valid as yours (within the context of religion).

 

You want religion (specifically christianity) to be an objective thing and you want to consider yourself to be on the "right" side of the demarcation line. But it's not and you may not be.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't agree with other interpretation, or even point out that they are immoral (an argument with which I would tend to agree). Unfortunately though, you can't just dismiss them as "wrong" because your source works against you.

 

This is very much splitting hairs, as it ignores the point of the command not to kill.
It's not splitting hairs though. The bible says "kill" and the bible also says "don't kill". You are fixated on one and seem to be ignoring the significance of the other. No one is arguing that the bible says "don't kill", we're merely trying to point out that there is no one clear way to interpret the book and it tells us to kill an awful lot.

 

A question, if I may. Why are you parading this rapture business about? If you don't believe in god then you'd know it won't happen.
I'll pose the same question to you as I did to mimartin:

 

If someone was pointing a gun at your head because he believed voices had told him to kill you, does it matter much that you don't hear them also?

 

My belief is completely irrelevant in this scenario. Someone else has put my life in their hands in accordance with their belief. My life is no less in danger because I don't share their belief.

 

Same thing happens when you have some loony behind the wheel that believes that it's ok to drive while intoxicated. That person's belief is endangering the lives of those that don't share that belief. That's the whole point.

 

I admit that in the past religion has been the cause of evil, there has even been a calling for violence. Therefore I say test us. Test whether or not this is presently true of religion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token you don't believe the end of the world you accuse Christians are pining for is going to happen. So why does it worry you so much? Could they possibly be right? As for someone acting violent, it doesn't matter what the reason is to me, they have to be stopped. Now you can take all those who are religious that act violently and I dare say they wouldn't even make up 1% of the religious world. With that in mind would Atheists, who have no holy text as a moral compass, be even worse if they act violent? They are not being influenced by nonsense written to brainwash others, this is how they really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token you don't believe the end of the world you accuse Christians are pining for is going to happen. So why does it worry you so much?
I believe I've addressed this several times already.

 

If the person/people in control believe it, then that's all that matters. The people that make the policy decisions. The people who decide whether or not we go to war. The people that decide what our children learn in schools. If these people believe that jesus will return "soon" and they it's their duty as christians to help prepare the way, then it really doesn't matter what I think. My belief (or lack thereof) is unimportant, because the ship is being helmed by those with a belief.

 

The earlier analogy with the guy with the gun. He hears the voices. If he believes the voices and the voices tell him to pull the trigger, my lack of belief is completely irrelevant. Similarly, if the majority of the voting public in the U.S. is comprised of fundamentalists, then the U.S. is going to have a fundamentalist agenda. Fundamentialist thinking is going to influence (if not directly dictate) policy. Therefore those of us that recognize that there is no evidence for god get to sit and watch as people with a very radical shared belief in an imaginary deity take their orders from an invisible man in the sky. And some of us are very concerned.

 

Could they possibly be right?
I prefer not to waste my time worrying about possibilities. I think time is much better spent on things that have a likelihood of happening, or probabilities. It is possible that christians have it all wrong and that the true path to salvation lies with the steady and devoted worship of Zeus. Could be that isn't it either and we should be following Odin or Thor. It could be that the real creator in all this mess is the flying spaghetti monster. Since I don't have any reason to assume that one imaginary friend is any more real than any other, it seems that my choices would be to either worship them all equally (thereby hedging my bets) or not worship any of them until I have a good reason to.

 

So, the possibility they might be right? It's so incredibly thin that I consider it entirely a waste of time to even consider. If they are right, then I'm screwed and worrying about it isn't going to change anything.

 

As for someone acting violent, it doesn't matter what the reason is to me, they have to be stopped.
But who are you to decide that? There interpretation (within the scope of religion) is just as valid as yours. It is just as "literal" as yours. What makes your version any more true than theirs? What if you are wrong and you want to stop the true message of god?

 

Now you can take all those who are religious that act violently and I dare say they wouldn't even make up 1% of the religious world.
Supposition sounds great, however without a legitimate source, I don't know why anyone should consider this. I could say that it's 99% and we could argue the merits of who's number is more impressive and why.

 

With that in mind would Atheists, who have no holy text as a moral compass, be even worse if they act violent?
I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

Atheists don't have a holy text to act as a moral compass, therefore the law-abiding ones tend to defer to the law as defined by our legal system and the objective study of morality. Since the law very clearly states that killing, except for the purpose of self-defense, is wrong, I can't imagine that an atheist would have any possible explanation other that insanity for murdering someone.

 

The non-law abiding atheists would breaking the law by committing murder, just as a theist would. Only the atheist would not be able to say that they were following the word of god as a defense.

 

Does that address your question or did I miss the gist entirely?

 

They are not being influenced by nonsense written to brainwash others, this is how they really are.
I'm not really sure what this is about either. Could you please clarify?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token you don't believe the end of the world you accuse Christians are pining for is going to happen. So why does it worry you so much? Could they possibly be right?
I think the reason he's worried is that they let the belief that the world's going to end affect their political stance. Their statements are chillingly similar to those of suicidal people going 'I'm going to kill myself on Friday anyway, so why go to work? Why clean my house? Why eat healthy?'.

 

End Timers state similar sentiments, such as that we don't need to worry about global warming since the world's about to end anyway. Or worse, that we should encourage and fuel global warming as much as possible because natural disasters are a part of the End Times. And what about their beliefs about the Middle East? What about those who believe that in order for Jesus to return, the Al-Aqsa mosque must be razed? What about those who consider nuclear war greatly desirable as it will, in their eyes, bring about the Rapture? The list goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...