the next time someone tells you "both parties are the s

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

14 Apr 2014, 1:35 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
How about the vast amjority of the Old Testament? Genocide, slavery, raping and pillaging, violent takeover and persecution of others' nations, plagues, fiery destruction, extermination of the entire world, executions for the most petty offenses. The atrocities in the Old Testament put Atilla the Hun, Ghengis Khan, Stalin, and Hitler to shame. Exactly what comparisons are you looking for?
What I'm saying is you can't lump all those tragedies together, and blame them on God, because the text never says He approves of or desires such things. Every massive tragedy in the Old Testament had a set pattern; God would first confront those who hated Him, either directly or through a prophet. He would offer them a choice, to either abandon their evil ways and repent, or suffer His wrath (which, as the sole Creator, He has every right to). Secondly, he would allow a "grace period" to pass, sometimes issuing repeated warnings (like the plagues in Egypt) as reminders of the full consequences. The final outcome would result from the actions and desires of God's enemies and what they wanted, not His. Many times in both testaments, God stresses He takes no joy whatsoever in the destruction of the wicked...but as a pure and holy judge, he can not allow unrepentant sin to continue forever.

Quote:
As an atheist, what I hate about Christianity (as a religion) is the notion that we're made in God's image...because if that's true, God is most definitely not some all knowing, all seeing, benevolent, merciful god of love.
You're making one crucial error, in assuming our present state reflects how we were originally created. Humanity was pure in Eden; we were capable of sin, but we didn't have an inner desire to chase after it. Without external temptation, I think we never would've fallen...but our love for God would've been one-dimensional. In order to fully resist temptation, we have to keep God as our constant source of strength. The Creator is always stronger than the created, and we are the latter.

Quote:
A close second is that Christianity is all too often used as a justification for treating anyone different as a sub-human.
While its true that some who claim to follow Christ treat people that way, its not a fact for all of us, and Jesus Himself never did. Condemning a belief system because of its adherents is always a mistake; the moral judgment should be based on that belief's founder, and how they lived. Jesus loves all people, but He is not soft where sin is concerned. There has to be a set standard for human behavior that applies equally to all, and never changes. Otherwise, nothing is ever 100% right or wrong for any of us.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

14 Apr 2014, 2:01 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
What I'm saying is you can't lump all those tragedies together, and blame them on God, because the text never says He approves of or desires such things.


I most definitely can blame them on god, especially the atrocities he performed directly, regardless of the excuses provided.
God explicitly condoned mass genocide, and in fact punished his people for not completing the task.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Every massive tragedy in the Old Testament had a set pattern; God would first confront those who hated Him, either directly or through a prophet.


Only true AFTER the Israelites genocidal conquest of the holy land. There were no prophets before then with the single exception of Moses.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
The final outcome would result from the actions and desires of God's enemies and what they wanted, not His.


If god did not want these things to happen, then why did they? You do realize that many of the horrors visited upon god's enemies were done to an entire people/city/nation based on the actions of very few people? And often based on only the fact that they did not worship the god of the Jews?

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
A close second is that Christianity is all too often used as a justification for treating anyone different as a sub-human.
While its true that some who claim to follow Christ treat people that way, its not a fact for all of us, and Jesus Himself never did. Condemning a belief system because of its adherents is always a mistake; the moral judgment should be based on that belief's founder, and how they lived. Jesus loves all people, but He is not soft where sin is concerned. There has to be a set standard for human behavior that applies equally to all, and never changes. Otherwise, nothing is ever 100% right or wrong for any of us.


I have never said that it applies to all. I have never condemned the adherents to Christianity, just the actions of those who use it as an excuse for truly reprehensible action. But your "tolerant" views are quite representative of the scorn and condescension that non-christians are subjected to on a daily basis, which is what I was talking about.

As for Jesus, how many times in the New Testament did he go around being anything other than soft on sinners? I am fairly certain that his condemnation of individuals was a grand total of ZERO times (unless you count overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple, which would make it one time).

Jesus did go around condemning people. Not prostitutes. Not thieves. Not homosexuals. Not women. Not people of a different faith. Not anyone.

As for your set standards that never change, there aren't a whole lot of people that say it is ok to rape children. There aren't too many people that think stealing is a moral way to make a living. Kidnapping is not widely accepted as a shining beacon of goodness. Cold blooded random murder is generally looked down upon across the globe.

