The war on faith.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
God did not really advocate slaughtering innocents simply because "his people" wanted land or power or some such.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified. The fact their nation was looted, all the men, boys, and women were killed, and the little girls taken as sex slaves... That was all just incidental. I was mistaken attributing that to God - God gave the original directive (vengeance), it was Moses who ordered the women and boys killed.

Numbers 31

But this kind of thing is everywhere in the OT. This is the biggest example frequently used because of the little girls being taken as sex slaves. Deuteronomy 20 and 21 to see how these prisoners were treated, pay particular attention to 21:11-14.

Frankly, if you can read through Deut 20-21 and not see any problem at all with what you find there, we may just have such different moral frameworks there will be no meeting of the minds - but you asserted that all religions are basically tolerant and basically the same, and those passages refute that.

There are some other atrocities that you're probably familiar with, given their status in popular culture. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example of God's "tolerance." Then there were the plagues of Egypt, in which everyone in the nation was punished simply because the Pharaoh wouldn't change his mind, the concept of punishing children for the sins of their parents, etc...

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice it to say that either way, I stand by my claim that Jesus (the founder, and reason, for my religion) never advocated such actions. I concede that the Bible may have its flaws, but it would take some convincing that it isn't interpretational issues or there wasn't some deeper meaning to the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it no way even comes close to resembling a duck? Is that the kind of "interpretational" issue you're talking about? I've linked you to three chapters in which laws and commands are clearly laid down by YH-[censored]-WH, in a supposedly historical context (you can verify that independently). These laws and commands are very clearly warlike. If you want to create some interpretation that it's "all a metaphor" and that all the violence is "just meant to get a message across" and that the nominal historicity is "just to make it easier for the Hebrews to understand," you can go for it. There are interpretations of the Iliad that claim it isn't violent, either. If you really want to take that view, I suppose I can't stop you.

As for Jesus, he affirmed the divinity of the Old Testament. He also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, that he came to set fire to the land. The fact that he wasn't an actual warlord (like Mohammad) isn't really relevant. Even in the most "peaceful" sections of the Bible, like in Matthew, he's very careful to temper all of his peaceful talk about judge not and turn the other cheek with warnings that God would wreak terrible things on the evil. Is it possible to interpret Jesus as being peaceful? Yes. Is that the only valid interpretation? Not by a long shot. Has that been the most common interpretation? Nope. You're suggesting that your interpretation is the interpretation, but you seem to want people to merely take your word for it.

No, I think Jesus really was a peaceful person if he lived, but it only makes the violent interpretations of his teachings that much more telling. I stand by my belief that religion is inherently violent, ignorant, and judgmental.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some people never make it past Nietzsche. And instead of using his teaching as a stepping stone, seem comfortable lying in the philosophical bed he made. But they're easy enough to spot - in fact they're impossible to miss. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, pity those of us stuck with the elementary concepts of Nietzsche. Probably we'll never be able to appreciate the level of sublety and nuance found in Rand.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this is a dig at formal education, as opposed to thinking what you want to think and never considering an alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about an advocation of self-motivated learning that includes different perspectives and is represented by active understanding and imagination, rather than passive rote learning purely from one perspective (that of a PR squad) represented by trying to have the same opinion as the "authorities?"

[ QUOTE ]
If you didn't catch it before, my education was based on religious texts and teaching us to think about the underlying meaning behind the passages. I don't recall ever appealing to the authority of one of my teachers. I simply stated that because, in my nearly 15 years of education, I never saw a Bible passage advocating an *unjust* war or Jesus claiming we should go out and kill in the name of Christianity, I choose to continue to believe that Christianity is not "pro-war". If disagreeing with an atheist/agnostic with no religious education about a religious topic is "appealing to authority" now, then I guess I will continue to appeal to authority....

[/ QUOTE ]

"No religious education?" Speak for yourself. I admit my main focus has been Protestantism (particularly Mormonism), because that's how I was raised and those are the views I'm most frequently exposed to. But I've done plenty of reading from different perspectives on Christian sects as far as gnosticism, on Hindu, on Buddhism, on Taoism, and even a bit of Shinto, Wicca, and Zoroastrianism for diversity. That's not an exhaustive education, there are many religions I'm unfamiliar with (including Islam and Judaism, largely, though their use of what's basically the OT means I have some clue about them). But to call me ignorant?

You're claiming to have an "education" in religion, and yet you admit all your knowledge came from one (clearly biased) source and was related to one specific (and controversial) religion! To me that's not education at all. Your Catholic school is irrelevant - those comparing it to Tom Cruise's "education" are doing so appropriately. The reason Tom Cruise is so taken in is because he's spent years listening to propaganda from one side of the issue, and has never bothered to explore other viewpoints. That's what we call fanaticism, or at least myopia. If you want to be respected as having an education in religion, you'll need to explain what you've learned outside of Nuns-'R'-Us.

(To be fair, you haven't appealed to authority. You mentioned your Catholic school when I challenged your interpretation of the Bible, which was valid.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Were they killed for who they were or for what they did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy as I am that you've found the thread, txag, we've been over this. So far we've gotten you to answer only a few of the hard questions, and your answers generally suggest that destroying an entire nation of people, down to the last baby, is justified if God orders it, simply because the people are "wicked."

That's not "tolerance" by my understanding of the term. I could bring up all the passages where God says to kill people because they're witches or "wicked" people or because they were adulterous, but we all know how that would turn out. I don't think we have anything more to say to each other on the topic.

[Matt R.]

Did you get molested by a priest or something? I can handle healthy debate, but it's pretty clear you have some personal agenda with Christianity. When you start comparing my education in religion at a Catholic school, when you know nothing about the school and what was taught, to Tom Cruise's education and/or fanatical religious opinion, you go from having a civilized debate to being insulting, and, well, looking like a [censored] idiot.

Most of the things you mentioned like the Israelites vs. Midianites are about the Israelites getting vengeance for years of oppession. The Israelites had to take refuge in caves because the oppression was so severe. According to Deuteronomy, God told Moses that it was time for the Israelites to rise up against the oppression.

Since you think this is so wrong, I assume you think it is okay for a group of severely oppressed people not to fight back, am I right? The "atrocities" that Moses spoke of later (not God) were attributable to Moses. God is not Moses. Christianity does not worship Moses. Further, from my admittedly brief skimming of those chapters, it appears you were very careful about how you chose your words. You make it sound like God advocated the raping of little girls. The only passage I saw was Moses speaking about how the men were to take the women hostages as their wives. Again Moses said this, not God. I'm willing to bet that this was VERY common practice in those days in the aftermath of war. This book was written thousands of years ago. I never claimed every little word applied equally today as it applied to the culture of, you know, a very long time ago. Why do you think it should?

Again, I go back to my original claim that Christianity's fundamental teachings never advocate an unjust war. You seem to conveniently gloss over the word "unjust", despite my emphasis on this word at least 2 other times. The Israelites were fighting back, plain and simple.

You need to get it through your head that Jesus never advocated violence unless it was just. He spoke of God exacting punishment on the wicked. You seem to think murderers should get off scot free. If the creator of the universe is not capable of determining proper justice for sinful/immoral actions, then I don't know who is.

The main teaching of Jesus in regards to societal interactions is "Do unto your neighbor as he/she would do unto you." *Everything* else he teaches is a consequence of this, and the idea of loving God. I really, honestly have no clue how you could possibly think Jesus was an advocate of random violence, or unjust war. His one quote of "I come to bring not peace, but the sword" was completely antithetical to his other teachings if you take it at face value. Do you think, maybe, that there was more to it than that one sentence? Or are you content at taking that ONE SINGLE SENTENCE from his entire body of teachings and claiming "Oh, look he wants to kill everyone who isn't a Christian!!" One valid interpretation is that Jesus was predicting that his desciples would not be well received and would encounter violence by those not willing to receive Jesus' message. He was warning about the persecution of Christians. If you read the entire passage surrounding this one sentence, this seems very reasonable.

You know that Jesus spoke in parables constantly right? Why would you take this one sentence, when it is essentially completely opposite to his primary viewpoint, at face value? He *constantly* spoke in symbolism and metaphor. Why do you dismiss his use of metaphor in the one instance that it makes most sense to do so? Oh right, because you don't want to. It doesn't fit your interpretaion of Jesus as a bloodthirty warlord.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
You're claiming to have an "education" in religion, and yet you admit all your knowledge came from one (clearly biased) source and was related to one specific (and controversial) religion! To me that's not education at all. Your Catholic school is irrelevant - those comparing it to Tom Cruise's "education" are doing so appropriately. The reason Tom Cruise is so taken in is because he's spent years listening to propaganda from one side of the issue, and has never bothered to explore other viewpoints. That's what we call fanaticism, or at least myopia. If you want to be respected as having an education in religion, you'll need to explain what you've learned outside of Nuns-'R'-Us.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never admitted all my knowledge was from one source. I've studied a bit of Buddhism and I know a little about other religious history.

Here is what makes zero sense. Why do I have to study, say, Judaism in depth, to be familiar with Christianity?! It is not like other religions constantly attack Christianity. When I said I studied Christianity, I meant I studied the HISTORY of Christianity. I am well aware of opposing viewpoints.

When you know nothing about the source of my teachings (i.e. my specific school) why do you automatically assume it was biased? Again, I am perfectly capable of determining a legitimate education from a biased one. The fact that you automatically assume I was exposed to propoganda indicates that you are incapable of having a debate on religion without resorting to hateful insults. As a matter of fact, what EXACTLY do you know about Tom Cruise's religious education? Did you read about it in the Enquirer? How does the Enquirier compare Tom Cruise's religious education to Matt R.'s religious education? Hmm... I hope it's a reliable source you've got!

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God did not really advocate slaughtering innocents simply because "his people" wanted land or power or some such.

[/ QUOTE ] No, he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to hammer home how ridiculously biased and dishonest you are on this subject.

From wikipedia:

"The Biblical account of the battle between the Midianites and Gideon[16] asserts that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Midianites for a space of six years. The Midianites seem to have been then a powerful and independent nation; they allied themselves with the Amalekites and the Kedemites, and they oppressed the Israelites so severely that many were obliged to seek refuge in caves and strongholds; Midianite raiders destroyed crops and reduced them to extreme poverty.[17]"

So... uh, yeah. Do you see how this is different than the statement "he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified"? Not exactly a historically accurate statement, chief.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
your answers generally suggest that destroying an entire nation of people, down to the last baby, is justified if God orders it, simply because the people are "wicked."

That's not "tolerance" by my understanding of the term.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said God was tolerant?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it no way even comes close to resembling a duck? Is that the kind of "interpretational" issue you're talking about? I've linked you to three chapters in which laws and commands are clearly laid down by YH-[censored]-WH, in a supposedly historical context (you can verify that independently). These laws and commands are very clearly warlike. If you want to create some interpretation that it's "all a metaphor" and that all the violence is "just meant to get a message across" and that the nominal historicity is "just to make it easier for the Hebrews to understand," you can go for it. There are interpretations of the Iliad that claim it isn't violent, either. If you really want to take that view, I suppose I can't stop you.

As for Jesus, he affirmed the divinity of the Old Testament. He also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, that he came to set fire to the land. The fact that he wasn't an actual warlord (like Mohammad) isn't really relevant. Even in the most "peaceful" sections of the Bible, like in Matthew, he's very careful to temper all of his peaceful talk about judge not and turn the other cheek with warnings that God would wreak terrible things on the evil. Is it possible to interpret Jesus as being peaceful? Yes. Is that the only valid interpretation? Not by a long shot. Has that been the most common interpretation? Nope. You're suggesting that your interpretation is the interpretation, but you seem to want people to merely take your word for it.

No, I think Jesus really was a peaceful person if he lived, but it only makes the violent interpretations of his teachings that much more telling. I stand by my belief that religion is inherently violent, ignorant, and judgmental.

[/ QUOTE ]
God the Father is violent and judgmental. No question about it.

Jesus died to protect you from God's judgment.

See the difference?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God did not really advocate slaughtering innocents simply because "his people" wanted land or power or some such.

[/ QUOTE ] No, he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to hammer home how ridiculously biased and dishonest you are on this subject.

From wikipedia:

"The Biblical account of the battle between the Midianites and Gideon[16] asserts that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Midianites for a space of six years. The Midianites seem to have been then a powerful and independent nation; they allied themselves with the Amalekites and the Kedemites, and they oppressed the Israelites so severely that many were obliged to seek refuge in caves and strongholds; Midianite raiders destroyed crops and reduced them to extreme poverty.[17]"

So... uh, yeah. Do you see how this is different than the statement "he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified"? Not exactly a historically accurate statement, chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that different? You are simply listing the bad things that these bad people did. I think those were already accepted. The Midianites were, in fact, bad people. Ok. So, lets slaughter all of their infant children. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]