PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood Disconnect


Pages : [1] 2

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 12:16 PM
When the President, in his speech at Fort Hood, says things like :

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy..." It's not hard to understand at all, as most people DO understand a (jihadist's) twisted logic. Why can't you Mr. President? Time to re-evaluate Gun Free Zones and CCW's on military bases don't you think?

"But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; " Not True...We all know what faith justifies it... and so do you, Mr. President.

"no just and loving God looks upon them with favor." Their God does. How about a trip to Paradise? Get a clue Mr. President.

"And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next." There could never be enough justice in this world for this man, but in the next? Let's see now.... ump-teen virgins? Sure, that's justice all right

It made me sick to listen to this part of his speech. Let's call a spade a spade and stop with this politically correct crap and wise up.

Talk about a disconnect with the American People...

Will it ever end?

I would have loved to have heard what President Regan would have said if he was to have given a speech there, under the same circumstances...

MasterYong
11-11-2009, 12:59 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

Doug L
11-11-2009, 1:35 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

It's curious, that almost every time someone (in this instance Southwest Chuck) tries to point out that the real problem behind these murderous attacks is Islam, then, someone else, reflexively it seems, pops up to declare that Islam is not the problem, but, rather, it's just a 'rogue sect,' it's a 'perversion of Islam,' etc., etc. That defensive assertion is beginning to ring very hollow.

It's becoming fairly obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that Islam itself is the problem---that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.

Consider this, would you like to live in a country ruled by Islamic Sharia law???? I sure as heck wouldn't.

sv_1
11-11-2009, 1:40 PM
Doesn't this belong in OT?

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 2:06 PM
I think it does!

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 2:12 PM
Doesn't this belong in OT?

Does rolling back GFZ laws and ploicies on military bases not belong here?
Allowing CCW laws to extend to Military bases not belong here? How about the basic fundamental right of self defense of our service men and women?
If not, let it be moved.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 2:19 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

oh, ok. That should clear everything up for me. Then everything will be ohhh-kayy then. Thanks for setting me straight. Better pass your advise on to families of the wounded and slain soldiers too. I'm sure they will appreciate it, too.

mtptwo
11-11-2009, 2:25 PM
It's curious, that almost every time someone (in this instance Southwest Chuck) tries to point out that the real problem behind these murderous attacks is Islam, then, someone else, reflexively it seems, pops up to declare that Islam is not the problem, but, rather, it's just a 'rogue sect,' it's a 'perversion of Islam,' etc., etc. That defensive assertion is beginning to ring very hollow.

It's becoming fairly obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that Islam itself is the problem---that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.

Consider this, would you like to live in a country ruled by Islamic Sharia law???? I sure as heck wouldn't.

It's the same for Christain sects as well. Most Christians aren't going to go and murder an abortion doctor, but a few are.

If every Muslim was willing to kill for our actions in the middle east, we would have things like fort hood everyday.

mtptwo
11-11-2009, 2:26 PM
oh, ok. That should clear everything up for me. Then everything will be ohhh-kayy then. Thanks for setting me straight. Better pass your advise on to families of the wounded and slain soldiers too. I'm sure they will appreciate it, too.

Last time I checked, we invaded them, not the other way around. ;)

curtisfong
11-11-2009, 2:31 PM
Not True...We all know what faith justifies it... and so do you, Mr. President.

The power of blind faith is that it can justify any act. Regardless of faith, regardless of act.

DTOM CA!
11-11-2009, 2:37 PM
I heard this today that was interesting: Their have been more people killed in the name of Islam in the last 100 days than the Christians have killed in the name of their faith in the last 100 years.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 2:44 PM
oh, ok. That should clear everything up for me. Then everything will be ohhh-kayy then. Thanks for setting me straight. Better pass your advise on to families of the wounded and slain soldiers too. I'm sure they will appreciate it, too.

Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 2:56 PM
Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:

Considering that Islam requires them to kill or force submission of the other 5.5 Billion, let's hope not!

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”

Qur’an:9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 3:07 PM
Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:

Nice leap! Are you going out for the Olympics?

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 3:10 PM
Considering that Islam requires them to kill or force submission of the other 5.5 Billion, let's hope not!

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”

Qur’an:9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”



And yet, you don't see a 1.5 billion strong army of people marching against the western world. In fact, all you see is an exceedingly small number of people going on suicidal rampages, considering the 1.5 billion population they come from.

Now why do you suppose that is, if it's the religion that's responsible here?

HUTCH 7.62
11-11-2009, 3:11 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

It might as well. since Muslims in America don't stand up against violence.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 3:12 PM
Nice leap! Are you going out for the Olympics?

If that's not your message, then what is your message? If you think it's the religion that's responsible, then what do you want to do with all those people who believe in it?

Kill them?

No?

Enslave them?

No?

Imprison them?

No?

Then what?

Glock22Fan
11-11-2009, 3:17 PM
Last time I checked, we invaded them, not the other way around. ;)

Umm, Quwait? Twin Towers? Pentagon?

Unless you want to go back a century or so, I think everything has been instigated by them.

The Director
11-11-2009, 3:18 PM
Most muslims aren't terrorists.

On the other hand, most terrorists are muslims.

Prove me wrong.

HUTCH 7.62
11-11-2009, 3:24 PM
Most muslims aren't terrorists.

On the other hand, most terrorists are muslims.

Prove me wrong.

+ 9/11 x 1000

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 3:29 PM
Most muslims aren't terrorists.

On the other hand, most terrorists are muslims.

Prove me wrong.

Now, perhaps. But that may not have been true even as recently as 20 years ago.

Or have you forgotten the IRA?


Let's assume that what you say is true (and I do think there's a good chance of it being true currently). What does it really tell us that could possibly be of any practical use?

HUTCH 7.62
11-11-2009, 3:32 PM
Now, perhaps. But that may not have been true even as recently as 20 years ago.

Or have you forgotten the IRA?


Let's assume that what you say is true (and I do think there's a good chance of it being true currently). What does it really tell us that could possibly be of any practical use?

Compared to muslims I would give the IRA 10% of the terriost pie

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 3:36 PM
Compared to muslims I would give the IRA 10% of the terriost pie

How many Muslim terrorists do you figure there are? For you to figure right, it would have to be on the order of 100,000 or more.

If there are that many of them, they've been awfully quiet and inactive (or we've been doing such a good job of stopping them that there's relatively little more to gain), and they were dead silent 20 years ago.

curtisfong
11-11-2009, 3:43 PM
This thread is worthless, offtopic, and needs to be locked and deleted.

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 3:53 PM
And yet, you don't see a 1.5 billion strong army of people marching against the western world. In fact, all you see is an exceedingly small number of people going on suicidal rampages, considering the 1.5 billion population they come from.

Now why do you suppose that is, if it's the religion that's responsible here?

Funny is was a small percentage of people that enforced slavery here in the US, yet look what it took to squash that evil from our collective hides. I don't blame a religion for people's choices, but I also don't close my eyes blindly to a religion that promotes in page, after page, the submission or murdering of non-believers either.

Are all 1.5 billion believers wishing to kill the other 5.5 billion? No.

But there are those that use that belief system to further that agenda & those should be dealt w/ & those beliefs should be addressed, much like slavery or any other pathetic dated concepts of human to human understanding, w/ force if necessary.

I don't say what a person can or should believe, but if their beliefs are used in order to restrain or attempt to kill me, I intend to respond back in like, regardless of the numbers. It's the actions that determine the response, not the philosophy.

If it is the philosophy that enables those actions, than I retain the right to question it outright. I'm not the one promoting taking over, killing or requiring submission to my beliefs. Nor are we forcing those nations we are fighting in to believe what we do. The Taliban, Saddam Huessain or Al Queda can't same the same in return & they do justify their actions by those beliefs & that philosophy.

.454
11-11-2009, 4:21 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.


Heh. :rolleyes:

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 4:36 PM
Funny is was a small percentage of people that enforced slavery here in the US, yet look what it took to squash that evil from our collective hides.


The difference is that the people that enforced slavery here in the US were among the most powerful and wealthy people in the nation.

Struggles against the rich and powerful have always been the most difficult and expensive ones to win.



I don't blame a religion for people's choices, but I also don't close my eyes blindly to a religion that promotes in page, after page, the submission or murdering of non-believers either.
My point is that you're seeing a stronger connection than may be there. If the connection were truly that strong then one would expect far more people who subscribe to that religion to take the passages you cite seriously, no?



Are all 1.5 billion believers wishing to kill the other 5.5 billion? No.

But there are those that use that belief system to further that agenda & those should be dealt w/ & those beliefs should be addressed, much like slavery or any other pathetic dated concepts of human to human understanding, w/ force if necessary.
I completely agree that those who wish to further an agenda of hate and violence need to be dealt with. I don't care what belief system they use to further that agenda.

Your potential mistake is to assume that the belief system is somehow responsible for their agenda.

It's important to get cause and effect figured out properly so that you know what exactly to target.



I don't say what a person can or should believe, but if their beliefs are used in order to restrain or attempt to kill me, I intend to respond back in like, regardless of the numbers. It's the actions that determine the response, not the philosophy.
Good. I agree here.



If it is the philosophy that enables those actions, than I retain the right to question it outright. I'm not the one promoting taking over, killing or requiring submission to my beliefs. Nor are we forcing those nations we are fighting in to believe what we do. The Taliban, Saddam Huessain or Al Queda can't same the same in return & they do justify their actions by those beliefs & that philosophy.If you're going to do that then I submit that you need to do that with all belief systems. Even if Islam is the most referred-to religion by those seeking to impose themselves upon others right now, that doesn't mean it always will be, because it certainly hasn't always been!

You make the mistake of taking at their word those people who would impose themselves upon others by force. History has repeatedly shown that you can't do that. People who would impose themselves upon others by force will use whatever excuse "works". Right now that may be Islam. In the past it has been many other religions. The use of religion to justify forced imposition is as old as humanity. Religion has historically been incredibly easy to manipulate to these ends because it relies upon unquestioning belief (a.k.a. "faith") on the part of the masses for its very existence and power.

The bottom line is this: deal with the individuals who wish to impose themselves upon others by force and the problem will be solved. There won't be a need to deal with the belief system itself -- that'll take care of itself, just as it has for the belief systems that were used to justify these things in the past.

bodger
11-11-2009, 4:48 PM
Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:


Sounds like a good start, yeah.

yellowfin
11-11-2009, 4:49 PM
To push this back to 2A relevance, something the guy in the White House absolutely will not admit is that mental illness/irrationality has resulted in mass killings in Killeen before and that his "solution" that he wants everyone to be forced into produced this second one. No way does he want this brought to anyone's attention or for him to be held to account for his stance on the matter, particularly with the Chicago case coming up.

I'm very interested to see if Mr Gura will bring this up in the case, in fact- this is so embarrassing to ANYONE who tries to advocate disarmament they'll beg for mercy.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 5:22 PM
If that's not your message, then what is your message? If you think it's the religion that's responsible, then what do you want to do with all those people who believe in it?

Kill them?

No?

Enslave them?

No?

Imprison them?

No?

Then what?

The message?

Acknowledgment. Be aware of the facts, on guard and not stick your head in the sand and be in denial for the sake of political correctness.

Most muslims aren't terrorists.

On the other hand, most terrorists are muslims.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 5:24 PM
The message?

Acknowledgment. Be aware of the facts, on guard and not stick your head in the sand and be in denial for the sake of political correctness.

Now this is something I wholeheartedly agree with!

And not just with respect to this specific issue, but for all things.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 5:30 PM
Funny is was a small percentage of people that enforced slavery here in the US, yet look what it took to squash that evil from our collective hides. I don't blame a religion for people's choices, but I also don't close my eyes blindly to a religion that promotes in page, after page, the submission or murdering of non-believers either.

Are all 1.5 billion believers wishing to kill the other 5.5 billion? No.

But there are those that use that belief system to further that agenda & those should be dealt w/ & those beliefs should be addressed, much like slavery or any other pathetic dated concepts of human to human understanding, w/ force if necessary.

I don't say what a person can or should believe, but if their beliefs are used in order to restrain or attempt to kill me, I intend to respond back in like, regardless of the numbers. It's the actions that determine the response, not the philosophy.

If it is the philosophy that enables those actions, than I retain the right to question it outright. I'm not the one promoting taking over, killing or requiring submission to my beliefs. Nor are we forcing those nations we are fighting in to believe what we do. The Taliban, Saddam Huessain or Al Queda can't same the same in return & they do justify their actions by those beliefs & that philosophy.

I agree with you 100%. Couldn't have said it better, even though it's not "White House Approved". ;)

.

The Director
11-11-2009, 5:58 PM
Now, perhaps. But that may not have been true even as recently as 20 years ago.

Or have you forgotten the IRA?


Let's assume that what you say is true (and I do think there's a good chance of it being true currently). What does it really tell us that could possibly be of any practical use?

No, I meant 1000 years ago. Of course now!

Even if you count the IRA there have been more muslim terrorists in the last century than any other kind. I don't know what it means or what we can do with it. Just put it in your pipe and smoke it.

The Director
11-11-2009, 6:00 PM
This thread is worthless, offtopic, and needs to be locked and deleted.

And when they appoint you as a moderator, we'll all care about your unsolicited opinions.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 6:05 PM
Now, perhaps. But that may not have been true even as recently as 20 years ago.

Or have you forgotten the IRA?

"Now" is what we're talking about, here, not twenty years ago

Let's assume that what you say is true (and I do think there's a good chance of it being true currently). What does it really tell us that could possibly be of any practical use?


I applaud your honesty. Practical use? To not to let complacency be the norm. Acknowledge the facts, and not dance around them so we may better deal with the extremists and their extreme ideology. But let's not kid ourselves here. That extremism is based on Islam.

T get back to the other more topic related question, should the military allow CCW's on base? More importantly, will they. In all honesty, I didn't realize GFZ's were so prevalent in the military.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 6:16 PM
No, I meant 1000 years ago. Of course now!


Yes, of course. But that's not the message I was trying to convey.

My point was that these demographics can and do change over time, and if specific religious affiliation were the driving factor then you would expect the demographics to change relatively slowly since religious affiliation tends to change relatively slowly.



Even if you count the IRA there have been more muslim terrorists in the last century than any other kind. I don't know what it means or what we can do with it. Just put it in your pipe and smoke it.

You may be right about there being more muslim terrorists in the last century than any other kind, but can you please cite your source for that? I can't find anything substantive on it in a cursory search.

Regardless, it certainly doesn't hurt to know these things, even if their use isn't immediately obvious...

seanbo
11-11-2009, 6:21 PM
a. let all Americans carry a firearm.

b. round up all the muslims like the Japanese in the 40's.

pick one

nick
11-11-2009, 6:27 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

I have. And it does promote violence. So does the Bible, for that matter, but Christians seem to've mostly evolved past that. I don't see that in the Muslim world yet.

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 6:30 PM
If you're going to do that then I submit that you need to do that with all belief systems.


I'll get right on that the next time a plane load of Quakers hijack a plane & fly it into a building or...

the next time Mormons behead a girl for attending a school based in another book other than the Book of Mormon or...

the next time Hindu's strap bombs onto their bodies & blow up a pizza parlor or bus or hotel, or...

the next time Buddhists praise Buddha while shooting a pregnant woman in the back, repeatedly, or...

a group of Hare Krishna's destroy a thousand year old Christian statue or...

a group of Methodists stab someone for making a movie or threaten someone for writing a book or for publishing some cartoons...

until that happens, I will focus on those minority of believers that for some reason don't seem to be able to look beyond their own version of the truth to see that that applied methodology brings nothing but further death & war back home to them & their fellow believers.

Personally I look forward to a world where I don't have to be suspicious of anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, but look how well that particular viewpoint faired those poor 14 killed in Texas.

seanbo
11-11-2009, 6:30 PM
So does the Bible, for that matter, but Christians seem to've mostly evolved past that.

WHERE?

seanbo
11-11-2009, 6:32 PM
I'll get right on that the next time a plane load of Quakers hijack a plane & fly it into a building or...

the next time Mormons behead a girl for attending a school based in another book other than the Book of Mormon or...

the next time Hindu's strap bombs onto their bodies & blow up a pizza parlor or bus or hotel, or...

the next time Buddhists praise Buddha while shooting a pregnant woman in the back, repeatedly, or...

a group of Hare Krishna's destroy a thousand year old Christian statue or...

a group of Methodists stab someone for making a movie or threaten someone for writing a book or for publishing some cartoons...

until that happens, I will focus on those minority of believers that for some reason don't seem to be able to look beyond their own version of the truth to see that that applied methodology brings nothing but further death & war back home to them & their fellow believers.

Personally I look forward to a world where I don't have to be suspicious of anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, but look how well that particular viewpoint faired those poor 14 killed in Texas.

+1!

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 6:32 PM
"Now" is what we're talking about, here, not twenty years ago


Right. But if religious affiliation were the driving force, you'd see relatively little change in the demographics since the demographics of religious affiliation tend to change relatively slowly.



I applaud your honesty. Practical use? To not to let complacency be the norm. Acknowledge the facts, and not dance around them so we may better deal with the extremists and their extreme ideology. But let's not kid ourselves here. That extremism is based on Islam.
And that is quite obviously true. What's important, though, is the use to which that information can be put. I can see how knowing that association can be used to better understand the motivations involved, and that may eventually lead to a better targeted solution to the problem. It's unclear what use that information can be to the average person, however. It is clear that it can and, unfortunately, will be used to discriminate against people who probably don't deserve it. I happen to believe that people deserve to know the truth whatever it is, and they're ultimately responsible for their own actions. So what all that means is that the information in question needs to be communicated very clearly, to maximize the chance that any conclusions that are drawn from it are the correct ones.

I'm not at all sure what the best way to do that is.

Anyway, it's clear now that I was drawing incorrect conclusions about your message from your statements, and for that you have my sincerest apologies.



T get back to the other more topic related question, should the military allow CCW's on base? More importantly, will they. In all honesty, I didn't realize GFZ's were so prevalent in the military.Me neither. I'm very surprised at the lack of arms on a military base, of all places. That had better change as a result of this, so that at least something good comes of it.

Timberline
11-11-2009, 6:56 PM
The problem with the strident xenophobia espoused by many in this thread is that it leads to tragic behavior such as what went down in Tampa this week.

Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, “Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron.” The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, “and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him.” According to a news release:

“During the chase, the suspect called 911 and claimed an Arabic male attempted to rob him and he was going to take him into custody,” a Tampa Police Department news release states. “When officers arrived, the suspect claimed the man was a terrorist.”

Police arrested Bruce for “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/reservist-attacks-priest/

Islam is not the enemy, Muslims are not the enemy. Terrorists are the enemy... along with stupid people like Marine Reservist Bruce.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 7:04 PM
I'll get right on that the next time a plane load of Quakers hijack a plane & fly it into a building or...


until that happens, I will focus on those minority of believers that for some reason don't seem to be able to look beyond their own version of the truth to see that that applied methodology brings nothing but further death & war back home to them & their fellow believers.


I totally agree, as long as the "fellow believers" in question aren't merely those who believe the same religion, but those who believe it and act on it in the same way as the violent fanatical minority.



Personally I look forward to a world where I don't have to be suspicious of anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, but look how well that particular viewpoint faired those poor 14 killed in Texas.Yeah, likewise. The mantra of the antis is that all this gun violence could be stopped if only everyone would disarm so that nobody can cause any harm. I think a corollary to that is the belief that all this terrorism would stop if only we could weed all of the terrorists out ahead of time before they can cause any harm. The answer to both is the same: you can't completely stop either one and you'll turn the entire place into a police state if you try. Instead, you're better off giving everyone the right to fight back with the tools they need. I don't like being suspicious of my fellow man, either, but I'd much rather everyone be free and deal with a higher terrorism risk level than give up my freedom just to feel a little safer.

Freedom has a price, and that price is risk.

five.five-six
11-11-2009, 7:06 PM
BHO's speach



but at least this way, BHO has not had a terrorist attack on us soil on his watch.... so that's a good thing

Meplat
11-11-2009, 7:09 PM
Right. Did you not see "The Kingdom".:43:

Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 7:15 PM
Right. Did you not see "The Kingdom".:43:

Now you've gone and made me add yet another movie to my 100+ movie Netflix queue. Thanks a lot!

:D

Hoop
11-11-2009, 7:19 PM
It's the same for Christain sects as well. Most Christians aren't going to go and murder an abortion doctor, but a few are.

If every Muslim was willing to kill for our actions in the middle east, we would have things like fort hood everyday.

I think the difference is how many are willing to do these things. Islam is far more radicalized than Christianity is.

I still think this is just a case of a disgruntled employee going bonkers but whatever.

Seesm
11-11-2009, 7:19 PM
We have hate on both sides... But in our bible does it ever tell to kill the non believers?? NO but I have not read the whole bible but my fair share (btw need to read more) :)

I have not read the koran but what I have seen is scary... We can walk amongst Muslims and any other religion and I would think MOST of us do not care what everyone is region wise. If ANY person walk down my street I would not care unless I have a reason to care.


But if I had to walk down the street in front of them I would fear for my Christian life. I think more of them want us dead then we wanting them dead.

They are just extremists (the ones we hear about anyway) BUt I pray daily for world peace hears to hoping!! :)

Ok now you chosen few bash me and tell me to read the koran...

Meplat
11-11-2009, 7:23 PM
You don't remember Munich? :rolleyes:

How many Muslim terrorists do you figure there are? For you to figure right, it would have to be on the order of 100,000 or more.

If there are that many of them, they've been awfully quiet and inactive (or we've been doing such a good job of stopping them that there's relatively little more to gain), and they were dead silent 20 years ago.

Doug L
11-11-2009, 7:23 PM
If every Muslim was willing to kill for our actions in the middle east, we would have things like fort hood everyday.

Ah...actually...somewhere in the world "we DO have things like fort hood everyday."

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 7:24 PM
I'll get right on that the next time a plane load of Quakers hijack a plane & fly it into a building or...

the next time Mormons behead a girl for attending a school based in another book other than the Book of Mormon or...

the next time Hindu's strap bombs onto their bodies & blow up a pizza parlor or bus or hotel, or...

the next time Buddhists praise Buddha while shooting a pregnant woman in the back, repeatedly, or...

a group of Hare Krishna's destroy a thousand year old Christian statue or...

a group of Methodists stab someone for making a movie or threaten someone for writing a book or for publishing some cartoons...

until that happens, I will focus on those minority of believers that for some reason don't seem to be able to look beyond their own version of the truth to see that that applied methodology brings nothing but further death & war back home to them & their fellow believers.

Personally I look forward to a world where I don't have to be suspicious of anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, but look how well that particular viewpoint faired those poor 14 killed in Texas.


It's that minority that hurts all Muslims who are the majority, but you can't deny the facts, either.

Meplat
11-11-2009, 7:25 PM
A little dismissive of article 1 there aren't we?:p

This thread is worthless, offtopic, and needs to be locked and deleted.

lehn20
11-11-2009, 7:30 PM
It disgusts me to hear Obama speak!! So arrogant and in denial. No emotions. Typical telopromtor style. I wanna throw up.
He is not my president.

Walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist. Wow, it must be a man made disaster.!!!

Its a TERRORIST!!

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 7:32 PM
You don't remember Munich? :rolleyes:

That was only 37 years ago. Not much more than 20 years ago, really. :)

Meplat
11-11-2009, 8:29 PM
:rofl2:

I'll save you the trouble. The plot turns around a teem of American FBI experts assisting the Saudis in an investigation of a terrorist attack on the "American Compound" in Riead. Very near the start of the film one American tells another; "We are going to have to kill them all". After much "action" and violence, very near the end of the film, a dieing Arab grandfather tells his grandson; "We are going to have to kill them all".

unless the human condition evolves a lot faster than we have any reason to expect, I agree.:43:

Now you've gone and made me add yet another movie to my 100+ movie Netflix queue. Thanks a lot!

:D

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:43 PM
:rofl2:

I'll save you the trouble. The plot turns around a teem of American FBI experts assisting the Saudis in an investigation of a terrorist attack on the "American Compound" in Riead. Very near the start of the film one American tells another; "We are going to have to kill them all". After much "action" and violence, very near the end of the film, a dieing Arab grandfather tells his grandson; "We are going to have to kill them all".

unless the human condition evolves a lot faster than we have any reason to expect, I agree.:43:


Too late!