Assuming that your religion (and your specific flavor of your religion) is the only acceptable definition of morality is disturbing. That way lies madness. That is how you end up with the most dangerous forms of religious extremism (and I'm not just calling out Christianity here).

I would not recommend you go toe to toe with me on the subject of scripture, as I would have to give you a pretty harsh spanking (unless that's something you're into).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

14 Apr 2014, 4:17 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
God explicitly condoned mass genocide, and in fact punished his people for not completing the task.
It depends on which instances you're talking about. For example, the battle of Jericho was all about God promising that land to His people centuries earlier...and a perfect Being can't break a promise. He told the Israelities to strike down all who remained in the city, but He also said anyone who sought refuge in Rahab's house would be spared. The only sinners who died in that battle were those who chose to fight the power of the Creator of the universe, which is pretty foolish when you think about it. Some ask about the children as well, but that answer's simple: the parents left their kids on the site of an active battlefield. Its like letting your 2-year-old walk into traffic because you're arguing with a neighbor.

Also, why is it objectively wrong, from an atheistic standpoint, for God to do whatever he wants with anyone? If He wanted to kill us all right now, He could, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.

Quote:
Only true AFTER the Israelites genocidal conquest of the holy land. There were no prophets before then with the single exception of Moses.
What about Elijah, Elisha, and Moses' own student Joshua?

Quote:
If god did not want these things to happen, then why did they?
Because God gave humanity the freedom to reject His ways, and they rebelled. Its the same core reason why sin continues to this day.

Quote:
You do realize that many of the horrors visited upon god's enemies were done to an entire people/city/nation based on the actions of very few people? And often based on only the fact that they did not worship the god of the Jews?
The entire city of Jericho was mostly against God, plus more Canaanites as well. Those people sacrificed newborn babies on fire-heated statues of their idol Molech, with people banging loud drums so the parents couldn't hear their own babies screaming. That goes far beyond simply failing to share a common belief.

Quote:
I have never said that it applies to all. I have never condemned the adherents to Christianity, just the actions of those who use it as an excuse for truly reprehensible action. But your "tolerant" views are quite representative of the scorn and condescension that non-Christians are subjected to on a daily basis, which is what I was talking about.
Where do you get ideas like "reprehensible" or "condescension", without comparing them to an unchanging standard?

Quote:
As for Jesus, how many times in the New Testament did he go around being anything other than soft on sinners? I am fairly certain that his condemnation of individuals was a grand total of ZERO times (unless you count overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple, which would make it one time).
Well, let's see. He called Peter "Satan" when the apostle tried talking Him out of embracing His fate, referred to the Pharisees as "sons of hell" and "a generation of vipers", told people that anyone who wished to follow Him had to love Him more than their own families, referenced the future practice of communion by saying folks should drink His blood and eat His body, foretold the Roman invasion of Israel which would happen in 70 AD...are you seeing a pattern here?

Quote:
Jesus did go around condemning people. Not prostitutes. Not thieves. Not homosexuals. Not women. Not people of a different faith. Not anyone.
He did not condemn them personally as people, but He didn't let them off the hook completely, either. He told the adulterous woman to "go, and sin no more", detailed God giving the people of Sodom and Gomorrah over to shameful lusts when they refused to obey, told the crowds it was better for those who hurt children to be thrown in the ocean with heavy stones around their necks...

Quote:
As for your set standards that never change, there aren't a whole lot of people that say it is ok to rape children. There aren't too many people that think stealing is a moral way to make a living. Kidnapping is not widely accepted as a shining beacon of goodness. Cold blooded random murder is generally looked down upon across the globe.
So, is it your opinion that morality's determined by consensus? If so, why should anyone accept it?

Quote:
Assuming that your religion (and your specific flavor of your religion) is the only acceptable definition of morality is disturbing. That way lies madness. That is how you end up with the most dangerous forms of religious extremism (and I'm not just calling out Christianity here).
Absolutes do not always result in barbarism, but truth does divide people. It exposes our own selfish nature...but the abuse of a standard does not warrant its abandonment. God's Word is infallible, but the same can;t be said for anyone's understanding of it. Some of us can get close through prayer and study, but we still won't know everything because we didn't write it.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

14 Apr 2014, 4:51 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
If He wanted to kill us all right now, He could, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.

