The war on faith.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least, I'm not familar with the atheist philosophical position ( other than the obvious 'I don't believe in a god' one). Could you point to a shortish source where the other tenets are listed?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you're allowed to claim that Christianity is evil because some Christians advocate war, even though it has no basis in Christian teachings.

So, when John brings up the obvious in that certain atheists in the past have been proponents of immoral wars, we aren't allowed to associate atheism with war because they have nothing to do with each other.

This thread is [censored] hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

JESUS CHRIST! He is claiming that Christianity is violent because the Bible teaches violence! THAT is why he is claiming it. NOT because of violent acts perpetrated by Christians. Not because of the Crusades. The Bible itself promotes violence. Thats his point.

Then, you just dismissed all of that, by saying that you knew the true interpretation, and in fact all of the violence in the Bible is really misinterpreted, or whatever your slant was. And THAT is when he brought up that millions of Christians for thousands of years seem to disagree with YOUR interpretation that the Bible is all about pacifism. Can you understand the seperation now? The Bible would promote violence whether any Christian in the history of the world had never so much as given a charlie horse. Thats his assertion. Countering that with "No, nu-uh, Bible says these things but they are just kidding" is what opens up the topic of the violent history of Christians themselves.

[Matt R.]

UM, JESUS CHRIST DUDE ZOMG!

I'm saying the Bible does NOT advocate violence. WHERE DOES IT TEACH VIOLENCE? Please show me a quote in its FULL CONTEXT, that would lead one to believe the Bible would advocate an ***unjust*** (KEY [censored] WORD) war in the name of Christianity.

I studied religion in school for nearly 15 years. NOT ONCE, in those 15 years did I come across a passage or an interpreation of a passage that advocated violence -- IN THE WAY THIS THREAD IS CLAIMING THAT IT DOES (please do no misquote me on this). Why is it so hard to accept the fact that people throughout history use religion and everything else under the sun to justify what they want?? This is my point. What makes you think that Bible scholars and my religion teachers and me are wrong, yet the ones that advocate violence are RIGHT? I think that *we* are right because Jesus was completely 100% against violence. This is why I think *I* am right. Plus it is also absurd to think a deity is a proponent of murdering in the name of his worship... when the opposing religion is in all likelihood worshipping the same deity under a different name/language.

You keep acting like I'm pulling the idea that "my" interpretation is right out of thin air. The only people in this thread that I see arguing the "war-mongering" interpration is right are atheists and agnostics that HAVE NEVER FORMALLY STUDIED RELIGION. If they have, they sure had a [censored] teacher. Do you understand now why I believe my interpretion is right, when it is based on the teachings of Christ (the founder of my religion)?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Please show me a quote in its FULL CONTEXT,

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible passages are always in limited contexts. The only way to get the full context is to read the relevant book in its entirety.

[ QUOTE ]
that would lead one to believe the Bible would advocate an ***unjust*** (KEY [censored] WORD) war in the name of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I guess your definition of "just" is like txag's? Tell me whether you think the slaughter of the Midianites (ordered by God himself) was just. If you think the killing of an entire nation, with the exception of the little girls who were taken into slavery is just, then we have very different definitions of justice.

[Matt R.]

madnak,
I'm not familiar with the slaughter of the Midianites or your other story, or whether the Bible claims it was ordered by God. It has been too long since my religion classes, and I no longer reference the Bible to determine whether something is moral or not.

I do not take the Bible as literal, first of all. Those stories may be somewhat historical, and I don't know what the beef with the Midianites was. I've never claimed that there could not be human error in the Bible (after all, it was written by humans). My personal use of the Bible comes from the underlying morality.... the stuff hidden beneath Jesus parables, for instance. If you can prove to me that the story of the Midianites is from the Bible and it really advocates slaughtering this group of people for no legitimate reason, I will agree that the "morals" of this story are extremely wrong. But I would *guess* that there is deeper meaning to it and God did not really advocate slaughtering innocents simply because "his people" wanted land or power or some such.

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.

[vhawk01]

What type of formal study are we talking about here, that you did for 15 years? I'm genuinely curious. Do you have a theology doctorate? Or are we just talking about going to Catholic schools your whole life?

[Matt R.]

I went to Catholic school for ~12 years. I've read books on religious subjects occasionally since then. My teachers were, in general, very capable and dug into the historical aspects of Christianity -- The Crusades and all that stuff, for instance. They never sugar-coated anything with the attitude of "Christianity has never done anything wrong". My impression is that you think my schooling was like having crazy evangelicals teach me that everything in the Bible is fact and all other religions are evil. This wasn't the case. Any of my teachers that commented on the evolution issue, for example, were proponents of evolution and thought creationism was psuedo-science. If some believed in creationism I did not know about it because they never mentioned it.

So... my education was not university level and I do not have a doctorate. But I do have several university-level degrees, and I'm fully capable of judging whether the education I received in grade school or high school was crap or not. My religious education was very legitimate, and my religion teachers were, in general, very good and knowledgeable.

[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.

[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.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is Tom Cruise fanatical? I mean, other than the fact he's religious?

You seem to be mad that I'm comparing Christians and Scientologists. I see them in the same light. The one isn't superior - except that the Bible is better literature than Battlefield Earth.

The fact is, the Catholic Church is one of the most (if not the most) biased organizations on the face of the planet. That's where you claimed to get your education from. Also, you seem to lack knowledge of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and you didn't even know who the Midianites were before you looked it up. This is bread-and-butter stuff if you're looking at Christianity from different perspectives. Look, I'm not going to criticize you if you don't know the Book of Esther cover to cover. God knows I don't. But this stuff is relatively basic, and is some of the first that you see when looking from certain positions (such as the atheist position). Claiming that you've had broad experience with perspectives on Christianity but you've never heard of the Midianites is like claiming that you have experience with cell biology but you don't know what cytoplasm is.

Also I almost guarantee Tom Cruise knows more about the Dianetics than you know about the Bible. He is probably also much better-versed in his version of the apologetics. Tom Cruise has, I'm sure, a very solid education in Scientology. My point wasn't to indicate a lack of education, but rather a bias of education.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the things you mentioned like the Israelites vs. Midianites are about the Israelites getting vengeance for years of oppession.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vengeance isn't violent now? In that case, maybe I'll have to concede and acknowledge your vengeful tolerance...

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... yes? This question is poorly worded. I don't think Gandhi was a villain, if that's what you mean. My thoughts on defensive wars and justification are irrelevant, especially since I think "justification" is just a human construct in the first place. I'm not talking about defensive war here.

[ QUOTE ]
The "atrocities" that Moses spoke of later (not God) were attributable to Moses.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the enslavement of the virgins, slaughter of everyone else, those little things? Yeah, nobody's perfect right? What chosen of God doesn't take some sex slaves once in a while? Eh? Eh?

And to avoid any confusion about what God supported, let's talk about that Egypt situation. Hey, let's drop all the horrible plague and famine, and just focus on the killing of the firstborn son of every Egyptian family. Was that Moses's fault too? Or I suppose that poor farmer deserved to lose his firstborn?

[ QUOTE ]
God is not Moses. Christianity does not worship Moses.

[/ QUOTE ]

They recognize him as a villain worse than Hitler, due to his violence and intolerance?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

God declared that it was okay to rape slaves (oh sorry, "marry" them), and that captives were to be taken as slaves. The Bible is clear all the virgins were taken as slaves (consistent with God's law). Did you read the Deuteronomy? You should read Leviticus while you're at it, great stuff in there. Or do God's laws not count? After all, it was Moses who went to Mount Sinai. And people have the gall to say the ten commandments come from God!

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A common practice for people like the Midianites, sure. The fact is, there were very few tolerant or peaceful cultures at the time. Rape and pillage were just facts of life. I'll again recommend the Iliad if you want a solid representation of how people saw women and violence.

But a tolerant God, giving these kinds of laws? It makes sense for the Greek pantheon, but not for an omnibenevolent creator.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I see the Bible in much the same light as the Iliad, and am no more "pissed off" by the events in it than by the actions of Zeus or Athena. However, some people continue to claim that the Bible is divine, and that it represents the true character and behavior of God. I call these people "religious," or more specifically "followers of the Abrahamic faiths." These crazy nuts actually believe in applying the fictional stories of a lost culture to modern life! As such they're highly intolerant, violent, and dangerous.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You started by saying Christians aren't violent. Now they're violent, but just. Which is it? Of course you can say rape, genocide, torture, and various other things perpetrated at the behest of God are "just" for this or that reason. "Just" is a highly subjective term that means different things to different people, with no rules you can apply it however you like. But such actions don't fit any common definitions of tolerance and nonviolence. Nor do they fit my definition of justice.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be very careful. It almost sounded like you used the divinity of God to back up your Biblical argument. That is, not only did you almost jump away from your earlier assertion about religion in general (and toward a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint), but you also rode the edge of the fallacy "the Bible is true because God says so, God is real because the Bible says so."

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, first love God, and only then do unto others. This is the common theme. Jesus says one peaceful thing, then three violent things. The most important commandment of Jesus was to love God, the very God of Abraham that brought plagues, wiped out cities, killed children for making fun of his priests, tortured sons for the crimes of their fathers and nations for the crimes of their leaders, drowned the entire world, and made statements like "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God." You use a secondary commandment as evidence Jesus was peaceful, as though it goes without saying.

Also I already acknowledged that I believe the historical figure of Jesus was probably peaceful. Christianity is still a violent religion, and the most common interpretation of Jesus has been a violent interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
I really, honestly have no clue how you could possibly think Jesus was an advocate of random violence,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry? Random violence? I don't think I've ever said any such thing.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most of the time, where a peaceful statement exists there exist violent statements in close proximity.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only have I continually explained that I think Jesus was peaceful (are you reading my posts at all?), I also never claimed that anyone in the Bible advocated killing "everyone who isn't a Christian." Plenty of later Christians have advocated such (the Catholics in particular).

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one sentence among thousands. How many do you need?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, again I know you're bad at logic. That sucks, really. But it doesn't justify these kinds of straw men. I've been consistent from the beginning in this thread that I think Jesus was probably a peaceful guy. What do you think you're going to accomplish by narrowing your position and expanding mine? Make yourself less of a target, and me more of one? Not gonna work. I know what I've said, and it wasn't that Jesus was a warlord, bloodthirsty or otherwise.

[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.