I already added it to my queue. :popcorn:

:D


But you spoiled the punch line! For shame! :tt2:


Sounds like it should be a good movie. I'm gonna hafta move it up in my queue...

HUTCH 7.62
11-11-2009, 9:50 PM
:rofl2:

I'll save you the trouble. The plot turns around a teem of American FBI experts assisting the Saudis in an investigation of a terrorist attack on the "American Compound" in Riead. Very near the start of the film one American tells another; "We are going to have to kill them all". After much "action" and violence, very near the end of the film, a dieing Arab grandfather tells his grandson; "We are going to have to kill them all".

unless the human condition evolves a lot faster than we have any reason to expect, I agree.:43:

What that movie got wrong was that the muslim will eventualy kill themselves

Meplat
11-11-2009, 10:18 PM
That's OK by me.

What that movie got wrong was that the muslim will eventualy kill themselves

rcantu
11-11-2009, 10:47 PM
he doesn't write most of his speeches. he's mr. script.

CalNRA
11-12-2009, 3:40 AM
If there are that many of them, they've been awfully quiet and inactive (or we've been doing such a good job of stopping them that there's relatively little more to gain), and they were dead silent 20 years ago.

tell that to the Armenians.

(I'm not Armenian, just saying)

colossians323
11-12-2009, 4:44 AM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence? Duhhhhh


Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

How many is a few rougue sects?
Which masjid do you attend?


Qur'an 2:191 "And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
Qur'an 33:60 "Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering."

If it is just a few rogue sects, how are they able to create such chaos around the world? No, I dare say to you extremism in Islam is mainstream, and peace lovers are the few rogue sects

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:10 AM
It's the same for Christain sects as well. Most Christians aren't going to go and murder an abortion doctor, but a few are.

If every Muslim was willing to kill for our actions in the middle east, we would have things like fort hood everyday.


WE do here is a sample since your ignorance is bliss

Here is a great place to go for honor killing stories
Honor killings (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/honor-killing-islams-gruesome-gallery.html)

Here are Muslim attacks on churches

1 (http://christiansofiraq.com/Muslim-Mob-Attacks-Church-%20Loots-Christian.html), 2 (http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/04/pakistan-rampaging-muslim-mob-attacks-church-drags-christian-women-out-of-homes-and-parades-them-thr.html), 3 (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812112950/global-terrorism/muslim-attacks-leave-six-pastors-dead-and-500-others-killed-in-murderous-rioting-in-nigeria.html), 4 (http://www.persecutionblog.com/2006/08/kyrgyzstan_musl.html) Not sure how many you want, but you can find thousands if you want.

Suicide bombings

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks) is a list of hamas bombers, it comes from wiki so you will have to verify, but as you can see it is pretty accurate.

Here is a quick compilation of many beheading videos sanctioned by Islam Beheading videos (http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/beheadings-r-us/)

If this carnage is not enough for you and you would like to see more, please type in Embassy bombings, war, DC sniper, suicide attacks, temple shooting, hijacking, etc etc etc, and please don't come back with the lame Timothy McVeigh or IRA arguments that some try to use.

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:13 AM
Heh. :rolleyes:

Wow I must say good restraint:)

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:20 AM
I have. And it does promote violence. So does the Bible, for that matter, but Christians seem to've mostly evolved past that. I don't see that in the Muslim world yet.

Please help me and show me where the new covenant endorses violence, certainly it endorses protecting ones self, family, friends and countries, but where does it endorse ruthless bombings of churches, synagogues, Embassies, beheadings, honor killings, etc etc etc, it is not about evolving, it is about the word of God and the teachings therein.

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:26 AM
The problem with the strident xenophobia espoused by many in this thread is that it leads to tragic behavior such as what went down in Tampa this week.

Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, “Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron.” The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, “and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him.” According to a news release:

“During the chase, the suspect called 911 and claimed an Arabic male attempted to rob him and he was going to take him into custody,” a Tampa Police Department news release states. “When officers arrived, the suspect claimed the man was a terrorist.”

Police arrested Bruce for “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/reservist-attacks-priest/

Islam is not the enemy, Muslims are not the enemy. Terrorists are the enemy... along with stupid people like Marine Reservist Bruce.
Sorry, not that tragic, sad, but not tragic, and if you would like look at my earlier posts. I documented tragedies for you to see. I think it is no xenophobia, but if you have a whole group of people who stay silent and do nothing while this (cough cough) minority group hijacks their religion, I would say it is the majority group that is causing the xenophobia to begin with (if in fact there is a feeling of xenophobia) The truth is, is that the religion and its people are extreme, and the Majority accept it and therefor are part and parcel to the problem. The newsmedia also likes to put in their two cents and dig up stories of attacks on innocent moslems, somehow ignoring the attacks by moslems on innocent people. I don't get this hand wringing, I just don't get it.

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:32 AM
It's that minority that hurts all Muslims who are the majority, but you can't deny the facts, either.

What majority, if there is one, doesn't their silence make them complicit?

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 6:12 AM
Wow there's a lot of twisted, racist people around these parts. I had no idea. I think this is the last time I get in a thread talking about Muslims.

Anyone here that thinks because a TEENY-TINY FRACTION of Muslims promote violence that the whole religion should be condemned are no better and in fact follow the EXACT SAME MINDSET AS THE ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.

Just think for ONE minute:

A small portion of people use firearms for violence = all guns are bad.

A small portion of people use Islam for violence = all Islam is bad.

Look in the mirror.

Sgt Raven
11-12-2009, 6:14 AM
......snip..... I'm very surprised at the lack of arms on a military base, of all places. That had better change as a result of this, so that at least something good comes of it.

It will, but not the way you want it to. They will make it even harder for someone to bring a firearm on a Military base. :rolleyes:

johnny_22
11-12-2009, 6:27 AM
My friend's father died recently, and I was invited to the service. He was Muslim, and the service was in a mosque in Santa Clara.

The eulogy was all about peace and how the prophet Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing and that Islam was for peace and not the radicals that make the news.

They are not silent. You just need to listen.

colossians323
11-12-2009, 6:34 AM
My friend's father died recently, and I was invited to the service. He was Muslim, and the service was in a mosque in Santa Clara.

The eulogy was all about peace and how the prophet Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing and that Islam was for peace and not the radicals that make the news.

They are not silent. You just need to listen.

Is this MCA? Do you attend regular services there? If you don't, I know you will find something different regularly attending on Friday's:)

colossians323
11-12-2009, 6:41 AM
Wow there's a lot of twisted, racist people around these parts. Why, did you read the links up above? I couldn't find that much bad publicity on Christianity if I tried. By the by, since when is Islam a race?????:confused:

I had no idea. I think this is the last time I get in a thread talking about Muslims.

Anyone here that thinks because a TEENY-TINY FRACTION of Muslims promote violence that the whole religion should be condemned are no better and in fact follow the EXACT SAME MINDSET AS THE ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.
Teeny tiny fraction, this is world wide, did you not look at any of the links I provided you? If this faction is 10% or around as claimed in the propoganda, why aren't the other 90% speaking up. YOu have groups like CAIR that give lip service and condemn such acts, and out the other side of their mouths go and defend the very same people that they are condemning:rolleyes:

Just think for ONE minute:

A small portion of people use firearms for violence = all guns are bad.

A small portion of people use Islam for violence = all Islam is bad.

Look in the mirror.

Think for one minute, does the moslem believe in separation of church and state?
You will know when this is over how to answer that question if you don't know now.

As far as looking in the mirror, it should be the 90% silent moslems that should be looking in the mirror, and asking themselves why don't they put down the 'minority' that is within their own sect????

Decoligny
11-12-2009, 6:55 AM
Last time I checked, we invaded them, not the other way around. ;)

First wave of their "invasion".


http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/God_Bless_America/images/Twin-Towers.jpg

Second wave.

http://www.emergentmind.org/image016a.jpg

Decoligny
11-12-2009, 7:06 AM
And yet, you don't see a 1.5 billion strong army of people marching against the western world. In fact, all you see is an exceedingly small number of people going on suicidal rampages, considering the 1.5 billion population they come from.

Now why do you suppose that is, if it's the religion that's responsible here?

And yet, there are billions of people who proclaim themselves to be "Christian" yet very few read the Bible on a daily basis. The majority of them don't even go to church on a regular basis. I can honestly say that most "Christians" do not even know the "fundamentals" of their own religion and are in fact "secular Christians" who are Christians only because their parents told them they are Christians.

Those who actually study the tenets of their faith and practice their religion are called "fundamentalists".

Muslim Fundamentalists are the ones blowing themselves up in marketplaces full of innocents.

Those who pick and choose which little convenient section of their religion they are going to believe, just like the Christian who sees the inside of a church only during weddings and funerals, are called "moderates".

colossians323
11-12-2009, 7:23 AM
Ase which little convenient section of their religion they are going to believe, just like the Christian who sees the inside of a church only during weddings and funerals, are called "moderates".

don't forget about Christmas and Easter;)

The Director
11-12-2009, 7:26 AM
Yeah. They're soooo peaceful. Look at all the good they're doing around the globe.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6871/119/1600/islammap2.jpg

.454
11-12-2009, 8:10 AM
Wow there's a lot of twisted, racist people around these parts. I had no idea. I think this is the last time I get in a thread talking about Muslims.


Oh brother.
There you go again: "you disagree with me, therefore you must be racist"
:rolleyes:

nick
11-12-2009, 8:22 AM
Yeah. They're soooo peaceful. Look at all the good they're doing around the globe.

You forgot Europe:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OTkJdjVLkrQ/SKWm8L4-srI/AAAAAAAAANg/KVSrkw5vycg/s400/behead+those+who+say+islam+is+violent.jpg

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/behead1.jpg

:)

johnny_22
11-12-2009, 8:28 AM
Is this MCA? Do you attend regular services there? If you don't, I know you will find something different regularly attending on Friday's:)

No, I have not attended the usual Friday service. I don't attend my Catholic one on Sunday, either. But, I know the priest is not advocating child molesting.

Sgt Raven
11-12-2009, 8:37 AM
No, I have not attended the usual Friday service. I don't attend my Catholic one on Sunday, either. But, I know the priest is not advocating child molesting.


You ASSUME he's not, but you don't know.:rolleyes:

mtptwo
11-12-2009, 8:41 AM
First wave of their "invasion".


http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/God_Bless_America/images/Twin-Towers.jpg

Second wave.

http://www.emergentmind.org/image016a.jpg

LOL, if you think 911 was the first shot in this war, then you are ignorant of history.

Go back to 91 for Gulf War I. Go back to the 80's and read up our antics in Afghanistan and our meddling in the Iraq Iran war. The bombing of Lebia in the 80s. Read up on the 70s and research the overthrowing of the Iranian government. Go back farther and look at our support for Israel in the 6 day war. Go back to 47 and look at our involvement in the creation of Israel. Before that, England owned the ME and set its current boarders to suit it's own needs before the needs of the indigenous peoples.

There hasn't been a decade gone by in the last 200 years that hasn't had western powers constantly messing with the ME.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 8:42 AM
Oh brother.
There you go again: "you disagree with me, therefore you must be racist"
:rolleyes:

No.. there YOU go again: "I condemn an entire group of people (the second largest religion in the entire world) because the news tells me to."

It must be hard living with so much hate in your heart. I feel sorry for you. I bet you wouldn't even be willing to be friends with a Muslim because they're far too likely to commit violence against you. You're more likely to die in a plane crash then die by the hands of a jihadist.

I'm done with this. Seriously this time. Subscription cx'd.

nick
11-12-2009, 9:00 AM
LOL, if you think 911 was the first shot in this war, then you are ignorant of history.

Go back to 91 for Gulf War I. Go back to the 80's and read up our antics in Afghanistan and our meddling in the Iraq Iran war. The bombing of Lebia in the 80s. Read up on the 70s and research the overthrowing of the Iranian government. Go back farther and look at our support for Israel in the 6 day war. Go back to 47 and look at our involvement in the creation of Israel. Before that, England owned the ME and set its current boarders to suit it's own needs before the needs of the indigenous peoples.

There hasn't been a decade gone by in the last 200 years that hasn't had western powers constantly messing with the ME.

Not to mention the heinous meddling Barbary wars :)

Standard
11-12-2009, 9:04 AM
So when people use guns in crime, and the anti's scream that guns are the problem, we say "No, individual people are the problem, and should be punished for their crimes accordingly". But now that a Muslim has committed a horrific crime, we are quick to blame Islam as a whole instead of the individual. We need to be consistent...

Southwest Chuck
11-12-2009, 9:12 AM
What majority, if there is one, doesn't their silence make them complicit?

It's getting to the point that it does.

Until that majority, through it's members and leaders, call for it's brethren to actively (not just passively) take steps to curtail the problem in and outside their communities, and call publicly for active infiltration to expose the extremism that would do them and us harm, then I believe, they are, or will become part of the ongoing problem. Only they can do that.

If they choose not to, then they are part of the problem and any attempt at "it's not us but them" rhetoric, will ring hollow. Passive words of condemnation hasn't and will not work. Bold actions on their part, is the only path that will cease the onslaught of Muslim Extremism, IMO.

I'm waiting for a time when there is a Muslim Group with affiliates across the globe openly advocating it's members to seek out and take proactive action to stop the hijack of their religion and expose and/or excommunicate the extremists. But as I see it, they can't do that because it's (extremist causes and actions) are part of the Koran, and thus their religion and feel that they cannot take the aggressive actions that need to be taken, to counter extremism without turning their own backs on portions of their religion, which they cannot do.

The other aspect is fear moderate Muslins have for their own safety by extremists, if they speak out. Doing so would mean making one's self a target. It's a catch 22 for them.

Somewhere, somehow, something has to give....... or not.

Decoligny
11-12-2009, 9:15 AM
LOL, if you think 911 was the first shot in this war, then you are ignorant of history.

Go back to 91 for Gulf War I. Go back to the 80's and read up our antics in Afghanistan and our meddling in the Iraq Iran war. The bombing of Lebia in the 80s. Read up on the 70s and research the overthrowing of the Iranian government. Go back farther and look at our support for Israel in the 6 day war. Go back to 47 and look at our involvement in the creation of Israel. Before that, England owned the ME and set its current boarders to suit it's own needs before the needs of the indigenous peoples.

There hasn't been a decade gone by in the last 200 years that hasn't had western powers constantly messing with the ME.

Gulf War I - Completely political, had nothing to do with Islam. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam was a secular Muslim. His religion was simply one of birth, not of practice. He was as much as practicing Muslim as Steve Speilberg.

80s involvement in Afghanistan - we provided weapons support to the Mujjihadin (sp), actually helped the Muslims drive the Russians out of Ahghanistan.

The Iranian Government from 1925 to 1979 was run by the Pahlavi Dynasti. It was overthrown by radical Muslims and the Shah fled. The radicals then took Americans hostage in retaliation for our previous support of the Shah and our then providing him with medical treatment instead of sending him back to them for probable torture and execution.

The "creation" of Israel actually happened a couple thousand years before 1947. The reoccupation of the promised land did not "displace" any so called "Palestinians", there was until just recently no nation of "Palestine".

There hasn't been a decade gone by in the past 200 years that every nation on the planet has not been looking out for its own interest.

HUTCH 7.62
11-12-2009, 9:20 AM
Wow there's a lot of twisted, racist people around these parts. I had no idea. I think this is the last time I get in a thread talking about Muslims.

Anyone here that thinks because a TEENY-TINY FRACTION of Muslims promote violence that the whole religion should be condemned are no better and in fact follow the EXACT SAME MINDSET AS THE ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.

Just think for ONE minute:

A small portion of people use firearms for violence = all guns are bad.

A small portion of people use Islam for violence = all Islam is bad.

Look in the mirror.

Most of us in cal guns understand the majority gets hurt by the minority. I understand that. But if the Majority is up in arms about violence in the muslim religon. Then why don't you see the majority of Islam standing up against the minority effectivly telling the world that jihad and terrorist actions are wrong and not the views of real muslims? Is it that the minority is really peace loving muslims and the majority is the extremists? Well I think so because of the actions of other muslims. But you can't relate firearms to this because the firearms comunity stands up against extremists in the firearm community.

The Director
11-12-2009, 9:34 AM
But you can't relate firearms to this because the firearms comunity stands up against extremists in the firearm community.

Exactly. Try being a fanatic even on this board and see what happens. Try organizing an open carry event or a publicity stunt involving firearms and see how long it takes to get the site owners, Gene, and Bill and all the rest on your *** about it.

We squash our fanatics for the betterment of our cause. They don't.

HUTCH 7.62
11-12-2009, 9:47 AM
Exactly. Try being a fanatic even on this board and see what happens. Try organizing an open carry event or a publicity stunt involving firearms and see how long it takes to get the site owners, Gene, and Bill and all the rest on your *** about it.

We squash our fanatics for the betterment of our cause. They don't.

+1 Kes and Bill made an example of Zeleny and his OC nuttery

nick
11-12-2009, 9:48 AM
So when people use guns in crime, and the anti's scream that guns are the problem, we say "No, individual people are the problem, and should be punished for their crimes accordingly". But now that a Muslim has committed a horrific crime, we are quick to blame Islam as a whole instead of the individual. We need to be consistent...

Apples and oranges. A gun, being an inanimate object, doesn't push the person towards shooting someone. Many widely practiced interpretations of Islam do.

A gun doesn't tell you to kill the infidels, not even a gun made in Iran :)

Glock22Fan
11-12-2009, 11:29 AM
The bombing of Lebia in the 80s.

I think I know where you mean, but I also think that you need some world geography lessons before telling us all how ignorant we are.

And, the bombing of Libya worked out pretty good, IIRC, as the good Colonel has hardly peeped since.

The Director
11-12-2009, 11:39 AM
I think I know where you mean, but I also think that you need some world geography lessons before telling us all how ignorant we are.



:94::rofl2:

Lebia.

CalNRA
11-12-2009, 1:53 PM
You're more likely to die in a plane crash then die by the hands of a jihadist.

can someone die twice?

CalNRA
11-12-2009, 1:55 PM
The bombing of Lebia in the 80s.

we bombed the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 80s?

There hasn't been a decade gone by in the last 200 years that hasn't had western powers constantly messing with the ME.

why stop at the lat 200 years? how about we go back to the history of the near east and keep tabs on the conflicts?

colossians323
11-12-2009, 2:20 PM
:94::rofl2:

Lebia.

I believe he was referring to libya, not to female genitlia which would be labia

The Director
11-12-2009, 2:46 PM
I believe he was referring to libya, not to female genitlia which would be labia

I know.

colossians323
11-12-2009, 3:13 PM
I know.

;) J/k

Zachs300zx
11-12-2009, 3:26 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.

Have you read the Koran? This is an interesting argument that I frequently hear so I did actually read some of it as well as book specifically about the Koran and if it did or did not promote violence. I can't remember the name of the other book, but it contained many examples of violence being promoted against "non-believers".

From:http://www.keithhunt.com/Islam.html

To say that Islam is a religion of peace, means to ignore the
example and teachings of Muhammad. He fought all the pagans,
Jews, and Christians in Saudi Arabia, until he subdued them,
forcing them to accept Islam. What Muhammad did is reflected in
what he taught about fighting and slaying the infidels:

"When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in
wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent,
and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity
[become Moslem], then open the way for them" (Sura 9:5).

The claim that Islam is a peace-loving religion, is openly
contradicted by the Koran that reads like a terrorist manifesto.
We must not be fooled by the speeches of Arab leaders who
condemn the acts of terrorism when their people are out in the
streets in a carnival-like atmosphere celebrating the carnage of
innocent people by suicide bombers.

Real peace with Muslims is impossible as long as they believe
in the example and teaching of Muhammad. For the Prophet peace
comes only through submission to Islam, which is the very meaning
of "Islam," namely, "submission." But the Islamic concept of
peace as a world dominated by Muslims is ultimately a mandate for
war.

The challenge that we face today in seeking to establish
peaceful relations with the Moslem world, is to help our Muslims
friends understand the fundamental flaws of the teachings of the
Koran regarding the use of violence to advance the cause of
Allah. A religion that advocates engaging in "holy war" (Jihad)
to propagate its faith, is a repressive movement that violates
the fundamental human right to choose whom to worship. This
fundamental right is recognized and respected by the God of
biblical revelation who says:
"Choose ye this day whom you will serve" (Jos 24:15).

macadamizer
11-12-2009, 3:40 PM
The Iranian Government from 1925 to 1979 was run by the Pahlavi Dynasti. It was overthrown by radical Muslims and the Shah fled. The radicals then took Americans hostage in retaliation for our previous support of the Shah and our then providing him with medical treatment instead of sending him back to them for probable torture and execution.

Might want to read up on that coup thing that happened in 1954. The one the CIA engineered with their buddies at MI6.

.454
11-12-2009, 3:46 PM
No.. there YOU go again: "I condemn an entire group of people (the second largest religion in the entire world) because the news tells me to."

Don't put words in my mouth pal. I never said or implied anything like that. Save your liberal smear tactics for somebody else, this kind of crap ain't working with me.

It must be hard living with so much hate in your heart.

Say isn't so? Now you also know what's in my heart. Amazing.

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/10/fortune-teller-3.jpg

I feel sorry for you.

Your compassion is not necessary. Save it for yourself.

I bet you wouldn't even be willing to be friends with a Muslim because they're far too likely to commit violence against you.

Actually my best friend from childhood until present day is a Muslim of Turkish descent. Because his mother died of a brain tumor when he was only 10 years old and his father never cared much about his children, my own mother practically adopted and cared for him like he was her second son. I myself considered him like the brother in never had.
Also, my longest pre-marital relationship (6 years) was with a Muslim girl of Tatar descent. Tatars just in case you don't know are a mix of mongolic and caucasian people of Muslim faith originating from the Crimean peninsula. I would have married her if not for her parents who strongly objected their daughter marrying an infidel.
More recently even, one of my friends and hunting buddies here in the US is a Muslim born and raised in Montenegro, former Yugoslavia.
So yes, I guess I was scared of Muslims all my life. :rolleyes:

You're more likely to die in a plane crash then die by the hands of a jihadist.

Tell that to the families 3000 victims who perished on 9/11. And to the families of the dead and wounded at Ft. Hood.

I'm done with this. Seriously this time. Subscription cx'd.

I certainly hope so, and for your own good. You already reached a record level of ignorance and ridiculousness.

macadamizer
11-12-2009, 3:50 PM
And yet, there are billions of people who proclaim themselves to be "Christian" yet very few read the Bible on a daily basis. The majority of them don't even go to church on a regular basis. I can honestly say that most "Christians" do not even know the "fundamentals" of their own religion and are in fact "secular Christians" who are Christians only because their parents told them they are Christians.

Those who actually study the tenets of their faith and practice their religion are called "fundamentalists".

Muslim Fundamentalists are the ones blowing themselves up in marketplaces full of innocents.

Those who pick and choose which little convenient section of their religion they are going to believe, just like the Christian who sees the inside of a church only during weddings and funerals, are called "moderates".

+1. In this sense, Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism or any other religion -- some people follow each and every aspect of their religion, some take it to an extreme, but the majority range from heading to the mosque (or church or synagogue) every week, to being a muslim or christian in name only. Muslims are no more a monolithic group than are christians. And a lot of the violence going on in, say Iraq today (and in other places) is sectarian, one Islamic sect versus another, not Islam v. Christianity or whatever. Kinda like Protestants and Catholics having their disagreements.

As far as separation of church and state go in Islamic societies, it depends on the particular society. On the one extreme, you have Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, to some extent Iran, where Sharia law is part of the fabric of the government and is strictly enforced -- on the other, you have secular states (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, I believe Dubai) where there is no official Sharia law. Most of the rest of the Islamic-majority countries fall some where in between.

.454
11-12-2009, 3:54 PM
:94::rofl2:

Lebia.

Maybe he meant Labia? :D

Nevermore
11-12-2009, 4:00 PM
the next time Hindu's strap bombs onto their bodies & blow up a pizza parlor or bus or hotel, or...