If he wanted us to fly two planes into the World Trade Center right now, he could make us, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

14 Apr 2014, 6:38 pm

Mark 10:25 ESV / 53 helpful votes

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Estimated net worth of Joel Olsteen is $40 million plus
Joyce Meyer $25 million plus
TJ Jakes $18 million plus
Pat Robertson $50 million plus
Roman Catholic Church < $50 billion

not to mention all the lesser known hucksters/evangellists including Huckabee and Romney

Con men, one and all con women too.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

14 Apr 2014, 6:57 pm

The Vatican has a budget that's slightly lower than that of Harvard University. Skepticism or not, you shouldn't just make sh!t up.


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

14 Apr 2014, 7:00 pm

Kurgan wrote:
The Vatican has a budget that's slightly lower than that of Harvard University. Skepticism or not, you shouldn't just make sh!t up.


I did not make anything up. And Harvard University is not a religious organization. I do not make anything up. I don't post anything until I fact check it first. I am not a Republican



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

14 Apr 2014, 7:06 pm

khaoz wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The Vatican has a budget that's slightly lower than that of Harvard University. Skepticism or not, you shouldn't just make sh!t up.


I did not make anything up. And Harvard University is not a religious organization. I do not make anything up. I don't post anything until I fact check it first. I am not a Republican


If you checked it out, then perhaps you're aware of the fact that the revenue of the Vatican is 308 million dollars.


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

14 Apr 2014, 7:24 pm

Kurgan wrote:
khaoz wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The Vatican has a budget that's slightly lower than that of Harvard University. Skepticism or not, you shouldn't just make sh!t up.


I did not make anything up. And Harvard University is not a religious organization. I do not make anything up. I don't post anything until I fact check it first. I am not a Republican


If you checked it out, then perhaps you're aware of the fact that the revenue of the Vatican is 308 million dollars.


I will revise my numbers for the Roman Catholic church since no one can accurately calculate all of its property, the value of art and relics and investment. It is easily one of the most wealthy entities on earth. You quote $308 million and I know very well it is higher than that. There is one property of the Catholic Church just less than 20 miles from me that is valued at $21 million. That is just a small property in the armpit of NE Indiana. You are trying to sidestep the point of the post. The Catholic church is filthy rich. It is about nothing but wealth. The whole world knows that The leaders of churches and people who make money from spreading the gospel live in direct contradiction to the message they are supposed to be spreading. They are hypocrites. That is the point. Trying to lessen their net value does not change that reality. They do not practice what they preach. They try to reinterpret and redefine what they teach to justify their hypocrisy and you fail to hold them accountable.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

14 Apr 2014, 7:56 pm

khaoz wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
khaoz wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The Vatican has a budget that's slightly lower than that of Harvard University. Skepticism or not, you shouldn't just make sh!t up.


I did not make anything up. And Harvard University is not a religious organization. I do not make anything up. I don't post anything until I fact check it first. I am not a Republican


If you checked it out, then perhaps you're aware of the fact that the revenue of the Vatican is 308 million dollars.


I will revise my numbers for the Roman Catholic church since no one can accurately calculate all of its property, the value of art and relics and investment. It is easily one of the most wealthy entities on earth. You quote $308 million and I know very well it is higher than that. There is one property of the Catholic Church just less than 20 miles from me that is valued at $21 million. That is just a small property in the armpit of NE Indiana. You are trying to sidestep the point of the post. The Catholic church is filthy rich. It is about nothing but wealth. The whole world knows that The leaders of churches and people who make money from spreading the gospel live in direct contradiction to the message they are supposed to be spreading. They are hypocrites. That is the point. Trying to lessen their net value does not change that reality. They do not practice what they preach. They try to reinterpret and redefine what they teach to justify their hypocrisy and you fail to hold them accountable.


Given that the Catholic church has 1.2 billion members, it's not filthy rich. Former pope Benedict XVI, receives monthly pensions of 3,480 dollars. You need to post sources of your claims. The conspiracy theories about massive gold reserves hidden in the Vatican are all BS.

If it's all about money, then you should also explain why 1/4 of the world's healthcare is paid by the Catholic church.


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

14 Apr 2014, 7:56 pm

Yeah, this church looks real ritzy.
Image

Or this one. :roll:
Image


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

14 Apr 2014, 8:13 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
If He wanted to kill us all right now, He could, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.

If he wanted us to fly two planes into the World Trade Center right now, he could make us, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.