'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7739541.stm)

the next time Buddhists praise Buddha while shooting a pregnant woman in the back, repeatedly, or...

Buddhism becomes religion of violence (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194765)

As an aside, an interesting quote from the Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Just saying, these are two examples I could remember off the top of my head and quickly found with Google. There are whacknuts in every organized religion and cult.

HUTCH 7.62
11-12-2009, 4:02 PM
'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7739541.stm)



Buddhism becomes religion of violence (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194765)

As an aside, an interesting quote from the Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Just saying, these are two examples I could remember off the top of my head and quickly found with Google. There are whacknuts in every organized religion and cult.

If there are whackos in every religon or organization. Why so many claim to be muslim?

The Director
11-12-2009, 4:24 PM
You're more likely to die in a plane crash then die by at the hands of a jihadist.



Fixed it for you. :D

colossians323
11-12-2009, 5:06 PM
Fixed it for you. :D Racist!:43:

The Director
11-12-2009, 5:11 PM
Racist!:43:

:43:

HUTCH 7.62
11-12-2009, 11:30 PM
Racist!:43:

just being white and christian is racist:43:

7x57
11-13-2009, 12:00 AM
My friend's father died recently, and I was invited to the service. He was Muslim, and the service was in a mosque in Santa Clara.

The eulogy was all about peace and how the prophet Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing and that Islam was for peace and not the radicals that make the news.

They are not silent. You just need to listen.

Except that's a plain lie. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing, unless you believe the insane (but canonical, in Islam) theory that "all the other books are corrupt at the place where they disagree with us". It doesn't even survive a cursory examination of what textual criticism says about the documents.

No one should ever be silent when someone tells lies about history like that.

7x57

CalNRA
11-13-2009, 12:00 AM
just being christian is racist:43:

fixed for you ;)

7x57
11-13-2009, 12:08 AM
LOL, if you think 911 was the first shot in this war, then you are ignorant of history.


Correct. It goes back a long time--back to and beyond, among other things, a couple of battles called Tours and Constantinople.

If you accept the commands of the Qu'ran at face value, the war started when Gabriel gave The Prophet the command to bring the world into the dar al Islam, and doesn't end until the task is complete. The good thing is that most Muslims don't take that command very seriously.

7x57

7x57
11-13-2009, 1:18 AM
+1. In this sense, Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism or any other religion -- some people follow each and every aspect of their religion, some take it to an extreme,

N.B.: these are general comments about the thread, and are not aimed at macadamizer in particular.

The problem with this insipid "everybody is like everybody else" stuff is that it is everything but true. None of those religions are like each other (except in the sense that all have a lot of non- and semi-practising members). The only people who say otherwise are ones who neither know nor care much about their detailed claims.

The first practitioners of Christianity refused to fight in the Jewish war of 67-70. The first practitioners of Islam conquered their neighbors. The first practitioners of Judaism--well, there is the Canaan thing, but secular scholars tend to disbelieve the historicity of Joshua/Judges, and there is the pious Jewish belief that Abraham and Enoch and (I think) even Adam had special private pre-Moses revelations of the Law, so who precisely is first could perhaps buy an argument. I'm going to leave that alone.

Judaism is close to a pure ethnic religion ("close" because there is the Noahide thing). Islam is a universal religion that prescribes to a substantial degree the civil society in which the Just shall live in accord with God's will. Christianity is a universal religion which by design, if you will, has minimal coupling to the surrounding culture and civil order.

One could go through history and doctrine and find difference after difference. But it's pointless, because by now a certain theological aberration is too deeply embedded in the secular psyche for people to even think rationally about it. Nineteenth century liberal Christian theologians invented the assumption that "all religions are really about the same thing," as part of their program of "updating" and demythologizing Christianity into something a 19th century liberal could like. Bultmann is as good an exemplar as any here.

The general hermeneutic, that of looking for the liberal ethical "kernel" that lies within the mythological "husk" of any given doctrine was not only powerful enough to turn the unapologetically otherworldly religion of the New Testament into rather bland but appealing 19th century liberalism, and the apocalyptic self-styled king from Nazareth into a simple teacher of (very liberal, you can be sure) wisdom, it actually is powerful enough to do the same forcible surgery to any religion. That's what happens when you are free to disregard and alter textual meaning.

It was powerful enough, and it was so applied to other religions. But the funny thing is that it became part of the folk culture. People forgot that it was part of a particular religious program, and that it makes little sense outside of that program. And the result is that we have people on Calguns repeating the basically insane doctrine of religious relativism.

Let's leave aside for at least one minute the fact that the answer might have current political relevance (the main subject of the thread, to the extent that it has one). Let's leave aside arguing about which religion does or does not promote more violence. Because this doctrine does something nastier. It destroys not only the meaning of the very many sacred texts, because in the real world they say different things and mean what they say--it also destroys the color and shape of the world. It destroys difference.

When is diversity a bad thing? When it stands in the way of the ideology of the academy. But why permit anyone to destroy the very real diversity of ideas? If Jesus and Mohammed and Moses said the same thing, then at least two of them are redundant. If every religion is really about the same thing--whether it be peace, or subjective religious experience, or whatever the academy happens to have said is OK for a religion to be about this year, then in fact there is nothing much to choose from beyond the sartorial style of the guy leading the observances.

The fact is, religions make claims about reality. Some of those claims are propositions unique to themselves. And that is what makes them different religions. Either the proper goal of humanity is to see through the illusion of the world and escape the cycle of reincarnation, or it is not. Odin, IIRC, required human sacrifice at times. Certainly the gods of Carthage did. Were they really the same religion as that of the budda? The old religion of Egypt said the Pharaoh was a God. Was that really the same religion as Islam, for which that is likely a capital offense?

Precisely as with philosophies, religions make claims about reality. Those claims matter more than anything, because if believed they change how people act and think. Those claims change the believer's worldview. And those claims are not all compatible.

Here's why it matters. For some reason, postmodern thinkers cannot seem to actually understand classical thinkers. Whether it is the superiors and security personnel who over and over again ignored the obvious warning signs in Hasan's record, Obama saying that his motives are hard to understand, or Calgunners suggesting he is insane, this is a real disability in dealing with the non-European, non-American world where people still do think to a large extent classically.

Having rather painfully educated much of the postmodern out of my head, I suspect that if I could talk to Hasan I would understand him fairly well. For one thing, if he was a decent student of Islam he would also be a classical thinker, to a degree. I would probably have a fair degree of sympathy for him, because I think I understand the conflict that crushed him better than most of you seem to. But it would not delude me into blaming anyone but himself for betraying his oath and country.

And for those who think that sort of talk leads to hating the enemy, quite the opposite is true. The fact which no one has mentioned is that there is a certain similarity between the conflict that Major Hasan could not resolve and one that exerts a bit of pressure on most of the people on this board. That is the problem of what to do when your government is wrong. For Hasan, US policy is objectively, provably (by axioms he finds convincing), morally wrong. And he faced the probability of receiving orders he could not in good conscience follow.

We have plenty of people on the board who, now or in the past, have considered the possibility of orders from their government that, for reasons they also find convincing, would be morally wrong. This being a gun board, perhaps the orders would be to turn in the guns the Constitution protects, perhaps to seize them from other citizens. Quite a lot of Calgunners have openly said that they would not obey, and quite a few non-Calgunners have unregistered AWs out there. Quite a few sworn soldiers and officers have this little organization called Oathkeepers. Quite a few people say they are three percenters.

Fortunately for us, we have the law on our side--if not on everything we think the 2A *should* say, at least on the core belief in the right to arms of every American. We also have an ideology which demands the exhaustion of every lawful means, and no divine mandate. Hasan has no such legal support, and also had an ideology that promised Eternal Life for resisting by force when the time came. Most importantly, I think for most of us the United States is still "us," even when wron. For Maj. Hasan, at some point, it became "them." For those and a lot of other reasons, the shearing force between belief and reality is enormously less for any gun owner I personally know. But it isn't entirely dissimilar in nature. It ought to provide a little sympathy.

If it doesn't, at least the standard picture they're running on every news clip should. Maj. Hasan has a good smile. Too good to end in a terrorist attack on the country he swore to defend from precisely that sort of attack.

7x57

colossians323
11-13-2009, 4:15 AM
Except that's a plain lie. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing, unless you believe the insane (but canonical, in Islam) theory that "all the other books are corrupt at the place where they disagree with us". It doesn't even survive a cursory examination of what textual criticism says about the documents.

No one should ever be silent when someone tells lies about history like that.

7x57

A Funeral is not the place to win the hearts and minds of the people by letting them know that they are worshipping a false god.:eek:

Decoligny
11-13-2009, 6:58 AM
Except that's a plain lie. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that Jesus and Muhammad taught the same thing, unless you believe the insane (but canonical, in Islam) theory that "all the other books are corrupt at the place where they disagree with us". It doesn't even survive a cursory examination of what textual criticism says about the documents.

No one should ever be silent when someone tells lies about history like that.

7x57

+1

The Muslim version of what Jesus taught does not line up with the Christian version of what Jesus taught. The Muslim version states that Jesus taught Islam before there even was an Islam. The Muslim version is basically that he was a failed prophet, because the people did not accept his supposed teaching of Islam.

Basically their version of Jesus is smoke and mirrors used to bolster their own religion.

The Director
11-13-2009, 7:27 AM
What kills me about Islam is that most of it's adherents fail to recognize it as a manufactured religion. Mohammed picked and chose that which he liked from Judaism and Christianity and then sprinkled in his own doctrines for effect.

Most muslims don't realize Mecca was a holy site long before the creation of Islam....that worshipers would circle the Qa'aba seven times and then cast rocks at the devil long before Mohammed had his "revelations" and that name Allah is a corruption of the pagan term Al illah....the moon god.

RandyD
11-13-2009, 7:33 AM
Yep. Best to kill all 1.5 billion Muslims now and get it over with, because they're all suicidal killers out to get us -- all 1.5 billion of them.

Right?


:rolleyes:

Your comment is not even relevant to the one you quoted. No one wrote anything about killing muslims. I would advocate that we isolate ourselves from that religion and those who practice it. It is not compatible with the West's societies, values or cultures.

7x57
11-13-2009, 8:48 AM
A Funeral is not the place to win the hearts and minds of the people by letting them know that they are worshipping a false god.:eek:

Indeed, but you misunderstand me on two points. First, "false God" wasn't my intent but rather "provably wrong on that one specific doctrine by textual criticism." The New Testament is not only the most well-studied and well-attested text from the manuscript era, but there isn't even a close second. We have more than 5000 witnesses to at least some fragment. (The next most well attested document is, believe it or not, Dante's Divine Comedy, which we are closer to by more than a a millennium, less than half the age--and since survival until the printing press is really the relevant age, it actually has a far greater advantage than that. And yet the number of textual witnesses is lower by an order of magnitude.) There is actually no real doubt that we have the actual words in the autographs of pretty much the entire New Testament--the problem is, to be funny about it, that we have something like 107% of the original words <grin>. The main problem of NT textual criticism is simply to attempt to identify which is the original variant of that 7% or so which is disputable. (And BTW most of that 7% is in fact not disputable in meaning, but rather spelling variants and the like.)

Whether the indisputable accuracy of our Greek New Testament text, contradicting one specific doctrine, makes Islam as a whole false is actually not my judgement to make. Muslims must reconcile that with their doctrine and text, and I certainly do not understand Islamic hermeneutics enough to say what the answer should be within their system. It doesn't speak well of it to me, but as I am reasoning outside the system and have not attempted to learn the system that is actually irrelevant for a muslim.

There is also the problem that the Qu'ran has a far more dubious textual history than muslims admit, but this has not been studied adequately in the West, mostly it seems because of fear. Salman Rushdie was made a public example of to shut down precisely that sort of study (in fact, the actual verses Rushdie calls the "Satanic Verses" touch slightly on issues of criticism). That, again, isn't really a problem I can address within the system. I can, however, say that it's somewhat problematic for muslims to claim the New Testament is corrupt when they stonewall serious discussions of their own text.

Note that I do not address the Tanakh--while it is astoundingly well preserved, both the textual history and the lower-critical issues are completely different and I can't be anything like so precise as to how close we are to the autograph (autographs, if you accept certain hypotheses about the history of the text we receive).

Second, I probably shouldn't have used "remain silent" metaphorically. In fact I'd probably simply leave silently. That said, it's easy for me to say because we're not talking about a personal friend. If I were in that position, it would be very difficult to resolve the conflict between courtesy and intellectual honesty. Even as a matter of secular scholarship I cannot appear to agree with the misrepresentation of the plain facts, but as you say courtesy demands I say nothing at that time. The choice between remaining out of respect for the dead and saying something later, perhaps much later about the difficult position they put me in, or instead leaving very quietly is not a social and ethical position I want to be in.

7x57

HUTCH 7.62
11-13-2009, 9:17 AM
Your comment is not even relevant to the one you quoted. No one wrote anything about killing muslims. I would advocate that we isolate ourselves from that religion and those who practice it. It is not compatible with the West's societies, values or cultures.

+1 I totaly agree Islam is not compatible with western belives and never will. I think it would be in the rest of the worlds best intrest to isolate itself from; and not recognize Islam and Sharia Law all together.

7x57
11-13-2009, 9:19 AM
The Muslim version of what Jesus taught does not line up with the Christian version of what Jesus taught. The Muslim version states that Jesus taught Islam before there even was an Islam. The Muslim version is basically that he was a failed prophet, because the people did not accept his supposed teaching of Islam.

Basically their version of Jesus is smoke and mirrors used to bolster their own religion.

I was trying to speak narrowly, and even when I sound like I'm discussing religion I usually am not if it's a Calguns post. A priori, it's possible that the New Testament authors do not faithfully report the teachings of Y'shua of Nazareth. It's possible that his teachings were wrong in any case, and those divinely revealed to Muhammed are correct. Speaking simply as philosophers, we have to regard those as possible positions, and so I took no position in my post. But since sometime between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries (I would have to re-read the history of textual criticism to choose a finer date than that) it is not rationally possible to claim that the NT text has been corrupted by the church. You can certainly disbelieve it's inspiration or authenticity, but not the integrity of the surviving text. And that's the problem--Islam, unfortunately, makes a text-critical claim about the text. It does not say the NT was never accurate in the first place, a position within the bounds of reason. It claims the text we have is a corrupted version of an accurate original (as they also do with the Tanakh, but I'm not addressing that). That is not a rationally defensible position.

Understand that Christians have faced similar issues in finding that certain naive beliefs about their text are infeasible. In the end, most find that what is known for certain is compatible with faith, and once that is accepted actually useful for Protestants (at least, I should not attempt to speak for Rome) in studying the text. Perhaps Islam could find that it's textual problems are not mortal and find similar solutions. I can't say what roads lie as yet untaken within Islamic hermeneutics. The problem is rather that they have not, on the whole, faced the problem at all.

What kills me about Islam is that most of it's adherents fail to recognize it as a manufactured religion. Mohammed picked and chose that which he liked from Judaism and Christianity and then sprinkled in his own doctrines for effect.


I am taking no position on that here--while a logical conclusion when starting from *disbelief* in the specific claims of Islam, it may not be a necessary conclusion within the system. For purposes of my narrow criticism, the issue is simply that it is hard to reconcile the Islamic doctrine of absolute textual accuracy and what we know so far of the textual history. Perhaps the difficulties can be resolved--I don't know how close to the core the doctrine of absolute accuracy is, for example. My criticism is simply that the "official" position is untenable on it's face.

Every religion has doctrines of greater and lesser importance, and also of greater and lesser certainty. When faced with such difficulties, one must consider the importance and certainty of the problematic doctrines. Christians found that no major doctrine is in question because of textual difficulties, and accepted the results of textual criticism (note precise wording--I am not speaking of so-called "higher criticism" here, which is a very different case) as simply better contextual information to plug into exegesis (for example, no doctrine will ever be based on the familiar pericope adulterae, because it was certainly not in the original text and it's provenance is completely unknown).

Perhaps the same could happen within Islam--I certainly could not prejudge otherwise. Once again, my point is that whatever the best rational position for a Muslim to take, it cannot be the "official" standard one mentioned in the funeral service in question. If the doctrine of word-for-word perfect transmission is stated plainly in the Qu'ranic text, that is a very serious issue. If the doctrine derives from the Hadith, from theological deductions, or simply from tradition, it will be less severe.


Most muslims don't realize Mecca was a holy site long before the creation of Islam....that worshipers would circle the Qa'aba seven times and then cast rocks at the devil long before Mohammed had his "revelations" and that name Allah is a corruption of the pagan term Al illah....the moon god.

Indeed, there are manifestly pagan roots to the practices you say. Externally, it seems quite problematic. But once again, I cannot judge how it should be viewed internally, and I'm not pushing what I view as external problems here.

This thread is a shining example of why I should probably not post precise, nuanced positions on an internet discussion board. It is certain that I will be assumed to mean both more and less than I actually mean to say. Ah, well, another day, another self-inflicted wound.

7x57

The Director
11-13-2009, 9:52 AM
It's possible that his teachings were wrong in any case, and those divinely revealed to Muhammed are correct.

You've touched upon a main hermeneutic of Islam and other (in my opinion) spurious faiths....the doctrine of "subsequent revelation" in which a new religion comes along, borrows from the old, but declares the NEW revelation to supersede anything prior.

Mohammed did it, claiming that Jesus was a prophet indeed but that his own revelations superseded those of Jesus. Joseph Smith (more correctly the angel Moroni) did the same thing with Mormonism.

At sundry times many a prophet has declared his "version" to be the latest and greatest.

Sgt Raven
11-13-2009, 9:58 AM
This thread is a shining example of why I should probably not post precise, nuanced positions on an internet discussion board. It is certain that I will be assumed to mean both more and less than I actually mean to say. Ah, well, another day, another self-inflicted wound.

7x57

Shot your self in the foot again? Is that better or worse than putting your foot in your mouth? :p

nick
11-13-2009, 10:05 AM
This thread is a shining example of why I should probably not post precise, nuanced positions on an internet discussion board. It is certain that I will be assumed to mean both more and less than I actually mean to say. Ah, well, another day, another self-inflicted wound.

7x57

That's ok, I can translate for you (and add to the 7% of what you've never said :p). "What Dustin means is that people from different cultures aren't just the same people as you who just happen to wear funny clothes. They may think differently, have different values, aspirations, basic morality, beliefs; and thinking that one can understand them by understanding oneself only works when one's isolated from the real world, and so his mistakes bear no real and direct consequences to him. Also, academia as it is sucks" :)

nick
11-13-2009, 10:14 AM
You've touched upon a main hermeneutic of Islam and other (in my opinion) spurious faiths....the doctrine of "subsequent revelation" in which a new religion comes along, borrows from the old, but declares the NEW revelation to supersede anything prior.

Mohammed did it, claiming that Jesus was a prophet indeed but that his own revelations superseded those of Jesus. Joseph Smith (more correctly the angel Moroni) did the same thing with Mormonism.

At sundry times many a prophet has declared his "version" to be the latest and greatest.

However, it has been clearly established that it was the Mormons, after all, who got it right, and they did have the latest considerable (judging by the size of the following) revelation:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103910/

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 10:19 AM
sure the individuals reason is Islam, but its still that individual committing the crime. not the religion. religions don't commit acts of violence, people do. weather there reasoning be religion or not is irrelevant. there are plenty of good Muslims in the world. even if there where only 1 good Muslim and the rest where bad its would still be illogical to condemn the religion. people make their own decisions and those who do evil deeds should be punished based on their actions and not their faith. There are plenty of crazy extremist Christian groups as well around the world. i find it amazing that a group of people who, literally, cant shout any louder that guns don't commit acts of violence, people do; could turn around and blame an intangible religion for crimes committed by people.

this is all coming from an atheist, too.

colossians323
11-13-2009, 12:32 PM
sure the individuals reason is Islam, but its still that individual committing the crime. not the religion. religions don't commit acts of violence, people do. weather there reasoning be religion or not is irrelevant. there are plenty of good Muslims in the world. even if there where only 1 good Muslim and the rest where bad its would still be illogical to condemn the religion. people make their own decisions and those who do evil deeds should be punished based on their actions and not their faith. There are plenty of crazy extremist Christian groups as well around the world. i find it amazing that a group of people who, literally, cant shout any louder that guns don't commit acts of violence, people do; could turn around and blame an intangible religion for crimes committed by people.

this is all coming from an atheist, too.

I am not sure that anyone claimed that Islam did these crimes. IF you look at the posts Islam sanctions beheadings, honor killings, embassy bombings, suicide bombings, boat bombings, polygamy, temple bombings, church bombings, murder of non moslems, plane hijackings, crashing planes into buildings, truck bombings, piracy, slavery, the rewriting of history to support their views, and the list goes on and on.
If a religion sanctions these practices, would it not be safe to say that Islam is the problem?

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 12:33 PM
You've touched upon a main hermeneutic of Islam and other (in my opinion) spurious faiths....the doctrine of "subsequent revelation" in which a new religion comes along, borrows from the old, but declares the NEW revelation to supersede anything prior.

Mohammed did it, claiming that Jesus was a prophet indeed but that his own revelations superseded those of Jesus. Joseph Smith (more correctly the angel Moroni) did the same thing with Mormonism.

At sundry times many a prophet has declared his "version" to be the latest and greatest.

Is the same thing true of Christianity as well, as it relates to Judaism? Why or why not? I'd think so but I'm curious why that wouldn't be the case for it (that is, I'd like to know what, if anything, makes Christianity any different in this regard)...

tcrpe
11-13-2009, 12:46 PM
---that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.

True, and that's also why we will never see democracy in those crap hole "nations."

tcrpe
11-13-2009, 12:51 PM
Mohammed did it, claiming that Jesus was a prophet indeed but that his own revelations superseded those of Jesus. Joseph Smith (more correctly the angel Moroni) did the same thing with Mormonism.

Gotta agree with you there. And it really angered me when those Mormons flew their planes into the buildings in . . . . . in . . . . in . . . . where was that again?

Doug L
11-13-2009, 12:54 PM
There are plenty of crazy extremist Christian groups as well around the world...

Ah...no there aren't.

...i find it amazing that a group of people who, literally, cant shout any louder that guns don't commit acts of violence, people do; could turn around and blame an intangible religion for crimes committed by people.

There's a distinction here that you're not acknowledging.

>>>> Islam is a philosophy which has the power to motivate people to commit horrendous crimes.

[I presume you've heard of:
1. the recent massacre at Fort Hood (13 killed, 30 wounded), or
2. the Muslim suicide car bomber who killed 12 people near Peshware, Pakistan, four days ago, or
3. the Muslim suicide bomber who rammed his car into a donkey cart in the town of Charsadda, Pakistan, three days ago (20 killed, 45 wounded), or
4. the Muslim suicide bombers who destroyed the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence in Peshawar, Pakistan, today, number of killed and wounded still unknown, or
5. need I go on?????]

>>>> Guns are inanimate objects, with no power to convince anyone of anything, or motivate anyone to do anything.

The Director
11-13-2009, 1:27 PM
Is the same thing true of Christianity as well, as it relates to Judaism? Why or why not? I'd think so but I'm curious why that wouldn't be the case for it (that is, I'd like to know what, if anything, makes Christianity any different in this regard)...

Because everything Jesus did was a direct fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and Jesus was a Jew and never claimed to be anything but. He amplified everything that was taught in Jewish scripture and in fact taught directly from Jewish scripture rather than inventing his own. When his own people would not receive the message he authorized his disciples to spread it to the gentiles, and here we are today.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 1:27 PM
I am not sure that anyone claimed that Islam did these crimes. IF you look at the posts Islam sanctions beheadings, honor killings, embassy bombings, suicide bombings, boat bombings, polygamy, temple bombings, church bombings, murder of non moslems, plane hijackings, crashing planes into buildings, truck bombings, piracy, slavery, the rewriting of history to support their views, and the list goes on and on.
If a religion sanctions these practices, would it not be safe to say that Islam is the problem?

No, its not safe to say Islam is the problem. You are also misinformed; Islam does not sanction the things you mentioned any more then Christianity sanctions similar acts of violence. There are people who follow Islam that support these things and there are those who don't. It all stems from how their holy book is interpreted, and which passages they choose to reflect on. I could quote just as many passages from the bible supporting rape, genocide, and child abuse as i could the Koran. Its all about perspective. Go back and read Pope Urban's speech at Clermont in 1095. This point in time is particularly interesting because 12th century Arabs and Muslims where quite a bit more advanced and civilized then 12th century Europeans, giving an interesting comparison to today's situation. Urban's speech saying that god demanded war to drive Muslims and Jews out of Jerusalem was what gave way to the crusades and roughly 200 years of intense, unjust savagery.

Now, please dont misconstrue this into me saying that all Muslims are fantastic people and all Christians are horrible people. I think all religions are terrible, vile things that serve no real purpose and are probably the single biggest restriction to the advancement of our species. I just prefer to view people based on their ideas and actions more then the faith they follow.



"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

Doug L
11-13-2009, 1:43 PM
...Islam does not sanction the things you mentioned...

Check post no. 13 in this thread by Quser.619.

It seems you're determined to remain in denial.

The Director
11-13-2009, 1:51 PM
I could quote just as many passages from the bible supporting rape, genocide, and child abuse as i could the Koran.



"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

You are extremely misinformed about Christianity as well as Islam. Go ahead and quote passages SUPPORTING rape, genocide, and child abuse. There aren't any.

The chronicles quote you posted is recorded history. The Bible has a huge historical component within and just because an act is recorded therein doesn't mean it's sanctioned by God.

Do you think that just because Daniel was thrown into the Lion's den that God approves of people being handled in such a fashion? It's simply recorded history. You need to look at the context of the verse.

Glock22Fan
11-13-2009, 2:05 PM
I do not pretend to be an expert, but I did read that the earlier Sutras -- the bulk of the Quran -- were written by a man of peace (presumably Mohammed). The last few (three?) were written by a man of hate and war. Some people have cast doubt upon whether the author of the latter Sutras was, or even could be, the same person but, of course, the Islam faith allows no critical examination of that faith.

Coupled with that is the fact that, like the Church of Rome, common believers are not expected, or even encouraged, to read the holy book freely and make up their own minds. The faith is whatever the local Imam says it is, and no questioning of this is permitted.

Therefore, which part of the Quran is studied and read is whatever the Imam says should be read, together with the Imam's personal translation.

So, some Imams teach that Islam is a faith of peace, and many muslims believe this. Others teach from the later Sutras and preach a faith of hate and distruction. Take your choice.

There are so many apparent scholars on this board that I have hesitated to make these observations - and would welcome anyone who is able to (hopefully politely) amplify or criticize these observations, but it does seem to answer the dichotomy and apparent contradictions inherrent in the two views (whether Islam is peacable or not).

The Director
11-13-2009, 2:17 PM
You forgot Europe:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OTkJdjVLkrQ/SKWm8L4-srI/AAAAAAAAANg/KVSrkw5vycg/s400/behead+those+who+say+islam+is+violent.jpg

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/behead1.jpg

:)

Glock 22 - do you need more proof than this? Why even read the holy books. Who cares what's in them. It doesn't matter.

Please provide the same picture instead substituting Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, or Jews behind the same types of signs.

CalNRA
11-13-2009, 2:18 PM
I think all religions are terrible, vile things that serve no real purpose and are probably the single biggest restriction to the advancement of our species.


Shall we examine the track record of Atheist states?

Sgt Raven
11-13-2009, 2:18 PM
I think all religions are terrible, vile things that serve no real purpose and are probably the single biggest restriction to the advancement of our species. I just prefer to view people based on their ideas and actions more then the faith they follow.


You say this but fail to realize that Atheism is another form of religion. :rolleyes:

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 2:25 PM
You are extremely misinformed about Christianity as well as Islam. Go ahead and quote passages SUPPORTING rape, genocide, and child abuse. There aren't any.

The chronicles quote you posted is recorded history. The Bible has a huge historical component within and just because an act is recorded therein doesn't mean it's sanctioned by God.

Do you think that just because Daniel was thrown into the Lion's den that God approves of people being handled in such a fashion? It's simply recorded history. You need to look at the context of the verse.

I think "Thus says the Lord" is pretty good for framing context and sanction, so here we go...




As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
- Deuteronomy 20:10-14



If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT


Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
- 2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB



They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.
- Judges 5:30 NAB



Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.
- Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB


For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.'
- Numbers 1:48-51 NLT


The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'
- Exodus 31:12-15 NLT

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
- Isaiah 14:21 NAB



And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
- Exodus 12:29-30 NLT


If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.
- Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT

The Director
11-13-2009, 2:27 PM
You don't have the time for me to properly explain all those verses to you nor do I have the inclination to cast pearls before swine.
No offense.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 2:42 PM
Shall we examine the track record of Atheist states?

This is a dicey argument to make. Most people who take your position would suggest that some tyrants in recent history who committed atrocities where atheists. the most common being Stalin, others being Mao and Hitler. But, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did not commit them because of their lack of a belief in a god, or because of their atheist beliefs. They all committed terrible acts, and perhaps happens to be atheist, but atheism was neither the cause or the purpose any more then Stalin liking hammers and sickles or Hitler liking swastikas. Christians butchered Muslims during the crusades because they where beguiled into thinking their holy places where being desecrated and god wanted them too take vengeance, just as some Muslims today go into crowded squares and blow them selves up because they think god wants them too. It would be hard to argue that Mao was just so upset that there was no higher being and therefore decided to kill people en mass.

correlation does not equal causation.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 2:49 PM
You don't have the time for me to properly explain all those verses to you nor do I have the inclination to cast pearls before swine.
No offense.

How about a compromise, and you just explain the ones that reference direct words from god, then? i might feel slightly jyped if i took it upon myself to provide relevant material you asked for to continue our discussion, just to get nothing more then a quick copout and insinuation that i would i gain nothing from your explanation in return.

Glock22Fan
11-13-2009, 2:51 PM
Glock 22 - do you need more proof than this? Why even read the holy books. Who cares what's in them. It doesn't matter.

Please provide the same picture instead substituting Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, or Jews behind the same types of signs.

I think that you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said.

All these pictures prove is that some Muslims are blood thirsty. I believe that what I said offers an explanation that might explain that, while also explaining why some people claim that Muslims are peaceable. I have no idea where you got the impression that I think that Mormons, Hindus etc. are as bloodthirsty -- but, if you did, that's not at all what I think.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 2:51 PM
You say this but fail to realize that Atheism is another form of religion. :rolleyes:

Haha, that's certainly one position to take. If you think that what amounts to "without gods" could, in itself, be considered a form of religion. call me an antihteist instead.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 3:06 PM
Please provide the same picture instead substituting Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, or Jews behind the same types of signs.

Ill take it upon myself to help Glock out...

http://aletorro.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pastor-fred-phelps-001.jpg

http://www.backseatblogger.com/politics/jacobphelps001.jpg

http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/73349.jpg

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/3213764642_e23ef3496a.jpg

this one is a bit big...
http://michiganpeaceteam.org/images/DSC_0353.jpg


This one is awesome.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/insult_islam.jpg

The Director
11-13-2009, 3:24 PM
How about a compromise, and you just explain the ones that reference direct words from god, then? i might feel slightly jyped if i took it upon myself to provide relevant material you asked for to continue our discussion, just to get nothing more then a quick copout and insinuation that i would i gain nothing from your explanation in return.


Okay. The words in the Bible ascribed to God himself are.....God's own words. God is a person. He has things he likes, and things he hates. He had advocated the killing of the occupants of the land of Israel prior to the Israelites occupying it because he is sovereign and it is his right to do as he pleases. Those verses applied to the Israelites just before they occupied the land AT THAT TIME and not today, or after that for that matter.

I won't sit here and apologize for the words and actions of what I believe to be the creator of the universe. It's his sandbox, and he does pretty much as he pleases.

The Director
11-13-2009, 3:25 PM
[QUOTE=Nose Nuggets;3356921]Ill take it upon myself to help Glock out...

http://aletorro.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pastor-fred-phelps-001.jpg

http://www.backseatblogger.com/politics/jacobphelps001.jpg

http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/73349.jpg

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/3213764642_e23ef3496a.jpg



Intolerant....yes. Promoting Violence........NO. We are speaking of Islam vis a vis Violence here.

Packy14
11-13-2009, 3:35 PM
i'll make it real simple... if Jesus is not your Lord and Savior... when death finds you, you will gain what you desire.. which is to be separate from the one true God... in other words you will be in Hell with all who bear the debt of their sin without Jesus to act as their propitiation. We can argue on this board until the end of this earth, but in the end reality will be reality, and God will not bargain or negotiate with you. If you don't know Christ, or don't believe in God at all, pray that God would open your eyes to truth. If you do so honestly, God will answer; if not, there is no hope for you.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 3:42 PM
Okay. The words in the Bible ascribed to God himself are.....God's own words. God is a person. He has things he likes, and things he hates. He had advocated the killing of the occupants of the land of Israel prior to the Israelites occupying it because he is sovereign and it is his right to do as he pleases. Those verses applied to the Israelites just before they occupied the land AT THAT TIME and not today, or after that for that matter.

I won't sit here and apologize for the words and actions of what I believe to be the creator of the universe. It's his sandbox, and he does pretty much as he pleases.

So when your god says its cool to wipe out a city, its all gravy because its his right. but when someone else's god does, its evil. gotcha.

Packy14
11-13-2009, 3:57 PM
So when your god says its cool to wipe out a city, its all gravy because its his right. but when someone else's god does, its evil. gotcha.

There's only one God... the rest are make believe gods or demons. read my earlier post; you can choose to accept that or not, but your acceptance or disbelief will change nothing except the situation you find yourself in when you die. good luck my friend.

The Director
11-13-2009, 3:58 PM
i'll make it real simple... if Jesus is not your Lord and Savior... when death finds you, you will gain what you desire.. which is to be separate from the one true God... in other words you will be in Hell with all who bear the debt of their sin without Jesus to act as their propitiation. We can argue on this board until the end of this earth, but in the end reality will be reality, and God will not bargain or negotiate with you. If you don't know Christ, or don't believe in God at all, pray that God would open your eyes to truth. If you do so honestly, God will answer; if not, there is no hope for you.

+10000000000000000000

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 4:00 PM
i'll make it real simple... if Jesus is not your Lord and Savior... when death finds you, you will gain what you desire.. which is to be separate from the one true God... in other words you will be in Hell with all who bear the debt of their sin without Jesus to act as their propitiation. We can argue on this board until the end of this earth, but in the end reality will be reality, and God will not bargain or negotiate with you. If you don't know Christ, or don't believe in God at all, pray that God would open your eyes to truth. If you do so honestly, God will answer; if not, there is no hope for you.

Ah yes, assuming that i would even want to part of your celestial dictatorship. with a god who would convict me of sinning for my thoughts. but to make it even worse god would forgive me for nothing more then accepting Christ. i could live a life of theiving and murdering but all would be forgiven. but the very notion that i am born with sin because of this human sacrifice that took place long before i was even born horrifying. i was not even consulted let alone present but i might as well have been holding the spear myself. Call me crazy for thinking that morality should be based on personal responsibility.

CalNRA
11-13-2009, 4:03 PM
so what we ave learned today is that Nose_Nugget is an atheist who has never lived in an Atheist state.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 4:03 PM
There's only one God... the rest are make believe gods or demons. read my earlier post; you can choose to accept that or not, but your acceptance or disbelief will change nothing except the situation you find yourself in when you die. good luck my friend.

+10000000000000000000

So your entire position is based on a point that can not be proved? You do realize that the Muslims you hate so much take the EXACT same position as you do, right? Their god is the one god, and therefor their actions are correct.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 4:14 PM
so what we ave learned today is that Nose_Nugget is an atheist who has never lived in an Atheist state.

Whats an Atheist state?

I don't call myself much of anything, i just dont believe in fairy tales written in the bronze age. Just as alchemy gave way to chemistry and astrology to astronomy, religion needs to be shed as an old set of ideas that are simply irrelevant in a world of peer reviewed science. Hell, i doubt any of the Christians here even believe 100% of the bible. Most Christians like to pick and choose bits here and bits there and say the rest is not to be taken literally. You're telling me that you believe god sat in heaven with folded arms for 80,000 years in a cosmic display of indifference while early man, most of which died in child birth or soon after, lived almost worthless existences killing each other over food and women before saying "alright, now its time to intervene." And what better a place then the desert, in bronze age Palestine, where most of the people are completely illiterate and it would take another thousand years to make it to the rest of the world? this is a divine plan?

Doug L
11-13-2009, 4:22 PM
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace... - Deuteronomy 20:10-14

- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

- 2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB

- Judges 5:30 NAB

- Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB

- Numbers 1:48-51 NLT

- Exodus 31:12-15 NLT

- Isaiah 14:21 NAB

- Exodus 12:29-30 NLT

- Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT

None of these quotes are relevant to any of today's current events. Moreover, most of them are all from the earliest parts of the Old Testament, 3,000 to 3.500 years ago.

Christianity's foundation is the New Testament.

Sgt Raven
11-13-2009, 4:24 PM
Whats an Atheist state?

I don't call myself much of anything, ......snip....

You can call yourself whatever you want, you're still an Atheist! :rolleyes:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

five.five-six
11-13-2009, 4:27 PM
So your entire position is based on a point that can not be proved? .

um, you are aware that your faith in your assertion that there is no Christian god can not be proved either... rite?

let's try to be a little less combative when conveying our views

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 4:30 PM
None of these quotes are relevant to any of today's current events. Moreover, most of them are all from the earliest parts of the Old Testament, 3,000 to 3.500 years ago.

Christianity's foundation is the New Testament.

Oh, so now we get to pick and choose which parts of our religious texts we can quote to prove a point? Your god either said those things, or he didn't. You cant just say the old testament is null and void because what it says rubs you the wrong way. it doesn't work like that.

You can call yourself whatever you want, you're still an Atheist! :rolleyes:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I in no way deny my position on the existence of gods or deities, or rather, the lack thereof. But earlier someone took the position that Atheism is a religion, which is odd, so instead of taking on labels i decided to just state my position clearly. You, would call me an Antithiest, in this case.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 4:34 PM
um, you are aware that your faith in your assertion that there is no Christian god can not be proved either... rite?

let's try to be a little less combative when conveying our views

of course. but im not making wild claims and accusations like, if my god wants to wipe out cities of people because he feels like it, thats all cool with me. right? i have no faith. i base nothing on faith. i cant prove a negative, this is true. but any claims i do make are based on actual science. the claims of Christains here, are not. in effect, its not up to me to prove god does not exist, im putting it on you to prove he does.

edit: and my intent is not to be combative in any way, and i apologize if it came off that way.

five.five-six
11-13-2009, 4:45 PM
i have no faith. i base nothing on faith. i cant prove a negative, this is true. but any claims i do make are based on actual science. the claims of Christains here, are not. in effect, its not up to me to prove god does not exist, im putting it on you to prove he does.

no, it's faith in the nonexistence of god. there is no scientific proof that god does not exist.


if Christianity does not threaten your faith, why are you so obviously upset?

Doug L
11-13-2009, 4:52 PM
Oh, so now we get to pick and choose which parts of our religious texts we can quote to prove a point?

You need to read more carefully.

I wrote, "None of these quotes are relevant to any of today's current events."

That means, no one today is acting on any of those 'instructions.'

Meplat
11-13-2009, 4:59 PM
UM....... He didn't start in Palestine and it was before the bronze age.

Whats an Atheist state?

I don't call myself much of anything, i just dont believe in fairy tales written in the bronze age. Just as alchemy gave way to chemistry and astrology to astronomy, religion needs to be shed as an old set of ideas that are simply irrelevant in a world of peer reviewed science. Hell, i doubt any of the Christians here even believe 100% of the bible. Most Christians like to pick and choose bits here and bits there and say the rest is not to be taken literally. You're telling me that you believe god sat in heaven with folded arms for 80,000 years in a cosmic display of indifference while early man, most of which died in child birth or soon after, lived almost worthless existences killing each other over food and women before saying "alright, now its time to intervene." And what better a place then the desert, in bronze age Palestine, where most of the people are completely illiterate and it would take another thousand years to make it to the rest of the world? this is a divine plan?

five.five-six
11-13-2009, 5:01 PM
yea, but we are in the global warming age, we are a lot smarter than those bronze age dumbos

Glock21sfsd
11-13-2009, 5:06 PM
No.. there YOU go again: "I condemn an entire group of people (the second largest religion in the entire world) because the news tells me to."

It must be hard living with so much hate in your heart. I feel sorry for you. I bet you wouldn't even be willing to be friends with a Muslim because they're far too likely to commit violence against you. You're more likely to die in a plane crash then die by the hands of a jihadist.

I'm done with this. Seriously this time. Subscription cx'd.


I feel sorry for you because its true if i condem you because of your religion I am racist..........................But last I checked Islam is not a race.

I dont care, and I dont think anyone else cares,(maybe I am wrong) that its the second largets religion in the world. What does that have to do with anything.

What really maters is that Islamic terrorist are killing allot of people because they think its the right thing to do. Well I think there all crazy. Just like I think the Neo Nazis and evry other group of people who kill or hurt other poeple based on their beleifs is crazy. They shouls all be dealt with and in my own personal opinion they should all be killed..............No I am not say ing kill all islamic people but at least kill the ones we know are terrrorist.

Nose Nuggets
11-13-2009, 5:08 PM
no, it's faith in the nonexistence of god. there is no scientific proof that god does not exist.


if Christianity does not threaten your faith, why are you so obviously upset?


Oh im not upset at people having religion, im upset that people have such one sided views about THEIR religion. and that they can be so damned hypocritical.

You need to read more carefully.

I wrote, "None of these quotes are relevant to any of today's current events."

That means, no one today is acting on any of those 'instructions.'

i didn't post them because i was likening them to current events. i posted them because the guy said they didn't exist. he said, quite plainly, that there are no passages in the bible that show god being okay with genocide, rape, and child abuse.

but is the point in time and relevance to current events even really matter? the point is these people follow an unjust and cruel god but say its all about peace and love and Christians don't do wrong and what have you. unbelievers go to hell, etc and so forth. i am essentially likening Christians to Muslims in that they are equally fanatical, and both are equally absurd in premise. they both do evil things and they both have a god that commits evil acts.

Meplat
11-13-2009, 5:09 PM
Oh, so now we get to pick and choose which parts of our religious texts we can quote to prove a point? Your god either said those things, or he didn't. You cant just say the old testament is null and void because what it says rubs you the wrong way. it doesn't work like that.


It worked like that for Jesus.

.454
11-13-2009, 5:17 PM
Whats an Atheist state?

I don't call myself much of anything, i just dont believe in fairy tales written in the bronze age. Just as alchemy gave way to chemistry and astrology to astronomy, religion needs to be shed as an old set of ideas that are simply irrelevant in a world of peer reviewed science. Hell, i doubt any of the Christians here even believe 100% of the bible. Most Christians like to pick and choose bits here and bits there and say the rest is not to be taken literally. You're telling me that you believe god sat in heaven with folded arms for 80,000 years in a cosmic display of indifference while early man, most of which died in child birth or soon after, lived almost worthless existences killing each other over food and women before saying "alright, now its time to intervene." And what better a place then the desert, in bronze age Palestine, where most of the people are completely illiterate and it would take another thousand years to make it to the rest of the world? this is a divine plan?


Heh. :rolleyes:

The Director
11-13-2009, 5:20 PM
the point is these people follow an unjust and cruel god but say its all about peace and love and Christians don't do wrong and what have you.

Let me break it down for you. I can see that you are trying to understand so here goes:

1. We are all born sinners. It's not a question of what we've done, we are just born with sin.

2. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Eternal separation from him in Hell. The sin itself does not matter. It could be an errant thought, it could be a murder.

3. To those who choose to believe, God has appointed a savior...someone to take our place instead of us. We stand before the throne of God and we are declared guilty as charged. Except someone paid the price for our sins. Jesus Christ. He was crucified for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day.

4. If we believe the above, he has paid for our sins and we no longer need to worry about the penalty for sin - hell.

This is it. Period, end, full stop.

You don't need to go to church
You don't need to read the Bible
You don't need to stop drinking
You don't need to stop cussing
You don't need to go door to door.

TRUE Christianity is not about "what I am supposed to do" it's what God has done for me. You can claim it too if you want. It's free and available to all who ask.

God is not cruel and unjust. It's man who is stupid and shortsighted.

Meplat
11-13-2009, 5:21 PM
Oh im not upset at people having religion, im upset that people have such one sided views about THEIR religion. and that they can be so damned hypocritical.


It is amazing how much you sound like a religious zealot.:D

Packy14
11-13-2009, 5:24 PM
Let me break it down for you. I can see that you are trying to understand so here goes:

1. We are all born sinners. It's not a question of what we've done, we are just born with sin.

2. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Eternal separation from him in Hell. The sin itself does not matter. It could be an errant thought, it could be a murder.

3. To those who choose to believe, God has appointed a savior...someone to take our place instead of us. We stand before the throne of God and we are declared guilty as charged. Except someone paid the price for our sins. Jesus Christ. He was crucified for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day.

4. If we believe the above, he has paid for our sins and we no longer need to worry about the penalty for sin - hell.

This is it. Period, end, full stop.

You don't need to go to church
You don't need to read the Bible
You don't need to stop drinking
You don't need to stop cussing
You don't need to go door to door.

TRUE Christianity is not about "what I am supposed to do" it's what God has done for me. You can claim it too if you want. It's free and available to all who ask.

God is not cruel and unjust. It's man who is stupid and shortsighted.

yup.

and... for mr. nosenuggets, I don't hate muslims by any means, and i'm not going to cut of their head or blow them up if they don't believe what I believe (they would do this to me however for believing in Christ, if they could). I have many friends who are Muslim or were born into muslim families, many are good intentioned, and if they don't come to a saving relationship in Christ, they will go to hell. And you're right, I can't prove it, not now at least, but come the end of time, I guess we'll see now won't we.

five.five-six
11-13-2009, 5:33 PM
Oh im not upset at people having religion, im upset that people have such one sided views about THEIR religion. and that they can be so damned hypocritical.



perhaps you should go back and read how one sided you sound about your own religion... you come off sounding fairly hypocritical

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 5:47 PM
Oh, boy. I may be asking for it by posting this, but I can't resist...


God is not cruel and unjust. It's man who is stupid and shortsighted.

Ah, but by any reasonable definition of the words, God is cruel and unjust.

Why?

Because, according to Christian beliefs (and the beliefs in most other religious systems), God created the universe.

Unless the universe God created didn't turn out the way God wanted (which implies powerlessness and/or limited knowledge on God's part), then it follows that God is cruel and unjust, because he created a universe in which pain and suffering that result from no intent on the part of those who experience pain and suffering occur regularly. Accidents just happen.

If God can create the universe any way he/she/it wants, then God can create the universe where pain and suffering simply don't exist and are not possible. That was a choice in front of God and God chose to create a universe with pain and suffering in it.

Don't go on about how God put this or that in the universe for a reason. God set up the rules. When you can define all the rules, you can make things work whatever way you want. That means that any universe that results is exactly what you want, no more and no less.

Ergo, God wants pain and suffering to exist, for no other reason than he wants it, because in the creation of the universe God is capable of disconnecting cause and effect (indeed, God defines cause and effect by creating the universe). There is no choice that God makes that must have undesirable (to God) side effects. Whatever God wants out of the universe, God gets -- directly. His very nature makes indirect effects entirely unnecessary -- any indirect effects are there because God explicitly wants them.

And that is why God is cruel and unjust. The way the world operates is absolute proof of this.

To get out of this you must accede to one or more of four possibilities: (1) God is cruel and unjust, (2) God is entirely disinterested (which is essentially the same as the first option on the part of an all-knowing God), (3) God is impotent (incapable of creating a universe with the characteristics he really wants), or (4) God is not all-knowing (and therefore could not foresee the consequences of the universe he created).

Take your pick, but you don't get to believe in the Christian God the way most people do without having to choose one of them unless you are willing to acknowledge your beliefs as being internally contradictory from the start.

ETA: strictly speaking, you don't have to acknowledge anything at all, of course, but unless you accede to one or more of those four points, your beliefs are internally contradictory if you believe in Christianity the way most Christians appear to.

Quser.619
11-13-2009, 6:07 PM
Whats an Atheist state?

I don't call myself much of anything, i just dont believe in fairy tales written in the bronze age. Just as alchemy gave way to chemistry and astrology to astronomy, religion needs to be shed as an old set of ideas that are simply irrelevant in a world of peer reviewed science. Hell, i doubt any of the Christians here even believe 100% of the bible. Most Christians like to pick and choose bits here and bits there and say the rest is not to be taken literally. You're telling me that you believe god sat in heaven with folded arms for 80,000 years in a cosmic display of indifference while early man, most of which died in child birth or soon after, lived almost worthless existences killing each other over food and women before saying "alright, now its time to intervene." And what better a place then the desert, in bronze age Palestine, where most of the people are completely illiterate and it would take another thousand years to make it to the rest of the world? this is a divine plan?

One of the fundamental differences between Islam & the other religions you belittled is that the others wouldn't cut your head off for referring to them as "fairy tales written in the Bronze Age"

Funny, as you thumb your nose at religious beliefs & inadvertently declare all who believe or have faith hypocritical in nature, whether because of some deed or statement that occurred in the distant past by another, you exhibit the same deficiencies that define the hypocrisy you decry. The irony is that in your smug deference you proclaim your one version of the truth, of reality or understanding of nature, superior or at least "not-a-fairy-tale" w/ the same zeal as those for whom you despise...

The Director
11-13-2009, 6:17 PM
Oh, boy. I may be asking for it by posting this, but I can't resist...



Ah, but by any reasonable definition of the words, God is cruel and unjust.

Why?

Because, according to Christian beliefs (and the beliefs in most other religious systems), God created the universe.

Unless the universe God created didn't turn out the way God wanted (which implies powerlessness and/or limited knowledge on God's part), then it follows that God is cruel and unjust, because he created a universe in which pain and suffering that result from no intent on the part of those who experience pain and suffering occur regularly. Accidents just happen.

If God can create the universe any way he/she/it wants, then God can create the universe where pain and suffering simply don't exist and are not possible. That was a choice in front of God and God chose to create a universe with pain and suffering in it.

Don't go on about how God put this or that in the universe for a reason. God set up the rules. When you can define all the rules, you can make things work whatever way you want. That means that any universe that results is exactly what you want, no more and no less.

Ergo, God wants pain and suffering to exist, for no other reason than he wants it, because in the creation of the universe God is capable of disconnecting cause and effect (indeed, God defines cause and effect by creating the universe). There is no choice that God makes that must have undesirable (to God) side effects. Whatever God wants out of the universe, God gets -- directly. His very nature makes indirect effects entirely unnecessary -- any indirect effects are there because God explicitly wants them.

And that is why God is cruel and unjust. The way the world operates is absolute proof of this.

To get out of this you must accede to one or more of four possibilities: (1) God is cruel and unjust, (2) God is entirely disinterested (which is essentially the same as the first option on the part of an all-knowing God), (3) God is impotent (incapable of creating a universe with the characteristics he really wants), or (4) God is not all-knowing (and therefore could not foresee the consequences of the universe he created).

Take your pick, but you don't get to believe in the Christian God the way most people do without having to choose one of them unless you are willing to acknowledge your beliefs as being internally contradictory from the start.

Your position / opinion is a fairly common one. It can be summed up in the following sentence:

"If god is love, why does he allow pain and suffering"

It's a great and valid question.

My answer would be I don't know. He didn't consult with me or ask my approval when he did or allowed these things.

Here's a summary of what the bible teaches, though. I'll let it speak.

1. There was a time when there was no suffering, sickness, or evil.
2. Through man's disobedience, he brought evil into the world, and thereby all the side effects of it....sickness, pain, suffering, etc.
3. God has decreed from the very beginning that man should have free will. Would God be just if he allowed man to NOT choose the wrong path? Would that be free will? No, it would not. God has allowed man to make his own choices for better or for worse and man must live with the consequences of his actions.

Anything less would not be free will!

As for why God doesn't intervene......dude....he does intervene. It's up to him when and how he does it and he takes great pains to ensure he preserves our free will.

nick
11-13-2009, 6:51 PM
Eh... AK mags, anyone? :)

Southwest Chuck
11-13-2009, 6:59 PM
i am essentially likening Christians to Muslims in that they are equally fanatical, and both are equally absurd in premise. they both do evil things and they both have a god that commits evil acts.

Too simplistic. You neglect (or need to) to acknowledge in your statement in bold above, a critical point between the two, for your own good and possible safety.

The Christian response to this statement: General and Total Disagreement
.

Qualifying Statement
In No denomination that I know of, would your life be in DANGER for making such a statement about Christianity, nor is there any basis in Christianity to believe an edict {or teaching in the Bible} applicable to this day and age, exists to take the life of the person making such a statement and neither have I ever heard of any modern church official promote such actions from it's membership

Can I make that same Qualifying Statement about Islam?
No.
Sure buddy, they're both "equally fanatical".

Stay Safe;)
.

Packy14
11-13-2009, 7:17 PM
Too simplistic. You neglect (or need to) to acknowledge in your statement in bold above, a critical point between the two, for your own good and possible safety.

The Christian response to this statement: General and Total Disagreement
.

Qualifying Statement
In No denomination that I know of, would your life be in DANGER for making such a statement about Christianity, nor is there any basis in Christianity to believe an edict {or teaching in the Bible} applicable to this day and age, exists to take the life of the person making such a statement and neither have I ever heard of any modern church official promote such actions from it's membership

Can I make that same Qualifying Statement about Islam?
No.
Sure buddy, they're both "equally fanatical".

Stay Safe;)
.


hahah.. so true. :)

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 7:25 PM
Your position / opinion is a fairly common one. It can be summed up in the following sentence:

"If god is love, why does he allow pain and suffering"

It's a great and valid question.


It's not a question. It's a logical conclusion that directly results from the specific set of axioms that Christians believe in.

The point of my previous is that there is no "why". There is no why because God directly gets whatever God wants, no more and no less. That is what it means to be omnipotent and omniscient. The direct logical result of those two things is that the universe is a direct reflection of the wishes God has for the universe. No more and no less.

There is no weaseling out of this. Either your views are internally inconsistent or one of the conditions I mentioned previously must be true. There are no other choices on the table.



Here's a summary of what the bible teaches, though. I'll let it speak.

1. There was a time when there was no suffering, sickness, or evil.
Okay so far.


2. Through man's disobedience, he brought evil into the world, and thereby all the side effects of it....sickness, pain, suffering, etc.
This can happen only if this is how God wants it to be. Remember: God defines all consequences, including this one. Man doesn't. God does. God defines what is possible and what is not. Man doesn't. Therefore, if pain and suffering are something that exist whether as a consequence of something else or not, then they exist only because God wants them to exist. There is no other responsible party in the end.

So the above is mere apologizing, an attempt to shift the blame from the party with all the power to a party without power.

I am not impressed.



3. God has decreed from the very beginning that man should have free will. Would God be just if he allowed man to NOT choose the wrong path? Would that be free will? No, it would not. God has allowed man to make his own choices for better or for worse and man must live with the consequences of his actions.
God defines consequence. Choice is not consequence. Choice is merely choice. Consequence is not the direct result of choice, it is the result of action, cause, and rules. The rules define the relationship between cause and consequence, and actions trigger cause.

God defines the rules and the consequences, and the mapping between action and cause. Therefore, the responsibility for what specific consequences result from choice are God's alone.

So God can just as easily allow man to choose the wrong path in such a way that the end result would not be pain and suffering, but only knowledge that the choice was wrong. Or anything at all, really.

And that's my point: an all-powerful creator gets exactly what he wants from his creations, no more and no less. Choice, free will, etc., are all irrelevant to that. If the creator wants truly free will on the part of his creations he can get that, and he can get that without any other conditions. And he can get that with any other conditions he wants. The results are entirely up to him and nobody else.

Therefore, if pain and suffering exist in the world, it is only because God wants it that way. There is no other party that is responsible for how the world is and what rules govern it.

If God didn't want pain and suffering to exist in the world, it wouldn't exist. It's that simple.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 7:40 PM
It should also be noted that pain and suffering exist independently of choice. There are people who have suffered great pain and hardship from birth, merely as a result of the traits they inherited. No choice that they made in this world resulted in that, and yet it's there anyway.

The notion that all pain and suffering is the result of the choices people make is nonsense of the highest order, and clearly at odds with direct observation.

And any pain and suffering that exists that is not the result of choice is clearly indicative of cruelty and injustice on the part of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 7:47 PM
As for why God doesn't intervene......dude....he does intervene. It's up to him when and how he does it and he takes great pains to ensure he preserves our free will.

If God were so interested in preserving and promoting free will, then God would not arbitrarily limit our choices. And yes, they are arbitrarily limited, because any limits that exist are ones God put into place and are therefore arbitrary by definition: they're directly what God wants, no more and no less.

The Director
11-13-2009, 8:14 PM
If God didn't want pain and suffering to exist in the world, it wouldn't exist. It's that simple.

Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

Do you think Christians have all the answers? Do you think I have all the answers? You most certainly don't. Mine is not to question.

Good on you that you've deductively reasoned the universe, God, and the way he runs his show. :rolleyes:

The Director
11-13-2009, 8:19 PM
If God were so interested in preserving and promoting free will, then God would not arbitrarily limit our choices. And yes, they are arbitrarily limited, because any limits that exist are ones God put into place and are therefore arbitrary by definition: they're directly what God wants, no more and no less.

Sounds right to me. He has the right to make boundaries and limitations.

You seem to have many questions....deep thoughts and issues with him. Why don't you ask him yourself. He's very near and always within earshot. Neither I nor anyone here will answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Ask the guy with the answers.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 8:46 PM
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

Do you think Christians have all the answers? Do you think I have all the answers? You most certainly don't. Mine is not to question.

Good on you that you've deductively reasoned the universe, God, and the way he runs his show. :rolleyes:

The logical deductions in question aren't necessarily the way reality is (particularly when the reality in question involves the unobservable). Nothing says that God must be logical. Nothing says that your beliefs must be logically consistent internally.

The point is, merely, that your beliefs are logically inconsistent internally.

It's up to you whether or not to hold onto them in the face of that.


But I will say this: a God that chooses to directly express himself one way and write something about himself (and subsequently declare it to be The Truth) that is a complete contradiction to that direct expression is not a God that I think deserves much respect. If we hold ourselves to a particular standard, should not God, being superior, be reasonably expected to meet an even higher standard?

And yet God does not even meet the standards we set for ourselves, if the universe is a reflection of God's desires. Believers all over the world make excuses for this, but they're just excuses in the end. In the end, God does not meet the standards of conduct that we mere humans expect of ourselves. I think that says quite a lot about God.


Note that, in the above, I assume that God exists and has roughly the same set of attributes that many people claim God has. It is entirely possible that God does not have the attributes in question, that God is completely different from what most people think. It's also entirely possible that God does not exist at all. I have no answers to any of those questions because they are questions that cannot be answered through observation. All I can do is deduce attributes based on sets of axioms. The axioms themselves are untestable.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 8:55 PM
Sounds right to me. He has the right to make boundaries and limitations.

You seem to have many questions....deep thoughts and issues with him. Why don't you ask him yourself. He's very near and always within earshot. Neither I nor anyone here will answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Ask the guy with the answers.

I have in the past. Many, many times. I always get nothing but silence.

The guy with the answers refuses to answer in any way that I can detect, except for the way the universe itself works. If the universe itself is God's answer then what answers I have so far are not favorable towards God. I remain open minded, and therefore those answers, and therefore my opinion, may change. But I'm afraid the universe has a lifespan much longer than mine, and therefore the answers are highly unlikely to change within my lifetime.


I'm sorry, but you are simply going to have to come to terms with the idea that there are those of us to whom God refuses to reveal himself no matter how true their hearts or pure their quest for the truth.

The Director
11-13-2009, 9:15 PM
I'm sorry, but you are simply going to have to come to terms with the idea that there are those of us to whom God refuses to reveal himself no matter how true their hearts or pure their quest for the truth.

You're going to have to start listening so you can hear the small, still voice, and step out in faith rather than trying to figure him out.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

I like your questions and your reasoning. You remind me of me back in the day. Keep on questioning man.....just be willing to hear the answers. True hearts and pure motives are not welcome in Christianity. Jesus can be found mingling with the sinners and imperfect folk like me. He pretty much leaves the perfect people alone (cause he can't find any!)

Peace bro.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 9:45 PM
You're going to have to start listening so you can hear the small, still voice, and step out in faith rather than trying to figure him out.


I've been told this before, and tried it. I still got silence.

I'm afraid I'm not built in such a way that I can have "faith" of the kind you speak of. This is not a choice, it's simply who and what I am. If the ability to throw all reason out the window is the only thing that makes finding God possible then I'll never find God, because I'm built in such a way that I cannot throw away my tendency to reason.



Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
I don't know what "all your heart" means here that would somehow disqualify my previous attempts. It's not enough to simply say "well, if you didn't find God, it must have been because you didn't have all your heart in it!" because that presupposes the truth of the passage in question.

As far as I can tell, I did have "all my heart" in it.

But if "all your heart" in the above means "toss away all reason" then it's something I simply cannot do -- my very nature precludes that.

Like I said, I think you're going to have to accept that some people simply will not find God no matter how hard they try.

At this point, I figure that if God wants someone to know of his existence, he'll reveal himself in such a way that it will be unmistakable to the person in question.



I like your questions and your reasoning. You remind me of me back in the day. Keep on questioning man.....just be willing to hear the answers. True hearts and pure motives are not welcome in Christianity. Jesus can be found mingling with the sinners and imperfect folk like me. He pretty much leaves the perfect people alone (cause he can't find any!)
I'm far from perfect, of course, but my lack of perfection hasn't helped in this regard either (lack of perfection doesn't seem to help anything, I'm afraid. The universe is rather intolerant of mistakes. You see, intent and choice aren't the only things that have consequences).

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 9:50 PM
Sounds right to me. He has the right to make boundaries and limitations.


Sure, but keep in mind that the boundaries and limitations are there for no reason other than that God wants them there. They serve absolutely no other purpose. Nor does anything else about the universe, for that matter.

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 10:05 PM
Qualifying Statement
In No denomination that I know of, would your life be in DANGER for making such a statement about Christianity, nor is there any basis in Christianity to believe an edict {or teaching in the Bible} applicable to this day and age, exists to take the life of the person making such a statement and neither have I ever heard of any modern church official promote such actions from it's membership


That's true now. It hasn't, unfortunately, always proven true, and it's possible that it may not prove true in the future.

But we must deal with the here and now. The main reason for pointing out these things is to illustrate that few mainstream religions have been exempt from mass killings done in their name, so the existence of Islamic Jihadists today isn't in and of itself particularly noteworthy.

But might it be useful nonetheless? People who are knowledgeable and experience in counterterrorism would have to answer that question.



Can I make that same Qualifying Statement about Islam?
No.
Sure buddy, they're both "equally fanatical".
If a very large fraction of the Islam believers were signing up for suicide bomber duty, I might be inclined to use the belief in Islam as an indicator of the likelihood that any given person may or may not be a suicide bomber. But the fact of the matter is that, relative to the population of Islam believers, suicide bombers and other Jihadists appear to be few enough in number that the fact a given person has a belief in Islam almost certainly will not tell you enough about that person to be useful.

Maybe there is some other common trait amongst Jihadists that would make them easier to identify?

Meplat
11-13-2009, 10:18 PM
I have in the past. Many, many times. I always get nothing but silence.

As an ex-agnostic, I would hope you do not quit trying. Someday you may just get a surprise.:eek::)

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 10:37 PM
As an ex-agnostic, I would hope you do not quit trying. Someday you may just get a surprise.:eek::)

What exactly would be the point of continuing to try?

If I fail, then I will have wasted a bunch of effort that apparently could be spent better elsewhere.

If I succeed, then I will have accomplished nothing that God himself could not accomplish effortlessly.

As I said, if God wishes to reveal himself to me, he will -- it'll happen directly as a result of his desire for me to find him. If God does not wish to reveal himself to me, no amount of effort on my part will do any good.

I remain open minded to the possibility, so it's not like I will reject God simply as a result of such a revelation. But I will have a few questions for him that he'll hopefully be willing to answer much better than his followers have. :D

(I do appreciate the efforts of his followers. It's not their fault that their answers haven't proved enlightening to me)

Sgt Raven
11-13-2009, 10:39 PM
I in no way deny my position on the existence of gods or deities, or rather, the lack thereof. But earlier someone took the position that Atheism is a religion, which is odd, so instead of taking on labels i decided to just state my position clearly. You, would call me an Antithiest, in this case.

Atheism has turned into the Religion of non believers, Atheist want their beliefs taught along with all others, which makes it the religion of atheism. Simple, not saying its right or wrong, its just another belief. :rolleyes:

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 10:54 PM
Atheism has turned into the Religion of non believers, Atheist want their beliefs taught along with all others, which makes it the religion of atheism. Simple, not saying its right or wrong, its just another belief. :rolleyes:

A religious belief is, at a minimum, a belief that cannot consistently be tested through observation.

If you refer to atheism as the belief that God (or some other divine being) does not exist, then I agree: that is a religious belief, no more testable than the positive belief in God is.

If you refer to atheism as the lack of belief in God then it is not a religious belief as it is not a belief at all.

So it's very important to be careful about what you mean here.

The Director
11-13-2009, 11:15 PM
If I fail, then I will have wasted a bunch of effort that apparently could be spent better elsewhere.

If I succeed, then I will have accomplished nothing that God himself could not accomplish effortlessly.



God must be approached in faith. I won't bore you with the scripture....take my word for it. Your faith is the tool he uses to impute his righteousness to you.

Speaking of effort....people are always asking...what must I do to be saved, what must I do to go to heaven, what must I do to find god......I think they're asking the wrong question.

How about what must I do to be damned? Nothing.

HUTCH 7.62
11-13-2009, 11:30 PM
How about what must I do to be damned? Nothing.

Be Muslim in the US

kcbrown
11-13-2009, 11:46 PM
God must be approached in faith. I won't bore you with the scripture....take my word for it. Your faith is the tool he uses to impute his righteousness to you.


In other words, to find God, I must already believe in God?

That seems like a circularity.

If prior belief is required for this, then it's something I'm simply not built to do. My nature is to believe only in that which I have some supporting evidence for, with the strength of the belief being in direct proportion to the strength of the supporting evidence. It can be personal experience that provides the supporting evidence, but it must be something.

So clearly, if God reveals himself to me, that will provide some supporting evidence upon which I can build a belief. As of now, I have nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory claims upon which I can build such a belief.

CalNRA
11-14-2009, 12:42 AM
Heh. :rolleyes:

yep.

:popcorn:

The Director
11-14-2009, 8:11 AM
In other words, to find God, I must already believe in God?

That seems like a circularity.

If prior belief is required for this, then it's something I'm simply not built to do. My nature is to believe only in that which I have some supporting evidence for, with the strength of the belief being in direct proportion to the strength of the supporting evidence. It can be personal experience that provides the supporting evidence, but it must be something.

So clearly, if God reveals himself to me, that will provide some supporting evidence upon which I can build a belief. As of now, I have nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory claims upon which I can build such a belief.

Not quite. God will only very seldom reveal himself (or manifest himself) in a way that is tangible to you.

To use a crude analogy, if he appeared visibly right in front of you and declared himself to be God, there would be some problems with that:

1. It would no longer take an act of faith to believe in something that has been seen, felt , or heard.

2. Other forces in the universe might manifest themselves in that manner in an attempt to decieve.

3. It's mentioned many times in scripture that he will not appear in this manner until the appointed time (God himself will never appear in this manner...but that's a different topic).

Whether you receive it or not, KC, the following is the christian doctrine on faith in a nutshell:

Your faith in Christ Jesus is that which saves you. Your faith in him causes the father to impute Jesus' righteousness onto you, which covers your sins (past present and future) and allows the father to receive you into his kingdom for eternity.

You simply need to acknowledge you are a sinner, ask Jesus for forgiveness, and trust and believe in the fact he died for your sins and was resurrected.

Believe that and you are saved. God will be in touch from that point forward with your window sticker, badge, and welcome packet.:D

That's it. What you do with that is purely up to you. I am not God. I didn't invent this mechanism....he did. But this is what the bible teaches in case you were wondering. I'm sure many here can confirm this.

7x57
11-14-2009, 8:16 AM
Eh... AK mags, anyone? :)

WHAT?!? YOU INTOLERANT RELIGIOUS BIGOT!?! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR CHOICE OF CALIBER AND FIREARM ON EVERYONE ELSE!!!

<looks around, notices everyone is staring>

Whoops, sorry, I just was scanning through the rather sharp turn this thread took since last time I looked and got carried away in the moment. ;)

7x57

7x57
11-14-2009, 8:43 AM
It's not a question. It's a logical conclusion that directly results from the specific set of axioms that Christians believe in.


It appears you are in fact using some axioms which are theology-specific. I decline to engage in general theodicy on a gun forum, so I will restrict myself to playing nit-picker and address the problems with the line of argument you advance so confidently.


The point of my previous is that there is no "why". There is no why because God directly gets whatever God wants, no more and no less. That is what it means to be omnipotent and omniscient. The direct logical result of those two things is that the universe is a direct reflection of the wishes God has for the universe. No more and no less.


This is a philosophical conclusion of your own devising. You are free to believe it, but you may not insist that others do so. In particular, you may not insist that any Christian agree with you since most Christians ("most" excepts certain subsets of Calvinists and Thomists) believe it to be unbiblical and therefore contradicts their picture of God.

In other words, you may not blame Christians for what you think they *SHOULD* believe. You either have to attempt to change their views on divine Sovereignty (free hint--if you want to dig into the *vast* literature and find out what you're arguing, a good search term is "meticulous Sovereignty") to match yours, or you must blame them for the beliefs they actually hold.


This can happen only if this is how God wants it to be. Remember: God defines all consequences, including this one. Man doesn't. God does. God defines what is possible and what is not. Man doesn't. Therefore, if pain and suffering are something that exist whether as a consequence of something else or not, then they exist only because God wants them to exist. There is no other responsible party in the end.


Said in any other context, this would be easily seen to be utter nonsense. My child does many things that I do not want him to do, but for other reasons I do not always stop him. In fact the same is true generally in such relationships.

Your error appears to be that you assume that Christians must believe that God has only a single motivation or consideration to weigh. No Christian should believe this in my personal judgement, and not that many do (excepting again certain Calvinists and Thomists). Your view fails on trivial examination of numerous passages of scripture; one that comes to mind is "God is not willing that any should perish" when of course every biblical author believes that in the eschaton many will in fact perish by God's decree ("with their sin He will not strive"). So the biblical view, which Christians are obliged to share, is that some of God's considerations conflict, just as ours do, and He chooses between them based on a notion of priority, just as we do. There is no logical contradiction in the notion that "God generally wishes no one would perish, but specifically will decree it as a consequence of human choices He did not want." No more than saying that we would prefer no one die, but will shoot an attacker rather than permit their choice to commit a crime to lead to the worse consequence of having an innocent die.

It also appears you may demand that God must have created a fully deterministic universe. I'm not 100% sure that is your position, but it appears it may be. If so, once again you are imposing your view of what Christians *should* believe on those who do not. You are free to argue that your exegesis is better, or alternatively that your philosophical deductions should convince Christians not to believe the bible, but otherwise must deal with Christians' actual beliefs and not those you impose on them.


So the above is mere apologizing, an attempt to shift the blame from the party with all the power to a party without power.

I am not impressed.


I'm not impressed with your straw man either.


So God can just as easily allow man to choose the wrong path in such a way that the end result would not be pain and suffering, but only knowledge that the choice was wrong. Or anything at all, really.


You are free to believe so, but as the bible contradicts this Christians may not agree. Your straw-man imaginary Christians may well be in a tight spot, though.


If God didn't want pain and suffering to exist in the world, it wouldn't exist. It's that simple.

One more time: why not go argue with someone who actually believes this?

We almost need a "Bible Thumpers And Heathens" debate society to channel all this philosophical and theological energy somewhere besides the Calguns Second Amendment forum, with monthly meetings where only those that like to take a stroll with Aristotle and Paul need try to break their skulls with these arguments.

7x57

Southwest Chuck
11-14-2009, 9:31 AM
We almost need a "Bible Thumpers And Heathens" debate society to channel all this philosophical and theological energy somewhere besides the Calguns Second Amendment forum,

7x57

I agree. I did not mean for my post to go in this direction / tangent to the degree that it has. So in summary, I'd like to make a few last points, and call it a day.

First I'd like to say that I like to believe that my thinking, opinions, and view points, are always in flux, based on the information received. In other words, it is dynamic and not static. I appreciate the ideas and other viewpoints of others expressed here. Some compel me to alter my viewpoint. Others, do not. I don't ignore information that would have a material effect on my current viewpoint for the purpose of maintaining that viewpoint. It is difficult at times, though, I admit. But that is what I strive to do; be fair and balanced, rational, logical, with a common sense approch and open to other viewpoints.



But we must deal with the here and now. .....

If a very large fraction of the Islam believers were signing up for suicide bomber duty, I might be inclined to use the belief in Islam as an indicator of the likelihood that any given person may or may not be a suicide bomber. But the fact of the matter is that, relative to the population of Islam believers, suicide bombers and other Jihadists appear to be few enough in number that the fact a given person has a belief in Islam almost certainly will not tell you enough about that person to be useful.

Simple explanation, here from post #74, when applied to "Moderate" Muslims would explain why the majority do not support or partake in Jihad and to which you never addressed when you basically posted the same premise earlier:

And yet, there are billions of people who proclaim themselves to be "Christian" yet very few read the Bible on a daily basis. The majority of them don't even go to church on a regular basis. I can honestly say that most "Christians" do not even know the "fundamentals" of their own religion and are in fact "secular Christians" who are Christians only because their parents told them they are Christians.

Those who actually study the tenets of their faith and practice their religion are called "fundamentalists".

Muslim Fundamentalists are the ones blowing themselves up in marketplaces full of innocents.

Those who pick and choose which little convenient section of their religion they are going to believe, just like the Christian who sees the inside of a church only during weddings and funerals, are called "moderates".
It seems this adequately and rationally explains the flaw in you premise.


Maybe there is some other common trait amongst Jihadists that would make them easier to identify?

First the most obvious Common Denominator:
Most muslims aren't terrorists.

On the other hand, most terrorists are muslims.
That simple fact cannot be denied. But denied it is in the form of political correctness.

The Second:

That's simple: Their words and actions, my friend, their words and actions.

Acknowledge the first common denominator, and be vigilant in detecting the second. That is what would make them easier to identify, my friend.

This brings us back to the point of my original post and full circle. The political correctness that pervades the military and governmental agencies. Hasan's words and actions were identifiable and documented, and in some instances, brushed under the rug, YET, nothing was done to minimize the possible threat he posed for fear of being branded as discriminatory, racist, intolerant, etc. etc. This what has to be recognized and stopped and deal with the facts as they exist. The President, though, was reinforcing the need to be politically correct, The point of my original post.

Political correctness is pervasive right now. It won't change over night. Until it does, at minimum, the Clinton era Gun Ban on military bases needs to be repealed http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/ so our service men and women can at least protect themselves the way they can off base.

skip
11-14-2009, 9:57 AM
The logical deductions in question aren't necessarily the way reality is (particularly when the reality in question involves the unobservable). Nothing says that God must be logical. Nothing says that your beliefs must be logically consistent internally.

The point is, merely, that your beliefs are logically inconsistent internally.

It's up to you whether or not to hold onto them in the face of that.


But I will say this: a God that chooses to directly express himself one way and write something about himself (and subsequently declare it to be The Truth) that is a complete contradiction to that direct expression is not a God that I think deserves much respect. If we hold ourselves to a particular standard, should not God, being superior, be reasonably expected to meet an even higher standard?

And yet God does not even meet the standards we set for ourselves, if the universe is a reflection of God's desires. Believers all over the world make excuses for this, but they're just excuses in the end. In the end, God does not meet the standards of conduct that we mere humans expect of ourselves. I think that says quite a lot about God.


Note that, in the above, I assume that God exists and has roughly the same set of attributes that many people claim God has. It is entirely possible that God does not have the attributes in question, that God is completely different from what most people think. It's also entirely possible that God does not exist at all. I have no answers to any of those questions because they are questions that cannot be answered through observation. All I can do is deduce attributes based on sets of axioms. The axioms themselves are untestable.

Isaiah 45, 4 I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Deuteronomy 29, 28 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Meplat
11-14-2009, 10:20 AM
You guys are making my head hurt.:( I'm just a simple ex-agnostic christian who barely made it into MENSA.

For a while I thought this thread should be closed to prevent bloodshed. But as long as we can all still work together to lagger the waggons when the antis come into view, I guess it's harmless.

It appears you are in fact using some axioms which are theology-specific. I decline to engage in general theodicy on a gun forum, so I will restrict myself to playing nit-picker and address the problems with the line of argument you advance so confidently.



This is a philosophical conclusion of your own devising. You are free to believe it, but you may not insist that others do so. In particular, you may not insist that any Christian agree with you since most Christians ("most" excepts certain subsets of Calvinists and Thomists) believe it to be unbiblical and therefore contradicts their picture of God.

In other words, you may not blame Christians for what you think they *SHOULD* believe. You either have to attempt to change their views on divine Sovereignty (free hint--if you want to dig into the *vast* literature and find out what you're arguing, a good search term is "meticulous Sovereignty") to match yours, or you must blame them for the beliefs they actually hold.



Said in any other context, this would be easily seen to be utter nonsense. My child does many things that I do not want him to do, but for other reasons I do not always stop him. In fact the same is true generally in such relationships.

Your error appears to be that you assume that Christians must believe that God has only a single motivation or consideration to weigh. No Chr
I am not impressed.

istian should believe this in my personal judgement, and not that many do (excepting again certain Calvinists and Thomists). Your view fails on trivial examination of numerous passages of scripture; one that comes to mind is "God is not willing that any should perish" when of course every biblical author believes that in the eschaton many will in fact perish by God's decree ("with their sin He will not strive"). So the biblical view, which Christians are obliged to share, is that some of God's considerations conflict, just as ours do, and He chooses between them based on a notion of priority, just as we do. There is no logical contradiction in the notion that "God generally wishes no one would perish, but specifically will decree it as a consequence of human choices He did not want. No more than saying that we would prefer no one die, but will shoot an attacker rather than permit their choice to commit a crime to lead to the worse consequence of having an innocent die.

It also appears you may demand that God must have created a fully deterministic universe. I'm not 100% sure that is your position, but it appears it may be. If so, once again you are imposing your view of what Christians *should* believe on those who do not. You are free to argue that your exegesis is better, or alternatively that your philosophical deductions should convince Christians not to believe the bible, but otherwise must deal with Christians' actual beliefs and not those you impose on them.



I'm not impressed with your straw man either.



You are free to believe so, but as the bible contradicts this Christians may not agree. Your straw-man imaginary Christians may well be in a tight spot, though.



One more time: why not go argue with someone who actually believes this?

We almost need a "Bible Thumpers And Heathens" debate society to channel all this philosophical and theological energy somewhere besides the Calguns Second Amendment forum, with monthly meetings where only those that like to take a stroll with Aristotle and Paul need try to break their skulls with these arguments.

7x57

Meplat
11-14-2009, 10:41 AM
I have a quick question for any who wander back to this discussion.

Do you belive that Love exists?

Southwest Chuck
11-14-2009, 12:02 PM
I have a quick question for any who wander back to this discussion.

Do you belive that Love exists?

Well, I know Hate exists (Anti's) :D
So that means Love exists and I do Love my guns and my 2A rights, and my sons, and my family and my Jeep, and my......and my....... etc. etc...;)

Packy14
11-14-2009, 12:36 PM
For anyone who really wants to ponder the things on this board.. read a small but somewhat difficult book called Mere Christianity, its by C.S. Lewis... best book i've ever read, had to read it twice the first time just to kinda be able to understand it (but i'ma bit slow).

7x57
11-14-2009, 1:14 PM
You guys are making my head hurt.:( I'm just a simple ex-agnostic christian who barely made it into MENSA.


Fear not. This gets into some of the most difficult and contentious areas of theology, and I guess I should pass along something that ordinarily one would say in an explicitly Christian venue. Sorry, pagans (and I mean that affectionately), feel free to ignore me for a second (not that you weren't already).

The fact is that anyone who uses some form of Protestant hermeneutics (which more than anything amounts to the same "original meaning" interpretation that we use with the Constitution) agrees on the most vital doctrines, because they are taught with sufficient clarity. (In fact the most vital ones are agreed upon by those who do not believe precisely in that hermeneutic--the Nicene creed was intended to summarize the most important doctrines, and (filioque notwithstanding) all major branches--including branches more obscure than the "big three"--agree that it is accurate and true.) The doctrines that divide textualists are *always* the ones that scripture does not seem that interested in, and therefore are extremely difficult. And in responding to kcbrown, we were treading perilously close to the hardest and most contentious of those secondary doctrines, the issues of sovereignty, moral freedom, and determinism vs. non-determinism that usually are referred to as "Calvinist vs. Arminian theology".

But, precisely because the doctrines scripture regards as most important are the ones it states too clearly for there to be serious debate, *none* of this stuff is necessary for practical Christian living. It's *optional* unless some specific circumstance makes it necessary for you. Anyone who makes an ordinary lay Christian feel bad because they don't have a position on this stuff is doing you a disservice.

So enjoy the ride if you can, and don't feel bad if you don't. "Don't worry, be happy." :eek:


For a while I thought this thread should be closed to prevent bloodshed. But as long as we can all still work together to lagger the waggons when the antis come into view, I guess it's harmless.

The nice thing about being a single-issue advocacy group on an issue that often means life or death is that we should always be able to do that. Saving lives is always toward the top of the "to do" list, no? We're fighting for both the rule of law and legitimate authority on the one hand and the right to save your life and that of your family on the other.

One could say we're fighting for the right to continue this sort of disagreement in peace and security, under the rule of law. :D

7x57

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 3:21 PM
I was hoping you'd jump into this, 7x57. :D

It appears you are in fact using some axioms which are theology-specific. I decline to engage in general theodicy on a gun forum, so I will restrict myself to playing nit-picker and address the problems with the line of argument you advance so confidently.


I have no doubt that some of the axioms I'm using are theology specific. I'm used to discussing these things with Bible-belt Christians, the most vocal of which tend to be rather fundamentalist in nature, and perhaps that has tainted things a bit.



This is a philosophical conclusion of your own devising. You are free to believe it, but you may not insist that others do so. In particular, you may not insist that any Christian agree with you since most Christians ("most" excepts certain subsets of Calvinists and Thomists) believe it to be unbiblical and therefore contradicts their picture of God.
Hmm...which of the following is unbiblical in the view of most Christians?


God knows all
God is capable of all (that is, has the power to do what he wishes)

If God is limited in capability, then my conclusions could easily not be true. If God is limited in knowledge, then again my conclusions could easily not be true (but note that a God which is limited in knowledge but not in power must be the result of choice, for it implies God can choose to be unlimited in knowledge and, therefore, limited knowledge is strictly the result of choice).

I've not seen or heard any Christian ever proposing that God is inherently (i.e., not by choice) limited in power in such a way that the universe he created is not what he wanted.

My conclusions logically follow if the above two things are simultaneously true of God. That is a matter of logic, not of theology.



Your error appears to be that you assume that Christians must believe that God has only a single motivation or consideration to weigh.
No, that assumption doesn't come into play at all in my considerations. In particular, if God wishes some things to be true some of the time and other things to be true at other times, then an all-powerful God will get that wish. Where things get interesting is if God is not all-powerful by nature (and not by his own choice).



No Christian should believe this in my personal judgement, and not that many do (excepting again certain Calvinists and Thomists). Your view fails on trivial examination of numerous passages of scripture; one that comes to mind is "God is not willing that any should perish" when of course every biblical author believes that in the eschaton many will in fact perish by God's decree ("with their sin He will not strive"). So the biblical view, which Christians are obliged to share, is that some of God's considerations conflict, just as ours do, and He chooses between them based on a notion of priority, just as we do.
Which is fine if you're dealing with a God of limited power. But if you're dealing with a God of unlimited power then it doesn't follow at all.


There is no logical contradiction in the notion that "God generally wishes no one would perish, but specifically will decree it as a consequence of human choices He did not want." No more than saying that we would prefer no one die, but will shoot an attacker rather than permit their choice to commit a crime to lead to the worse consequence of having an innocent die.
That argument is independent of the fact that suffering exists in the world. Now, if Christians (in general) believe that the universe that God created is not the universe that God wanted/wants, then clearly it is possible for suffering to exist despite God's wishes on the matter. But if Christians believe that the universe is what God intended it to be then clearly it follows that God wants suffering to exist, and that he wants suffering to exist independently of choice, belief, intent, etc. Or, at the very least, doesn't care at all about these things.

Again, this is a matter of logic. Only the axioms are a matter of theology.



It also appears you may demand that God must have created a fully deterministic universe.
No, not necessarily (and, certainly, the universe appears, at the most fundamental level, to be nondeterministic to us), but keep in mind that:



The universe can be deterministic to God but not to the inhabitants of the universe (think deterministic random number generator here).
Even if the universe is nondeterministic to God, it is that way only because God wishes it to be that way -- unless, again, God is limited in power and possibly knowledge (in the case of knowledge, it would be that God did not realize that the universe he created would be nondeterministic to him).
Even in a nondeterministic universe, there can still be rules within it that determine the probability of events, thus allowing the creation of a universe that is both nondeterministic and that has the desired attributes. I'm not saying that's what we have in our universe (though it does appear that way), merely that it's a possibility on the table of creation.



I'm not 100% sure that is your position, but it appears it may be. If so, once again you are imposing your view of what Christians *should* believe on those who do not. You are free to argue that your exegesis is better, or alternatively that your philosophical deductions should convince Christians not to believe the bible, but otherwise must deal with Christians' actual beliefs and not those you impose on them.
Well, I was under the impression that I was dealing with Christians' actual beliefs on the attributes of God, but more to the point, what I was really doing was illustrating the consequences of a particular set of beliefs that I know at least some subset of Christians hold to be true, and demonstrating that the world as it is proves at least one particular attribute of God to be true, and that attribute is one that most would generally not regard as putting God in a favorable light.

I probably did get carried away in ascribing some of this to specific people. That was done on the basis of assumptions on my part which may or may not be true. Apologies to all for anything I got wrong on that front.



You are free to believe so, but as the bible contradicts this Christians may not agree. Your straw-man imaginary Christians may well be in a tight spot, though.
The Bible contradicts it how? And where? My statement was not one of how the world is, but how the world could be if God had chosen it to be that way. My statement is rooted in the notion that God is capable of creating a universe with whatever attributes he wishes it to have. I am not aware of anything in the Bible that contradicts that particular notion, but would be happy to be enlightened on this.

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 4:43 PM
You guys are making my head hurt.:( I'm just a simple ex-agnostic christian who barely made it into MENSA.

For a while I thought this thread should be closed to prevent bloodshed. But as long as we can all still work together to lagger the waggons when the antis come into view, I guess it's harmless.

I don't think you have to worry about that at all.

We're all here because we believe strongly in a particular right, but I would wager that most of us believe strongly in rights in general. I would hope that one of those rights is the right to belief.

I have no problem with people who wish to believe a set of contradictory religious principles. ;) That is their right. I just hope they are magnanimous enough to allow me to believe, without consequence, whatever set of principles (contradictory or otherwise!) I happen to. I may disagree with someone else's beliefs, and they may disagree with mine, but I see nothing inherently wrong with that.

Indeed, I would argue that diversity in belief is a good thing. It allows us as a society to see more, to think in more diverse ways. Someone with one belief system may think of something that proves beneficial to the rest of us that nobody with a different belief system could think of. There is much strength in that.

It is natural to want others to believe the way we do, because it reduces disagreements. But if we and they have the discipline to tolerate (and, even better, welcome) different beliefs, then the apparent disadvantages of diverse beliefs become advantages.


Healthy debate is a good thing, because from it comes understanding. I think it's one of the most powerful advantages we have in our right to free speech.

oldrifle
11-14-2009, 4:51 PM
Am I the only one who thinks discussing the validity of various religions in a 2nd amendment forum isn't very constructive?

bodger
11-14-2009, 5:46 PM
Am I the only one who thinks discussing the validity of various religions in a 2nd amendment forum isn't very constructive?

Prolly not. :D

I was hoping you'd jump into this, 7x57. :D


Me too. I haven't been on Dictionary.com yet today. :):)

Meplat
11-14-2009, 6:32 PM
I think I feel the need to chime in here, For what it’s worth. I was baptized as a confused teenager. I was raised in the Christian tradition. But in reality I spent 40 years as an agnostic, not being able to prove to my own satisfaction that god really existed. Many Christians tried to convince me. But all I could tell them was “I don’t know”, “how can you expect me to base the fate of my ‘eternal soul’ on speculation”? Well, eventually circumstances obtained that were absolutely inexplicable except in supernatural terms, after that I prayed, not for myself but for someone else, during that prayer my fears were stilled and in the end all was well. That and other things have removed my doubt. I don’t expect this abbreviated ‘testimony” to convince anyone, that’s not my purpose. I only want people to know where I’m coming from.

I don’t know much about enchant history. I don’t know a lot about scripture or christen philosophy. But I know God exists, and I know what my god is, my god is Love. Christians can tell me I’m wrong, Muslims can tell me I’m wrong, Sikes can tell me I’m wrong. But my god is love, plain and simple.

Anything an all loving god would not do, my god will not do. That works for me, your results may very. I believe that Muslims are free to love my god of love, Sikes, Hindus and Buddhists are all welcome. But if they kill me for not believing exactly as they do they ain’t gittin’ no virgins. Buy the way, has anybody asked the virgins how they feel about that plan?

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 7:18 PM
I think I feel the need to chime in here, For what it’s worth. I was baptized as a confused teenager. I was raised in the Christian tradition. But in reality I spent 40 years as an agnostic, not being able to prove to my own satisfaction that god really existed. Many Christians tried to convince me. But all I could tell them was “I don’t know”, “how can you expect me to base the fate of my ‘eternal soul’ on speculation”? Well, eventually circumstances obtained that were absolutely inexplicable except in supernatural terms, after that I prayed, not for myself but for someone else, during that prayer my fears were stilled and in the end all was well. That and other things have removed my doubt. I don’t expect this abbreviated ‘testimony” to convince anyone, that’s not my purpose. I only want people to know where I’m coming from.


And all that matters, really, is that those events convinced you. You gained faith and strength from that. That's a good thing.

If your faith helps you to be a better person, who can argue that it's bad in your case? Not me.

Doesn't matter if your beliefs are internally inconsistent or not if the end result is that you are a better person than you would be otherwise.


But that can go two ways. If religion can make a person better, can it not also make a person worse? In a way, that's what some are arguing here: that Islam has made some people worse, to the point that they cause great harm. I don't believe any religion is entirely immune from that as history has shown, but there may be a difference in the chance that a given religion will make a person worse, just as there may be a difference in the chance that a given religion will make a person better.

It's natural for someone to believe that the religion they adhere to will make all who believe it better, and most people are resistant to the idea that their religion will make someone worse. But you cannot have responsibility in one without responsibility in the other. That doesn't mean the responsibility levels are the same (whether between religions or within a given one), but they exist all the same if they exist at all.


Anyway, I'm really glad you found something that gives you hope and strength.

Meplat
11-14-2009, 7:24 PM
That works for me. Thanks!




And all that matters, really, is that those events convinced you. You gained faith and strength from that. That's a good thing.

If your faith helps you to be a better person, who can argue that it's bad in your case? Not me.

Doesn't matter if your beliefs are internally inconsistent or not if the end result is that you are a better person than you would be otherwise.


But that can go two ways. If religion can make a person better, can it not also make a person worse? In a way, that's what some are arguing here: that Islam has made some people worse, to the point that they cause great harm. I don't believe any religion is entirely immune from that as history has shown, but there may be a difference in the chance that a given religion will make a person worse, just as there may be a difference in the chance that a given religion will make a person better.

It's natural for someone to believe that the religion they adhere to will make all who believe it better, and most people are resistant to the idea that their religion will make someone worse. But you cannot have responsibility in one without responsibility in the other. That doesn't mean the responsibility levels are the same (whether between religions or within a given one), but they exist all the same if they exist at all.


Anyway, I'm really glad you found something that gives you hope and strength.

The Director
11-14-2009, 7:26 PM
KC,

True christianity has nothing to do with making a person "better", improving the quality of their lives, or healing them of any ailments they might have.

True Christianity is hinged on the concept of salvation, and the believer is cautioned many times to learn to endure and even expect hardship, strife, and persecution.

I see many religions out there and even Christian denominations that have painted their mission as some sort of self help/self improvement course and that couldn't be further from what the Bible teaches.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

The Director
11-14-2009, 7:30 PM
But I know God exists, and I know what my god is, my god is Love.

God is Love.

Some other characteristics of him according to the bible are:

God is just
God is a provider
God is Holy
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
God is true to his word

I mention all these things because too many have ran with the "God is love" concept and forgotten the rest. One must accept the rest of the attributes because without them, you don't have the whole picture....and the "god is love" mantra becomes a license to do all kinds of things.

Meplat
11-14-2009, 7:41 PM
In testing his divine providence I have not found any reason to disagree with any of these statements.

Altho, to be honist, I have not read the intre Bible. So, I really have no way to measure how true to his word he is. Even assuming the whole bible is sanctioned by god.

God is Love.

Some other characteristics of him according to the bible are:

God is just
God is a provider
God is Holy
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
God is true to his word

I mention all these things because too many have ran with the "God is love" concept and forgotten the rest. One must accept the rest of the attributes because without them, you don't have the whole picture....and the "god is love" mantra becomes a license to do all kinds of things.

The Director
11-14-2009, 7:45 PM
I think we should all pat ourselves on the back here for having a decent and civil discussion about religion without the accompanying flame war. We had many differing opinions and viewpoints and yet still maintained order.

Meplat
11-14-2009, 7:49 PM
I think we should all pat ourselves on the back here for having a decent and civil discussion about religion without the accompanying flame war. We had many differing opinions and viewpoints and yet still maintained order.

I have found here no one who I would not trust to cover my 6.

That is amaizing!

The Director
11-14-2009, 8:08 PM
I have found here no one who I would not trust to cover my 6.

That is amaizing!

Amen brother. When you can agree on RKBA you can agree on just about anything.

JayRuff
11-14-2009, 8:30 PM
It's not Islam, it's the people, they are nut jobs, I have met quit a few peaceful Muslims who consider murder of any sort a taboo. Stop blaming a religion. If u knew the time the Quran was written u would understand why they wrote stuff like that. Only the people that do this are to blame. This is exactly the kind of thinking the Anti's have. Like when someone does a mass shooting they blame the guns. Now this guy pulls this off we blame the Quran.

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 8:34 PM
KC,

True christianity has nothing to do with making a person "better", improving the quality of their lives, or healing them of any ailments they might have.

True Christianity is hinged on the concept of salvation, and the believer is cautioned many times to learn to endure and even expect hardship, strife, and persecution.


Perhaps, but if it also makes a person better than they would have been otherwise, then it would be foolish to not get behind it for that person.


I see many religions out there and even Christian denominations that have painted their mission as some sort of self help/self improvement course and that couldn't be further from what the Bible teaches.
Well, keep in mind that some of them believe (or at least claim to believe) that the Bible does teach those things. Are they right? Are you?

That's really the problem with religion: there's no single standard of reference that can be objectively demonstrated to be correct. If there were, there would be no need for "faith".

This is why many (perhaps even most) of us who are on the fence are on the fence, and remain there. Can you blame us? :)

When there's no way to show to someone else in completely unambiguous terms that your beliefs are correct, the only thing left to fall back on is the recognition of that fact and the (hopefully) resulting acceptance that the other person can and does believe differently from you and that it really is okay. When even that breaks down, you get religious wars -- the bloodshed that Meplat was expressing concern about.


These Islamic Jihadists we'd been talking about are wrong because they are killing a bunch of people for believing differently than they do. They can no more prove their beliefs to be true than anyone else can, so their position is at best not demonstrably superior, and they are destroying that which otherwise could make them stronger and wiser.

SDgarrick
11-14-2009, 8:40 PM
It's curious, that almost every time someone (in this instance Southwest Chuck) tries to point out that the real problem behind these murderous attacks is Islam, then, someone else, reflexively it seems, pops up to declare that Islam is not the problem, but, rather, it's just a 'rogue sect,' it's a 'perversion of Islam,' etc., etc. That defensive assertion is beginning to ring very hollow.

It's becoming fairly obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that Islam itself is the problem---that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.

Consider this, would you like to live in a country ruled by Islamic Sharia law???? I sure as heck wouldn't.

Your statement lacks substance. If you are going to attack a religion based on the actions of radicals, and you fail to see the logical disconnect, then there is no helping you.

7x57
11-14-2009, 10:31 PM
Me too. I haven't been on Dictionary.com yet today. :):)

Ouch! I felt that right through the padding. ;)

7x57

oldrifle
11-14-2009, 11:12 PM
Allow me to break it down for you all.

If you believe that any single religion has all of the answers and that it's the one true way, you're an idiot. Believe in God, enjoy church, have your philosophies about the meaning of life, define your morality in whatever way you see fit... but just realize that religion is man's creation, not God's. That's why it's so easily perverted to suit whatever evil agenda the powers that be desire, and that criticism can be leveled at Islam and Christianity pretty much evenly when looked at historically.

Everyone who practices a religion needs to get off their high horse and see that no religion is really innocent of killing and persecution because, like I said, religion is not of God but of man.

Now, can we let this thread die or move it to off-topic?

7x57
11-15-2009, 12:53 AM
I was hoping you'd jump into this, 7x57. :D


Gosh, and I figured you'd had enough of me when we tangled over, hmm, whatever it was we were fighting about before I went deer hunting. :D


I have no doubt that some of the axioms I'm using are theology specific.


In any event, I came up with enough subtle points to ask in responding to this message that I'm less sure now that I understood your argument than I thought previously, so perhaps more care is in order before I try to state how your position relates to Christian theology.


I'm used to discussing these things with Bible-belt Christians, the most vocal of which tend to be rather fundamentalist in nature, and perhaps that has tainted things a bit.


I spent a lot of growing-up time in Indiana, Ohio, and Southern Illinois. That's bible-belt. Am I not living up to it?

I hardly know what "fundamentalist" means. According to the news media, it apparently encompasses the entire range of historic Christian faith. And Old_Timer says my preferred technical definition is in error, and as a fundamentalist pastor he presumably should know.

Actually, I think it means "someone who opposes the leading-edge liberal agenda and also claims some sort of religion or the other." You know--the same as "dangerous gun nut." Or, I learned this election, "racist." :rolleyes:


Hmm...which of the following is unbiblical in the view of most Christians?

God knows all


Exhaustive Foreknowledge is quite secure. Most people can't name a group that denies it, which I think satisfies "most."


God is capable of all (that is, has the power to do what he wishes)


Mmm. I'm going to say "not quite," but you might regard it as a quibble. You decide.

Technically, the standard position is that God has no external constraints. That's not the same as "capable of all," as there are quite a few things the Christian God is apparently not capable of doing because they contradict his own intrinsic nature. For example, the Christian God is not capable of lying, because lying is not in God's nature. It is a limit, in one sense, but that is what the theological shorthand "omnipotent" means. That's the thrust of "God is truth"--taken literally it appears to be a category error, but it means (at least) that truth is an inseparable part of God's nature. I'm not sure if that is a limitation that you would view as relevant to the discussion, but in any case that is the theologian's position: God has no constraints outside himself whatsoever, but is certainly (and completely, without error) constrained by his own nature.

(For nitpicking completeness perhaps I should add that God is not capable of naked logical contradiction, if you don't want to include that as part of his constraint to fulfil his own nature. It is no impeachment of Omnipotence that God cannot be both The God Of Israel and Not The God Of Israel, as that is simply a consequence of a basic logical identity.)

More relevant to this discussion is that God is also incapable of evil (that sounds like a simple definition, but as the bible assumes a ready correspondence between the ordinary human notion of evil and "that thing God is not" it is more than merely definitional).

I think the thrust of your argument is this: if God created everything, and evil exists, then God is by definition responsible for evil in some ultimate sense. Is that more or less it?

If so, then let's contrast it with this reasonably clear statement:


Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.


It is verses like these that lead to theologians making statements like the following (this one is from Wayne Grudem's systematic theology): "To blame God for sin would be blasphemy against the character of God." I believe that to be a representative statement.

Is that compatible with your argument, or not? I suspect you may not like the "God tempts no one" statement, as according to James it must be true that God created a universe in which temptation exists without it being true that God "tempts anyone." If you believe that logically contradictory, then we have probably diagnosed the disagreement.


I've not seen or heard any Christian ever proposing that God is inherently (i.e., not by choice) limited in power in such a way that the universe he created is not what he wanted.


Let's try to understand what precisely you mean by "not what he wanted." If you are arguing that (1) God must have foreseen the existence of evil in the universe, and is responsible for it because he created the universe anyway," then perhaps I should not quarrel with you too much. In that sense, one can say that God wanted a world with evil in it.

The problem there is that it isn't clear that this does what you claimed (alternatively, I have not understood what you claimed). It may be that God's overarching will was to create a world containing creatures capable of real moral choices not foreordained by God (BTW, here is the precise point where I've left certain Calvinists and Thomists behind, but not in my opinion the better ones), and that all possible worlds with precisely the creatures he desires must contain evil. Then the issue is whether God desires these morally free creatures more or less than he desires a world without evil. I believe it would be an Orthodox position to say the former. In that sense God both does and does not obtain his desire--the lesser priority is thwarted by the greater, but nevertheless of the two choices God obtains the one he prefers overall. What he does not obtain is a third option (which I have hypothesized was impossible) with morally free creatures but without evil.

There is a useful set of terms for what I believe I just expressed fairly: God's will antecedent to any human choice is, necessarily, that there be no evil. (There is a sense in which the precise definition of evil is whatever is contrary to God's will.) But God's will consequent to human choice is the world we experience, evil and all. Sometimes it's useful to be clear on whether we're talking about God's antecedent will or consequent will. (Note that the theologians have chosen the words carefully so as not to imply that one is before and the other after evil in time, precisely because exhaustive foreknowledge means time is not a consideration.)

That brings us to an important question: do you regard what I described as containing a limitation on God or not? You could take the position that a God not capable of creating morally free creatures without permitting evil is a limited God. I took what I think is a more Orthodox Christian position, that a non-possibility is not the same as a limitation. But if you wish to term it a limitation, I'm not sure Christians are obliged to regard God as unlimited in that sense.

I'm going to have to split the message. I can't believe how long this has gotten--oh, wait, yes I can. I seem to remember doing this before. Once or twice.

This IS CalTheology.net, right? :eek:

7x57

Meplat
11-15-2009, 1:06 AM
Allow me to break it down for you all.

If you believe that any single religion has all of the answers and that it's the one true way, you're an idiot. Believe in God, enjoy church, have your philosophies about the meaning of life, define your morality in whatever way you see fit... but just realize that religion is man's creation, not God's. That's why it's so easily perverted to suit whatever evil agenda the powers that be desire, and that criticism can be leveled at Islam and Christianity pretty much evenly when looked at historically.

Everyone who practices a religion needs to get off their high horse and see that no religion is really innocent of killing and persecution because, like I said, religion is not of God but of man.

Now, can we let this thread die or move it to off-topic?

My religion only embraces piece and love. KMA

7x57
11-15-2009, 1:13 AM
No, that assumption doesn't come into play at all in my considerations. In particular, if God wishes some things to be true some of the time and other things to be true at other times, then an all-powerful God will get that wish. Where things get interesting is if God is not all-powerful by nature (and not by his own choice).


It seems clear that even without exhaustive foreknowledge God does not "get what he wishes" in the sense that he must be both aware of evil while it is happening and, um, "physically" capable of stopping it. So denying exhaustive foreknowledge won't prevent you from impeaching God for not stopping Roman Polanski from raping that girl after he made his intention clear but before he actually harmed her. In that sense, there is a certain force in the line about "if there is a God, he is the devil." But the Christian conception of God clearly regards that as *permitting* evil, but denies it implies God's moral responsibility for evil. The book of Job seems to teach that in most cases we have no hope of knowing why God permits what he permits (and why God permits evil to happen to Job is unsettling to us moderns), but flatly denies God is morally culpable for doing so.

That, perhaps, is the language we need to use to obtain clarity. It seems your argument may be that it is logically impossible for God to permit evil without being morally responsible for it. The bible seems to assert quite clearly that this is not true. If that is your position, then we have expressed the disagreement simply and clearly.


That argument is independent of the fact that suffering exists in the world. Now, if Christians (in general) believe


I should be careful talking about what "Christians in general believe"; Christians in general don't know theology at anything like this level of detail, and I might not be able to deduce what they believe but may not be able to express clearly.


that the universe that God created is not the universe that God wanted/wants, then clearly it is possible for suffering to exist despite God's wishes on the matter. But if Christians believe that the universe is what God intended it to be then clearly it follows that God wants suffering to exist, and that he wants suffering to exist independently of choice, belief, intent, etc. Or, at the very least, doesn't care at all about these things.


This may be a useful way to express it. In at least one sense the bible is clear that God does *not* get what he wants, since evil is categorically against his antecedent will. But it is, self-evidently, not against his consequent will. The bible asserts (occasionally; usually it assumes it as understood) that this does not imply God's moral responsibility for evil.


No, not necessarily (and, certainly, the universe appears, at the most fundamental level, to be nondeterministic to us),


I assume you are speaking of quantum mechanics here. In fact what you say is popularly believed but not at all clear: the time-evolution of states is deterministic and unitary according to Schrodinger's equation, and the nondeterminism comes from the completely non-unitary collapse of the state (wave function, if you prefer) during measurement. But in some QM interpretations, the collapse is not a physical phenomenon but rather a useful calculational tool, and in those theories the complete "wave function of the universe" evolves always according to (the relativistic generalization of) Schrodinger's equation with absolute determinism.

That is in fact my own preference, but without a satisfactory interpretive schema (we have none) there is no way to prove whether wave-function collapse is real or not (experimentally we can't tell the difference).


The universe can be deterministic to God but not to the inhabitants of the universe (think deterministic random number generator here).


This implies some kind of "hidden variables" theory. Bell's Inequality mostly rules them out, at least as a matter of physics. (I prefer not to attempt the question of how introducing an Omniscient God might impact Bell's Inequality! Bell's Inequality made my head hurt the last time I understood it, and introducing God can't possibly make that better).

Or maybe not, depending on how you mean it--exhaustive foreknowledge means God would know the dice rolls (wave-function collapses) in advance, so God can't see a non-deterministic universe in that sense. I'm not sure what it would mean, or even whether it would mean anything, for God to have exhaustive foreknowledge of something he perceived as non-deterministic!


Even if the universe is nondeterministic to God, it is that way only because God wishes it to be that way -- unless, again, God is limited in power and possibly knowledge (in the case of knowledge, it would be that God did not realize that the universe he created would be nondeterministic to him).


Yes, my last paragraph apparently was the sense you mean. This turns out to have gotten unusual attention recently (unusual by historical standards, where it's uncontroversial) because of something called "Open Theism." You've correctly deduced one major option--God does not know the future (but perfectly knows the present) because of a freely chosen self-limitation.

The other standard alternative is to argue that future knowledge is not possible and does not exist, and God's Omniscience simply means knowing everything knowable (basically, the complete present and past). Open Theists deny this is a limitation or a cheat--everyone else says of course it is both.

I had not actually ever considered your other possibility--a God who creates a universe whose nature he does not know beforehand. I like it--it's creative and interesting. I believe it cannot possibly be made compatible with Christian theology, but I eagerly await your monograph arguing brilliantly to the contrary. :D


Well, I was under the impression that I was dealing with Christians' actual beliefs on the attributes of God,


Possibly. I'm raising terribly nitpicking points to try and find out.


but more to the point, what I was really doing was illustrating the consequences of a particular set of beliefs that I know at least some subset of Christians hold to be true, and demonstrating that the world as it is proves at least one particular attribute of God to be true, and that attribute is one that most would generally not regard as putting God in a favorable light.


The absolute constraint as far as Christian theology goes is that God cannot be morally responsible for evil. All systems must have that property to qualify as non-blasphemous, let alone orthodox--some do so in ways I personally regard as cheating, such as certain Calvinist theories about God's public versus his secret will, but they must have it somehow. You are arguing, I believe, that this is inconsistent with Omnipotence and Omniscience. That's the space I'm trying to explore and work out which precise point you have chosen to plant your flag on.


My statement is rooted in the notion that God is capable of creating a universe with whatever attributes he wishes it to have. I am not aware of anything in the Bible that contradicts that particular notion, but would be happy to be enlightened on this.

I don't believe the bible addresses the possibility of other worlds much, but some vague memory warns me to use weasel words so maybe there is something. But I think we're stuck with deduction as far as what alternatives God had to creating the world we experience.

In your usage, did my earlier discussion of antecedent and consequent wills contradict your idea of what it means that God can create a universe with "whatever attributes he wishes it to have"? If so, my belief is that this position is not clearly required by the bible.

I suppose I'll regret even bringing it up, but my coy comments about "certain Calvinists" is more or less because I am aware of other positions. Supralapsarian Calvinism basically says that God decreed the fall itself, and therefore (if I understand it) even God's antecedent will was to decree the existence of evil. (The more common Infralapsarian position has the fall, at least, as only permitted consequent to God's foreknowledge that it would happen.) But I could be wrong--it is not my position, and I have limits in how well I can channel the more hard-edged Calvinist positions. I do regard Calvinism as orthodox, though Supralapsarianism may be pushing it. It's not fair for me to say without spending a lot more time trying to get inside the head of a Supralapsarian, and I can't do so well enough to truly understand how they avoid (or believe they avoid) making God morally culpable for evil. (I recall seeing one theologian so committed to Supralapsarian meticulous sovereignty that he did not try to avoid making God decree sin, but I personally believe he had a foot over the line and won't defend him no matter how he ended up absolving God of the moral responsibility.)

BTW, Catholic theologians appear not to regard any form of Calvinism as Orthodox (I believe what I have argued above would be permissible to Catholics as well as Protestants). Make of it what you will. That might be one of those places you've heard about where angels fear to tread, however. :chris:

I believe I can hear Meplat screaming in agony, so I guess my work here is done. :43:

7x57

kcbrown
11-15-2009, 3:09 AM
Gosh, and I figured you'd had enough of me when we tangled over, hmm, whatever it was we were fighting about before I went deer hunting. :D


We were conversing about the derivation of the notion of rights. A conversation that as far as I know we never finished, alas...



I spent a lot of growing-up time in Indiana, Ohio, and Southern Illinois. That's bible-belt. Am I not living up to it?
I always thought "Bible belt" referred primarily to southern states. Regardless, your approach to the subject is considerably more nuanced than most, Bible belt or not. :D



I hardly know what "fundamentalist" means. According to the news media, it apparently encompasses the entire range of historic Christian faith. And Old_Timer says my preferred technical definition is in error, and as a fundamentalist pastor he presumably should know.
I think it's reasonably safe to say that a "fundamentalist" is someone who attempts to interpret the words of his religion's foundational text literally and, often, without additional historical context. Such people often regard the foundational text as being self-contained.

The resulting set of beliefs tends to have, in my experience, some predictable attributes.



Exhaustive Foreknowledge is quite secure. Most people can't name a group that denies it, which I think satisfies "most."
OK, this is good to know.



Technically, the standard position is that God has no external constraints. That's not the same as "capable of all," as there are quite a few things the Christian God is apparently not capable of doing because they contradict his own intrinsic nature.
I thought you might bring up this distinction. Suffice it to say, this distinction isn't really relevant to my argument at all. Indeed, the intrinsic nature of the Christian God merely serves to define his desires. That is a completely separate thing from his power, which is what I'm really referring to here when I say "capable of anything".

To be more precise, "capable of anything" as I use it here means that the only things God cannot do are those things that, due to his nature, he does not wish to do.



(For nitpicking completeness perhaps I should add that God is not capable of naked logical contradiction, if you don't want to include that as part of his constraint to fulfil his own nature. It is no impeachment of Omnipotence that God cannot be both The God Of Israel and Not The God Of Israel, as that is simply a consequence of a basic logical identity.)
Fair enough, but this, too, is also not relevant to my argument. It's good to know, though, as a way of avoiding some otherwise pointless bickering. :D



More relevant to this discussion is that God is also incapable of evil (that sounds like a simple definition, but as the bible assumes a ready correspondence between the ordinary human notion of evil and "that thing God is not" it is more than merely definitional).
Depending on what you mean by evil, this alone, combined with the other two, may result in an internal logical contradiction within the belief system.

I generally don't tend to talk about evil when it comes to God, although I'm willing to. To talk about it at all, we need a good working definition of it.


I think the thrust of your argument is this: if God created everything, and evil exists, then God is by definition responsible for evil in some ultimate sense. Is that more or less it?
Not really. For my argument, evil doesn't enter into the picture. Pain and suffering are the only things that are relevant for it. "Evil" tends to be something that is difficult to nail down, much less agree on in more than a basic, visceral way. Pain and suffering, on the other hand, are both universally known (because they are a universal part of our existence) and readily observed.



It is verses like these that lead to theologians making statements like the following (this one is from Wayne Grudem's systematic theology): "To blame God for sin would be blasphemy against the character of God." I believe that to be a representative statement.
Blasphemy and falsehood are not at all the same thing. Something may be an affront and/or objectionable, but true nonetheless.

I am unconcerned about whether or not a given statement is blasphemous. I am only concerned about whether or not it is accurate.



I suspect you may not like the "God tempts no one" statement, as according to James it must be true that God created a universe in which temptation exists without it being true that God "tempts anyone." If you believe that logically contradictory, then we have probably diagnosed the disagreement.
There is a difference between saying that God "tempts" someone and that God is responsible for the existence of temptation. The temptation itself may have something else within the universe as a direct source but God, being the creator of the universe, is ultimately responsible for the existence of that temptation.




Let's try to understand what precisely you mean by "not what he wanted." If you are arguing that (1) God must have foreseen the existence of evil in the universe, and is responsible for it because he created the universe anyway," then perhaps I should not quarrel with you too much. In that sense, one can say that God wanted a world with evil in it.
Almost. And yet, not quite what I'm trying to say.

The ability to foresee what you'll get when you create something is necessary, but it's not sufficient. You must also be able to get what you foresee. Now, the problem with God is that not only is he able to get what he foresees, he is able to choose what he foresees. That is a fundamental part of the act of creation as a sentient being, after all: you create with intent, with a specific desire. As a limited being, if I create something, I will get something like what I intend but it won't be exactly what I intend, due to some combination of not being able to foresee all the consequences of my creative action or not being able to perfectly execute my creative intent.

But God, being both all knowing and all-powerful, always gets what he intends (i.e., wants), by definition. Therefore, the universe, being God's creation, is by definition what God intended it to be. And therefore, all the elements within it are what God intended them to be.

A simpler way of saying all that is: the universe is a direct reflection of God's wishes. This follows directly from the meanings of "all knowing" and "all powerful", even if you stipulate that "all powerful" does not include the ability to create logical contradictions (if you really want to get weird, even certain logical contradictions aren't beyond the realm of possibility since one can stipulate parallel universes).

And therefore, since pain and suffering exist in this universe, God intended them to be a part of this universe. And therefore, it is a contradiction to say that God is not cruel, because cruelty means intentionally inflicting pain and suffering, or causing pain and suffering to be inflicted, when it is unnecessary to do so. See below.


The problem there is that it isn't clear that this does what you claimed (alternatively, I have not understood what you claimed). It may be that God's overarching will was to create a world containing creatures capable of real moral choices not foreordained by God (BTW, here is the precise point where I've left certain Calvinists and Thomists behind, but not in my opinion the better ones), and that all possible worlds with precisely the creatures he desires must contain evil. Then the issue is whether God desires these morally free creatures more or less than he desires a world without evil. I believe it would be an Orthodox position to say the former. In that sense God both does and does not obtain his desire--the lesser priority is thwarted by the greater, but nevertheless of the two choices God obtains the one he prefers overall. What he does not obtain is a third option (which I have hypothesized was impossible) with morally free creatures but without evil.
Now we're getting somewhere.

But the argument still doesn't save you.

Why?

Because, assuming that pain and suffering are necessary for moral choices to be made (something I'm not sure is true), it is still possible for God to create a universe where pain and suffering result only directly from moral choices and from nothing else.

That is not the universe we live in. In the universe we live in, much pain and suffering occurs independently of any moral choice. As I said, there are some people who are in a state of constant pain and suffering from birth. There is also the tremendous amount of pain and suffering that occur as a result of the various natural events in the world. Since that pain and suffering is all independent of moral choice, it follows that God is cruel, for there is no reason for that pain and suffering to exist except that God wants it to exist.



That brings us to an important question: do you regard what I described as containing a limitation on God or not? You could take the position that a God not capable of creating morally free creatures without permitting evil is a limited God. I took what I think is a more Orthodox Christian position, that a non-possibility is not the same as a limitation. But if you wish to term it a limitation, I'm not sure Christians are obliged to regard God as unlimited in that sense.
I think we really need to nail down a definition of "evil" before we can speak clearly on this specific subject.

kcbrown
11-15-2009, 4:08 AM
It seems clear that even without exhaustive foreknowledge God does not "get what he wishes" in the sense that he must be both aware of evil while it is happening and, um, "physically" capable of stopping it.


Well, based on what you said earlier, the presumption here is that the evil in question is necessary for the choices involved to be moral choices, correct?

It therefore follows that any evil that exists which is not the direct result of a moral choice should not exist if, indeed, God does not wish evil to exist (but has an overriding wish for moral choice to exist). It also follows that the evil that does exist as a result of a moral choice should be as limited as possible.

So if one shows that there is more evil in the world than is strictly necessary for choices to remain "moral" in kind, then it follows that one will have shown that God is directly responsible for at least some evil in the world.

Since the universe generally presents us with limited sets of choices and therefore limited sets of consequences as a result of the rules governing it, it follows that the consequences of those choices are also be limited by the rules governing the universe, even if they occur as a result of moral choices. Which is another way of saying that the intent of giving free will can be met by having very little evil in the world: only enough to make the moral choice itself clearly a moral choice -- to make it clear that the choice is between good and evil. I submit that the amount and degree of evil in the world vastly exceeds this minimal necessary amount.

But even if one can't show that there's more evil in the world than strictly necessary, I believe it's clear that God bears at least some responsibility (I cannot say whether it's "moral" responsibility or not) for the evil in the world. See below.


Again, we really need to define what we mean by the term "evil" to really talk about it at length.



This may be a useful way to express it. In at least one sense the bible is clear that God does *not* get what he wants, since evil is categorically against his antecedent will. But it is, self-evidently, not against his consequent will. The bible asserts (occasionally; usually it assumes it as understood) that this does not imply God's moral responsibility for evil.
I would argue here that God has some responsibility (moral or not) for evil here, but the fact that free will was involved means that the responsibility isn't exclusive.

You cannot write a computer program which has external inputs ("free will" here) which causes something bad to occur when a certain set of inputs is given and then claim that you are not at least partially responsible for the fact that the bad thing happened. Some external inputs may have triggered it, but you as the creator of the program still bear at least some responsibility for the results, because you intentionally coded the program so that the specific bad thing would happen.



I assume you are speaking of quantum mechanics here. In fact what you say is popularly believed but not at all clear: the time-evolution of states is deterministic and unitary according to Schrodinger's equation, and the nondeterminism comes from the completely non-unitary collapse of the state (wave function, if you prefer) during measurement. But in some QM interpretations, the collapse is not a physical phenomenon but rather a useful calculational tool, and in those theories the complete "wave function of the universe" evolves always according to (the relativistic generalization of) Schrodinger's equation with absolute determinism.
Einstein would have liked that interpretation.

The lack of determinism comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Determinism requires complete knowledge, but the Uncertainty Principle prevents complete knowledge from being possible.

It should also be noted that the wave function itself may be a probabilistic entity in and of itself, if my rudimentary understanding of QM is correct. There may be some interpretations in which that's not the case, however. I only went through an undergraduate "modern physics" course so my educational training on the subject is limited. I'm currently reviewing that material and intend to study QM more intently and deeply afterwards, so perhaps I'll come away with a better understanding of it all once I'm done.


Regardless, the universe as it is appears to be nondeterministic in one way or another, in that it appears to be impossible to get a complete picture of the state of things at any given point in time in order to calculate the next state.



That is in fact my own preference, but without a satisfactory interpretive schema (we have none) there is no way to prove whether wave-function collapse is real or not (experimentally we can't tell the difference).
With respect to the nondeterministic nature of the universe, I'm not sure it matters if the wave function collapse is real or not. In some sense, if it can't be measured even in principle, then it doesn't really matter, at least as regards our own abilities.



This implies some kind of "hidden variables" theory. Bell's Inequality mostly rules them out, at least as a matter of physics. (I prefer not to attempt the question of how introducing an Omniscient God might impact Bell's Inequality! Bell's Inequality made my head hurt the last time I understood it, and introducing God can't possibly make that better).
LOL! I can see why!

Bell's Inequality doesn't apply here, however. Nothing says that the "random number generator" need exist in the observable universe for it to have an effect on it. Indeed, at the end of the day, all we're really doing in science is modeling the universe to the best of our abilities based on what we can see, so it's entirely possible that we will never discover the source of the randomness we see.

A sufficiently good random number generator yields results that are indistinguishable from real randomness, and I'm presuming here that God is sufficiently capable of conjuring up such a thing and using it as the source of the randomness in the universe. :D



Or maybe not, depending on how you mean it--exhaustive foreknowledge means God would know the dice rolls (wave-function collapses) in advance, so God can't see a non-deterministic universe in that sense. I'm not sure what it would mean, or even whether it would mean anything, for God to have exhaustive foreknowledge of something he perceived as non-deterministic!
Well, my point is that it's possible for the universe to be deterministic to God but nondeterministic to us. For the purpose of this discussion, God's view of the universe is what matters.

But see below.



Yes, my last paragraph apparently was the sense you mean. This turns out to have gotten unusual attention recently (unusual by historical standards, where it's uncontroversial) because of something called "Open Theism." You've correctly deduced one major option--God does not know the future (but perfectly knows the present) because of a freely chosen self-limitation.
One possibility is that free will itself introduces nondeterminism. For how could the will in question be truly "free" if it were always entirely predictable?

Even if the universe is nondeterministic to God in order to satisfy free will, my argument holds true because God need only have control over the probabilities involved (ostensibly in the act of creating the universe).



I had not actually ever considered your other possibility--a God who creates a universe whose nature he does not know beforehand. I like it--it's creative and interesting. I believe it cannot possibly be made compatible with Christian theology, but I eagerly await your monograph arguing brilliantly to the contrary. :D
LOL! I'm afraid it's going to have to wait until I finish my other studies. :D



The absolute constraint as far as Christian theology goes is that God cannot be morally responsible for evil. All systems must have that property to qualify as non-blasphemous, let alone orthodox--some do so in ways I personally regard as cheating, such as certain Calvinist theories about God's public versus his secret will, but they must have it somehow. You are arguing, I believe, that this is inconsistent with Omnipotence and Omniscience.
As I said before, it is irrelevant to me whether a given notion is blasphemous to a religious system or not. What matters to me is truth and internal consistency. If a given system claims that God is not at least partly responsible (morally or "physically") for evil while also simultaneously claiming that God has the attributes necessary to result in a universe that is a direct reflection of his will, then that system is internally contradictory and that's pretty much that.



I don't believe the bible addresses the possibility of other worlds much, but some vague memory warns me to use weasel words so maybe there is something. But I think we're stuck with deduction as far as what alternatives God had to creating the world we experience.
No doubt.



In your usage, did my earlier discussion of antecedent and consequent wills contradict your idea of what it means that God can create a universe with "whatever attributes he wishes it to have"? If so, my belief is that this position is not clearly required by the bible.
I recognize the difference between antecedent and consequent wills, and how that might have an effect on what the universe looks like. However, I don't believe that to be sufficient to dispatch my argument.



I believe I can hear Meplat screaming in agony, so I guess my work here is done. :43:
Poor guy. At least we're giving him lots of reasons to visit dictionary.com and Wikipedia. :43:

jaq
11-15-2009, 5:38 AM
It seems clear... snip ...
7x57

Learned colleague - conciseness in revelation is a blessing.

I cannot remain silent either - I say to you that the container is not the contained. Seek wisdom instead.

Cheers :D

bodger
11-15-2009, 6:36 AM
Ouch! I felt that right through the padding. ;)

7x57


LOL! I meant that as a compliment.

And did you get a deer?

The Director
11-15-2009, 8:54 AM
If you believe that any single religion has all of the answers and that it's the one true way, you're an idiot.

Wow, thanks for that as well as your extensive supporting evidence. Old Rifle has spoken! We all have our answers. Everyone move along....nothing to see here.

Let me break it down for YOU.

Person A follows religion X. Religion X claims to be the one true way and has a certain set of accepted doctrines, Y.

Person B follows religion Z. Religion Z claims to be the one true way and has a certain set of accepted doctrines, V.

If they both claim to be the one true way but have different and conflicting doctrines.....one of them is wrong. Plain and simple.

'sup to man to figure out which is right based on the evidence.

oldrifle
11-15-2009, 9:05 AM
Yeah, that was kind of my point... :rolleyes:

Religion isn't really about "evidence" is it? It's about faith. If you were to hold the doctrines of any particular religion up to the light of the scientific method, it would likely fall short by a large margin. It's about what you BELIEVE (or pretend to believe), not about what you think.

But, like I said... religions are a human construct and are not of God.

How did I get sucked into this off topic thread?


Person A follows religion X. Religion X claims to be the one true way and has a certain set of accepted doctrines, Y.

Person B follows religion Z. Religion Z claims to be the one true way and has a certain set of accepted doctrines, V.

If they both claim to be the one true way but have different and conflicting doctrines.....one of them is wrong. Plain and simple.

'sup to man to figure out which is right based on the evidence.

7x57
11-15-2009, 12:32 PM
LOL! I meant that as a compliment.


Ah. Well, most people don't, but I'll take everything I can get. :D


And did you get a deer?

Nope. :(

Those deer appear to irrationally disregard to my extremely sophisticated proof that their nature is to be venison and thus should rationally just give up and come over where I can dispatch them cleanly and humanely. If I didn't know better, I'd say I'll just have to learn to be good enough to hunt them the hard way. :D

7x57

7x57
11-15-2009, 12:33 PM
If they both claim to be the one true way but have different and conflicting doctrines.....one of them is wrong. Plain and simple.


Yay! A classical thinker. :thumbsup:

Technically, at least one of them is wrong, but I know you meant it precisely that way.

7x57

Sniper3142
11-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Are you suggesting that islam as a whole promotes violence?

Read a book, man.

Specifically, the Koran.

There are a few rogue sects that are advocating violence claiming it's ordained by their God. It is not. Read the book.



I am curious

People always say Islam is a peaceful religion and that these acts of violence are the work of a few radicals.

But why then are the LEADERS of the Islamic faith either silent about these attacks or openly support or justify them?!?

Where is the OPEN and PUBLIC denouncing of these acts of violence by the Islamic leaders?? Where is the call to STOP these attacks? Where are the calls for PEACE and UNDERSTANDING??

When a person or group can have a "jihad" or open death threat declared against them for saying or writing anything considered offensive to the Islamic faith, I have to wonder about this whole "peaceful religion" stuff.

When people are attacked and / or killed, buildings burned or bombed, all because of something said or written (even a COMIC!!), I wonder why none of these "Islamic Leaders" say ENOUGH already?!?!

Mikeb
11-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Yeah, that was kind of my point... :rolleyes:

Religion isn't really about "evidence" is it? It's about faith. If you were to hold the doctrines of any particular religion up to the light of the scientific method, it would likely fall short by a large margin. It's about what you BELIEVE (or pretend to believe), not about what you think.

But, like I said... religions are a human construct and are not of God.

How did I get sucked into this off topic thread?


Hey Oldrifle you're doing great, don't stop now.
So is religion a democracy? So if there are more muslims than practitioners of other faiths, are they "the one true way"? If one group avows that it has more miracles in it's history, does that prove they are right? If a religion says the world is 6000 years old and you find artifacts that say it is older , are they "the wrong path".
I believe that religion is a human co0nstruct. It is useful in creating a cohesive society. And , it allows the various societies to throw stones at one another. Humans have always sought God. It seems to be part of our makeup. Which group got it right? God only knows. I wonder what the creator thinks about our "human" squabbling?
take care
Mike

7x57
11-15-2009, 12:45 PM
Religion isn't really about "evidence" is it? It's about faith.


Well, that's what the nineteenth century turned Christian doctrine into, anyway.

The actual doctrine is that evidence is often part of what convinces one to believe, and an entire school of apologetics is known as the "evidential" method for that reason.

"Faith" in the New Testament is a translation of some Greek words that are not equivalent to what we now use "faith" to mean, and in fact are a lot broader. A good chunk of it has to do with loyalty, paralleling an older English usage still fossilized in set phrases like "keeping faith."

The modern concept of faith often more resembles one that James explicitly criticizes. According to him, faith which means only what you are describing is irrelevant to salvation. (ETA: this was unjustified--that isn't what oldrifle was doing, and I must not have been thinking very clearly.)


It's about what you BELIEVE (or pretend to believe), not about what you think.


You'd have a lot of trouble finding support for that in the bible, though I doubt you really care about that. But why do you insist on telling Christians what they are allowed to think about their religion?


But, like I said... religions are a human construct and are not of God.


It's one thing to believe that--it's a rational position. It's another to write as though there is the slightest possibility that Christians could possibly be expected to agree with you. Since the most basic assumption of both Hebrew and Greek scriptures is the categorical opposite of that, again I ask why you insist on telling Christians what their religion must be? Are you seeking to Establish your particular postmodern interpretation of all religions as the State's preferred faith?


How did I get sucked into this off topic thread?

Dunno. Because it hurts so good? Because the silly Christians secretly amuse you? Because you seek to convince people with a somewhat classical Christian belief to switch to a subjectivist version?

7x57

The Director
11-15-2009, 1:14 PM
Yay! A classical thinker. :thumbsup:

7x57


Former Theology student! :D

The Director
11-15-2009, 1:17 PM
As far as it being purely a matter of faith I should also point out that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is one of the best documented events in the history of man. More evidence exists of this in religious and secular texts than just about any other event in antiquity.

7x57
11-15-2009, 1:31 PM
Former Theology student! :D

So you admit your neanderthal faith in the Rule of the Excluded Third is an irrational product of your outdated religion! Report to re-education camp immediately....

Which denomination? Which school?

I have occasionally threatened to write a paper on the theology of self-defense, but never follow through on it.

7x57

NiteQwill
11-15-2009, 1:38 PM
This thread hurts my head reading it ;)

I think I'll go shooting now, much simpler.

pullnshoot25
11-15-2009, 1:46 PM
KC,

True christianity has nothing to do with making a person "better", improving the quality of their lives, or healing them of any ailments they might have.

True Christianity is hinged on the concept of salvation, and the believer is cautioned many times to learn to endure and even expect hardship, strife, and persecution.

I see many religions out there and even Christian denominations that have painted their mission as some sort of self help/self improvement course and that couldn't be further from what the Bible teaches.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

So true. I see this a lot with all the wayward Protestant sects/cults here @ UCSD. I always get a good laugh out of them.

The Director
11-15-2009, 2:11 PM
So you admit your neanderthal faith in the Rule of the Excluded Third is an irrational product of your outdated religion! Report to re-education camp immediately....

Which denomination? Which school?

I have occasionally threatened to write a paper on the theology of self-defense, but never follow through on it.

7x57

Calvary chapel bible college (non denominational)...

I think the paper you speak of has already been written....I recall reading on www.survivalblog.com someone posted a really nice detailed paper on exactly that topic. The paper focused on why as Christians we are able to defend ourselves with the accompanying scripture to support. I'll have to dig it up.

I can't stand it when people spout "turn the other cheek" when I talk about guns. It seems like the general public knows four or five verses out of the Bible so they can trot it out whenever convenient. "Judge ye not" is another one of my favorites as well as "thou shalt not kill", all butchered, taken out of context, and repackaged to suit the particular speaker's agenda. :rolleyes:

ETA: http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/03/self_defense_and_christianity.html

There were longer more detailed articles...can't locate them just now but the above link is a good primer.

7x57
11-15-2009, 3:43 PM
Calvary chapel bible college (non denominational)...


But sufficiently Evangelical for me to accept without qualms. (ETA: I actually regard CC as a "denomination," and mean no disrespect by that, but I know CC strenuously objects. :D) I don't recall having any issues with CC other than some picky desire they be a little less wedded to the KJV, with is laden with pitfalls for those not willing to invest some time in understanding the Problems with the Textus Receptus and an English that required a high standard of proficiency even in 1611. But that's a pretty minor squabble.

It also tells me why you haven't laid some smack on me for a few probably-uncalled-for potshots at Calvinism. :D


I think the paper you speak of has already been written


Probably, but you may have already guessed that I am the sort of person who tends to want to record his own take anyway. :rolleyes:


I can't stand it when people spout "turn the other cheek" when I talk about guns.


To be fair, and it's admittedly hard, people who cannot think within an honor/shame context are not really going to be able to understand that. At least that is my view on what is going on, but probably that's a minority interpretation. It fits extremely well with quite a bit of Pauline rhetoric, however.


It seems like the general public knows four or five verses out of the Bible so they can trot it out whenever convenient.


Indeed. I'm not offended by consistent pagans, but tremendously bothered by people who quote a book they don't believe in an apparent attempt to bully poorly trained Christians.

I freely admit that the rather vast number of such Christians is perhaps the most annoying thing, and that's not their fault. It's still dishonest, however.


"Judge ye not" is another one of my favorites as well as "thou shalt not kill", all butchered, taken out of context, and repackaged to suit the particular speaker's agenda. :rolleyes:


Indeed. Not to mention that "thou shalt not kill" isn't in the bible, strictly speaking. :chris:


ETA: http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/03/self_defense_and_christianity.html


I want to nitpick a bunch of things in that article, but perhaps will have mercy on everyone at this time.

Part of the problem is that we don't really see too many good professional theologians pursue this topic. Obviously in the seminary career I won't actually have I should propose this as a thesis project. :eek:

7x57

The Director
11-15-2009, 4:31 PM
Cool, man. Good to know you.

I don't want to sound like a gnostic or anything but it's amazing how much study you need to do of the scriptures before you can truly understand them. Are the principles of salvation and the basic tenets of the faith available to anyone with a hotel version of the KJV? Yes.

Christianity is a simple and easily followed faith and no "special" knowledge is required.

Still having a basic understanding of the underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic can really open up some amazing revelations and provide some serious answers. A concordance like Strong's is an amazing tool for those wanting to do further research since the languages the Bible was written in are FAR more expressive than English.

Little things like the word LORD (many instances of it) meaning Elohim in Hebrew, which is a plural word, helping to confirm the triune nature of God. You don't get that in English.

Another word I remember was bara. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" ......the word created there is the Hebrew word "bara" which means created from nothing.....as opposed to the several other Hebrew words which describe created from pre-existing materials, etc.

You gain an insight not possible by reading the text in English.

7x57, none of this will be news to you as you're obviously learned, but I still find it fascinating.

kcbrown
11-15-2009, 5:31 PM
I have found here no one who I would not trust to cover my 6.

That is amaizing!

And I have found nobody here whose 6 I wouldn't be honored to cover.

That's not to say that I would necessarily be able to do a good job of it, but that would be strictly a matter of skill and training: the intent would be there regardless.

I don't suppose being able to shoot 2" groups at 15 yards (not feet) two-handed (not supported), carefully, with a Glock 19 is sufficient for entry into the "cover your 6" brigade? :D

(I honestly have no idea what a good group is considered to be, but 2" at 15 yards is what I can do for better or for worse...)

The Director
11-15-2009, 5:39 PM
I don't suppose being able to shoot 2" groups at 15 yards (not feet) two-handed (not supported), carefully, with a Glock 19 is sufficient for entry into the "cover your 6" brigade? :D



Plenty good!

7x57
11-15-2009, 10:34 PM
We were conversing about the derivation of the notion of rights. A conversation that as far as I know we never finished, alas...


Ah, yes. Well, I assure you that you were dead wrong and I was entirely right. I just have to remember precisely what I was so right about.... :D


I always thought "Bible belt" referred primarily to southern states. Regardless, your approach to the subject is considerably more nuanced than most, Bible belt or not. :D


It's a specialty. Actually, I don't think I argue like anyone but myself, or if I'm lucky certain scholars I respect.


I think it's reasonably safe to say that a "fundamentalist" is someone who attempts to interpret the words of his religion's foundational text literally and, often, without additional historical context. Such people often regard the foundational text as being self-contained.


That's a pretty good definition, at least the contextual part (discussing "literal" would take us into deep water), and I suspect myself of having used it, but it doesn't strictly work as a definition. That really was the hallmark of the Restorationists more than anyone (though anyone who has read Jack Cottrell will have to admit that he can't be painted with that brush, and he's Church of Christ--the real one, not the UCC burlesque of Christianity). I agree it ended up happening quite often among Fundamentalists a century or so later, but that was more or less a consequence of more fundamental issues.

Another definition I've been known to use is the existence of a Separation doctrine, but Old_Timer insists that's not accurate either and I should probably defer to him.

<at this point 7x57 digresses inexcusably, because he doesn't like media abuse of "fundamentalist" any more than he likes abuse of "assault weapon">

Probably the best definition is historical. Back in the general vicinity of 1900, when the "respectable" denominations really got started pushing the kind of theology you get when you read the bible the way the Living Constitutionalists read the law (actually they did it first, and seem to have taught it to the lawyers by way of the English department), by and large those who resisted the change finally left or were thrown out of the denominations they could not preserve or reform. The name for those who consciously retained historic Christianity became "Fundamentalist," after a set of five principles and a collection of essays published interestingly enough in Los Angeles.

Those five principles in fact were things more or less always believed from the very beginning of the church--I doubt they'd have been controversial in any age, East or West, but they were particular objects of attack in the big seminaries (Princeton was ground zero, I believe). By that standard, just about every orthodox Christian throughout history was a Fundamentalist--and that was precisely the point being made, that the results of German theology and it's American children were very, very extreme and could not be accepted (not so different from gun owners insisting that "states rights" is an extreme and unacceptable interpretation of the 2A). John Frame, one of the intellectual heirs of the great struggle at Princeton, refers to liberal theology as ending up as some kind of pagan religion that is no kind of Christianity at all, and he's probably right even though it's politically incorrect to say so.

Later some wanted to dogmatize far more than those five, and some wanted to avoid any contact with the liberalized churches (my impression is that there was almost a germ theory of liberalism among some, that it was contagious unconsciously). At some point a lot of people thought that line of thought was falling off the other side of the horse, and eventually resurrected a fine old word, "Evangelical," as an alternative. It's an interesting choice, because the older meaning was basically "protestant"; to this day in Lutheran circles "Evangelical" retains that meaning. (Still earlier, it would more or less have meant "Christian.") That is pretty much what they meant--that they believed just what men like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley believed.

Some who retained the name "Fundamentalist" more and more interpreted the bible in a naive context, as you say, but for the reason that liberal, non-historic hermeneutics had come from the seminaries, and so they ended up rejecting scholarship. So it's understandable, but not fundamental <grin> to what it was really about. The origin wasn't anti-intellectual, but rather anti-relativism. The founders of the movement were themselves some of the best conservative theologians from Princeton, after all. I was not supposed to be anti-scholarship but about the worldview in which scholarship was done.

The two previous generations of my family lived through all that, so I heard plenty of bits and snippets about it without ever understanding what it was about. It was sort of interesting to read about it much, much later and learn the meaning behind half-remembered conversations overheard as a child. :)


I thought you might bring up this distinction. Suffice it to say, this distinction isn't really relevant to my argument at all.


Noted, though I'm not yet convinced this is true. But that's what I'm trying to find out....


To be more precise, "capable of anything" as I use it here means that the only things God cannot do are those things that, due to his nature, he does not wish to do.


OK, then it appears to be identical to what theologians mean by Omnipotent.


Fair enough, but this, too, is also not relevant to my argument. It's good to know, though, as a way of avoiding some otherwise pointless bickering. :D


I will guess that the concept, at least, was formulated *very* early in the history of the church to respond to pagan philosophers who objected that the Christian God was so transcendent that you couldn't apply logic to him. So that nitpicking doctrine appears to codify the concept that we are justified in using normal logic to reason about God, because the apostles and their immediate disciples did so. The theologian is obliged to preserve the memory of old debates so they don't have to be re-fought all over again.

In other words, it was *always* about avoiding pointless bickering. :rolleyes:


Not really. For my argument, evil doesn't enter into the picture. Pain and suffering are the only things that are relevant for it.


Then I inadvertently introduced a red-herring, and we should simply stick with the Problem of Pain that you were actually discussing.


Blasphemy and falsehood are not at all the same thing. Something may be an affront and/or objectionable, but true nonetheless.


But "blasphemy" doesn't simply mean affront. In a Christian context that kind of blasphemy is by definition untrue. I quoted Grudem not to introduce an irrelevancy but simply to point out how categorically theologians will (must) reject theories that ascribe guilt to God.

We can ignore this too.


And therefore, since pain and suffering exist in this universe, God intended them to be a part of this universe.


Consequently, but not necessarily antecedently. And so your argument means no more than to say that I want my little boy to get hurt because I choose not to stop him from doing something I've warned him will hurt him. That's not going to keep anyone up at night, frankly.


...assuming that pain and suffering are necessary for moral choices to be made (something I'm not sure is true), it is still possible for God to create a universe where pain and suffering result only directly from moral choices and from nothing else.

That is not the universe we live in. In the universe we live in, much pain and suffering occurs independently of any moral choice.


This is interesting and maybe revealing. I believe you assume a weak or non-existent doctrine of the Fall, which the bible seems to regard as being, in some way difficult for us scientifically minded folk to understand (well, at least I speak for myself), responsible for a whole lot more than sin. It isn't as much discussed as sin, but the orthodox belief is that the world was created without those things, and they too stem from the Fall (which, much as it confused me as a child, seems to be responsible for some rather far-reaching reworking of the physical universe). They are regarded as being eliminated in the eschaton (and I think premillennialists are obliged to say diminished to a great degree in the millennium). One way to see this is to note that the bible regards ordinary physical death due to old age as a result of the fall, not simply spiritual death (though it does mean that too). Note that John of Patmos takes pains to make sure we understand that the final triumph is not simply over sin--it is over death itself. Paul states the point bluntly: "The last enemy that will be abolished is death."

You can't entirely separate death and pain from evil as long as you're working within the bible's internal worldview.

7x57

7x57
11-15-2009, 10:49 PM
True christianity has nothing to do with making a person "better", improving the quality of their lives, or healing them of any ailments they might have.


Let's not overstate the point. While salvation is by faith alone, faith is never alone. James in particular is pretty clear that the effect should be real and visible. The theological point, though, is that it is an effect, not a cause.


I see many religions out there and even Christian denominations that have painted their mission as some sort of self help/self improvement course and that couldn't be further from what the Bible teaches.


You mean you were not taught that Jesus came to save us from whatever the bad old thesis happens to be *right now* and teach us to be part of the antithesis which will create the better social order of the synthesis? Shocking omission! :eek:

Yeah, I just accused them of being Marxists (or at least Hegelians). I so wish I were joking, but that is precisely the core theology of several denominations whose name everyone recognizes. It's probably impolite to point fingers, but you (really speaking to the rest of the thread, I suspect you know what I'm saying already) can figure out who they are by googling which groups made Obama and the agenda of the current administration a Christian obligation. Or you can cheat and remember that someone called the NCC the "Socialist party at prayer."

7x57