Very well said


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

14 Apr 2014, 10:50 pm

GGPViper wrote:
If he wanted us to fly two planes into the World Trade Center right now, he could make us, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.
God has the power to do that, but He won't because He promised never to override free will. As I've already stated, a perfect Being doesn't break promises...ever. God can make different decisions, but once He says something, its permanent.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

15 Apr 2014, 7:51 am

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Also, why is it objectively wrong, from an atheistic standpoint, for God to do whatever he wants with anyone? If He wanted to kill us all right now, He could, and it wouldn't be wrong because He created us from nothing. We're restricted from that because we're not God, but different rules apply when you actually are the absolute standard.


So how does that make it any less horrible?

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
Only true AFTER the Israelites genocidal conquest of the holy land. There were no prophets before then with the single exception of Moses.
What about Elijah, Elisha, and Moses' own student Joshua?


Joshua was a military leader, not a prophet. Elijah and Elisha don't show up until the time of kings.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that many of the horrors visited upon god's enemies were done to an entire people/city/nation based on the actions of very few people? And often based on only the fact that they did not worship the god of the Jews?
The entire city of Jericho was mostly against God, plus more Canaanites as well. Those people sacrificed newborn babies on fire-heated statues of their idol Molech, with people banging loud drums so the parents couldn't hear their own babies screaming. That goes far beyond simply failing to share a common belief.


The entire city of Jericho was not against god, they were against a large tribe of nomads invading their homeland. Most of the Canaanites had no idea who the jews were. As for sacrificing babies, that was the standard justification of most of the tribes back then. That same argument has been used against the jews plenty of times. And for the record, the canaanites had many different gods in many different locations. Destroying the people of an entire land because of one isolated area only further underscores my point.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
I have never said that it applies to all. I have never condemned the adherents to Christianity, just the actions of those who use it as an excuse for truly reprehensible action. But your "tolerant" views are quite representative of the scorn and condescension that non-Christians are subjected to on a daily basis, which is what I was talking about.
Where do you get ideas like "reprehensible" or "condescension", without comparing them to an unchanging standard?


There is no such thing as an unchanging standard other than the Bible according to you (despite the fact that the satndards in the Bible change progressivelt throughout the entire book), so this line of reasoning is dead.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
As for Jesus, how many times in the New Testament did he go around being anything other than soft on sinners? I am fairly certain that his condemnation of individuals was a grand total of ZERO times (unless you count overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple, which would make it one time).
Well, let's see. He called Peter "Satan" when the apostle tried talking Him out of embracing His fate, referred to the Pharisees as "sons of hell" and "a generation of vipers", told people that anyone who wished to follow Him had to love Him more than their own families, referenced the future practice of communion by saying folks should drink His blood and eat His body, foretold the Roman invasion of Israel which would happen in 70 AD...are you seeing a pattern here?


I do see a pattern here: a failure to read entire passages in favor of picking out small portions of individual verses and pllying personal interpretations. He did not call Peter Satan, he was referring to Peter's behavior being the work of Satan. The passage about the pharisees was calling out hipocrisy, not the individuals. "Fortelling" communion and Roman invasion have absolutely nothing to do with condemnation.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
Jesus did go around condemning people. Not prostitutes. Not thieves. Not homosexuals. Not women. Not people of a different faith. Not anyone.
He did not condemn them personally as people, but He didn't let them off the hook completely, either. He told the adulterous woman to "go, and sin no more", detailed God giving the people of Sodom and Gomorrah over to shameful lusts when they refused to obey, told the crowds it was better for those who hurt children to be thrown in the ocean with heavy stones around their necks...


So "go and sin no more" = condemnation, and the passage in Matthew 18 is saying that suicide would be a better action than harming children. And his mention of Sodom was in reference to their inhospitaly, not their sins.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Quote:
As for your set standards that never change, there aren't a whole lot of people that say it is ok to rape children. There aren't too many people that think stealing is a moral way to make a living. Kidnapping is not widely accepted as a shining beacon of goodness. Cold blooded random murder is generally looked down upon across the globe.
So, is it your opinion that morality's determined by consensus? If so, why should anyone accept it?


Are you implying that morality should be determined only by christians and that they have the right to impose it on everyone against their will, despite the fact that Christianity has so many different definitions of morality within it? I believe that "do no harm" is a pretty decent summary of morality, and most people (including most christians) would agree.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Some of us can get close through prayer and study, but we still won't know everything because we didn't write it.


So why do keep pretending like you know everything about it?

You really need to start reading the Bible instead of just listening to your pastor or your pals that have their own interpretations.

I can argue scripture with you all day. I was very devote as a youth, and spent more time with my nose in the Bible than I did in school.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche