The war on faith.

[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 ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've addressed my "lack of knowledge" of those books in a previous post. And yes, I got my education from a school affiliated with the Catholic church. Not a single one of my teachers were nuns or religious fanatics. They were all extremely grounded in fact and history. You cannot, I repeat CANNOT, claim that the education I received was biased because the teachers I learned from were affiliated in some way with with the church. This is like saying that religious education from a Ph.D. in religious studies at Notre Dame is biased because he's affiliated with a Catholic school. It's just utter nonsense.

As for your "biology" analogy. No, it's more like me having studied biology, yet after 10 years away from the field I have to look up some of the properties of cytoplasm because I haven't seen it for so long. Yet another failed analogy in an attempt to rationalize your distorted view that you have a "superior" education in religion.


The rest of your long reply appears to be manipulating my wording to claim I said stuff I never said, or at the very least taking something I said to the absolute extreme and thereby distorting the meaning. There are several points that can be addressed by simply re-reading my old posts without trying to stretch the meaning to how you see fit.

A couple small points.... A lot of your arguments seem to be against the actions of Moses. I never claimed Moses was perfect. Again, a lot of his actions were probably "standard" back then (no, I'm not saying that means they were okay, which I'm sure you will pretend I did). Just because a character in the Bible did something does not mean Christianity views it as morally right today. The Bible tells a lot of stories... sometimes people did bad things... imagine that!

The rest of your post I don't feel like delving into. Most of it is utter nonsense that I've already addressed.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying that religious education from a Ph.D. in religious studies at Notre Dame is biased

[/ QUOTE ]

Any education from a single source, in any field, is biased. This is particularly true where religion is concerned.

You obviously never studied the atheist position on Christianity. I doubt you studied the Muslim position on Christianity, or the Jewish position on Christianity, or the Buddhist position on Christianity, the academic position or the apologetic position or maybe even the Protestant position.

My analogy rephrased: This is like studying the behavior of elk in the wild for 10 years, and then claiming you have an education in biology. An education in biology means you've studied life in its full diversity, from the molecular level to the global level. If you know what a cell is, but not an ecosystem - or vice versa - your education in the subject is lacking.

Now, if you think elk are the best species on the face of the earth, nothing else is even worth studying, that's cool. You can just study elk. But when you claim to have an education in biology, you'll get called on it. You have an education in elk (in this case in the Catholic interpretation of Christian scripture), not in biology (religion).

[Matt R.]

I am familiar with the atheist position on Christianity. And the Muslim position, and the Jewish position, and the Buddhist position, and the academic position and maybe even the protestant position. No, I'm not an expert. But I'm familiar. Nice try though.

So, you seem to know a lot about my education. You must AT LEAST know what specific school I went to. I won't insult your intelligence by asking you to confirm the name of the school.... I mean, you HAVE to know right? I mean, if you don't, you DO know that not every school has the exact same education right??

Also, you seem to know a lot about what I've read on religion outside of Catholic school. In particular, you seem to conclude that I've read nothing. May I ask how you know my reading habits?

The statement that Jesus was somehow an advocate of violence is just complete and utter nonsense. This is true in a Christian, Muslim, Judaic, Hindu, academic, and historical sense. Anyone who says otherwise is a complete loon. I may not be an expert on every single nitch of Christianity, but I know enough where I can confidently argue against this nonsense.

[Matt R.]

Hrmm... I just have to continue a bit because this is just so retarded.

So, I went to one Catholic school from kindergarten through 8th grade. Then to another high school for 4 years. Thus you conclude my religious education is biased because it's from "one source" (whatever that means).

So, you've got a Professor with a Ph.D. in religious studies. He happened to get his B.S. from the same school as his Ph.D. All of his education was from "one source" (whatever that means). Thus he is uneducated about religion and is completely biased.

Please tell me you now comprehend that your argument against my education completely fails.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I am familiar with the atheist position

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't. You've required sources to believe what I said about things like the Midianites (again, bread and butter for the atheist, about as basic as Noah's flood is for Christians). You also apparently haven't anticipated any of my examples, and you don't seem to be anticipating the examples I'm about to bring up (txag knows, I guarantee it - one thing he's good at is pre-empting us, heading us off at the pass. Because he's argued with atheists often enough he knows our position and how we proceed).

[ QUOTE ]
on Christianity. And the Muslim position, and the Jewish position, and the Buddhist position,

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really?

[ QUOTE ]
and the academic position and maybe even the protestant position. No, I'm not an expert. But I'm familiar. Nice try though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not buying it.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you seem to know a lot about my education. You must AT LEAST know what specific school I went to. I won't insult your intelligence by asking you to confirm the name of the school.... I mean, you HAVE to know right? I mean, if you don't, you DO know that not every school has the exact same education right??

[/ QUOTE ]

Every school has a biased education, and the Catholic Church is an organized entity. Is it possible a Catholic school would allow Russell's works or Nietzsche's? I guess it's not impossible, I'll grant you that. Improbable though. There are some Catholic schools where reading Nietzsche is enough to get you punished, and that's a step up from some of the older Catholic schools. They don't have a good rep.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you seem to know a lot about what I've read on religion outside of Catholic school. In particular, you seem to conclude that I've read nothing. May I ask how you know my reading habits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make inferences based on where you place your emphasis, how you respond in conversations, and your reactions to the different passages.

You can prove me wrong by citing some atheist philosophers you've read. I guess it's possible you've simply been exposed to more depth than breadth. Prove me wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The statement that Jesus was somehow an advocate of violence is just complete and utter nonsense. This is true in a Christian, Muslim, Judaic, Hindu, academic, and historical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why have so many said otherwise? Are you aware of the history, for example, of the Crusades and the Inquisition? Were they all "complete loons" back then?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Every school has a biased education, and the Catholic Church is an organized entity. Is it possible a Catholic school would allow Russell's works or Nietzsche's? I guess it's not impossible, I'll grant you that. Improbable though. There are some Catholic schools where reading Nietzsche is enough to get you punished, and that's a step up from some of the older Catholic schools. They don't have a good rep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I thought Nietzche and Russell were philosophers. I didn't realize they were religious historians. I don't understand why you think I need to read these authors to be "familiar" with all sides of Christianity. (No, I haven't read them -- perhaps I will get to it eventually).

I HAVE read books about Jesus from a historical perspective. Where the authors were Professors of history with NO religious background or biases. Since I am very familiar with the history aspect, I feel like my education in Christianity is very well founded.

I'm not discounting atheist philosophers arguments -- never have. This is where you are starting to claim things I didn't say. I have been arguing with you this whole time regarding the nature of Jesus and Christianity. Not about the actions of its members, but about its fundamental ideals.

If Nietzche or Russell have something to say about Jesus that a panel of historians do not, I would like to be enlightened. I wasn't aware they spoke out against Jesus Christ. If they can somehow provide insight that a historian cannot, I stand corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
You've required sources to believe what I said about things like the Midianites (again, bread and butter for the atheist, about as basic as Noah's flood is for Christians)

[/ QUOTE ]

See, now you're getting back to your extremely annoying habit of REALLY stretching the truth. I never said I didn't believe you're Medianite story, AT ALL. Seriously, stop lying. I said I wasn't so sure there wasn't more to the story. And you know what? I was right. You implied something that was completely false (that the Israelites invaded Midia without provocation simply because they needed to be purified). When I said I was familiar, I meant I knew of opposing viewpoints and how they thought. It doesn't mean I'm familiar with specific arguments or I've memorized common literature that an atheist uses. I also have no need or desire to "pre-empt" your arguments. I'm fine with taking them on one at a time.


Also, your inclusion of the Crusades and the Inquisition leads me to believe you have really, seriously (and I mean this with all honesty) put zero effort into trying to understand my arguments. I've said countless times that groups supposedly doing things in the name of God have, throughout history, distorted religious ideals to justify horrible actions [edit for clarity].... That was one of my MAIN POINTS for like 5 posts in this thread.... The fact that I had to type that out actually just really annoyed me. WTF, are you for real?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed Moses was perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you haven't yet admitted he was a villain on the order of Hitler, so your position seems inconsistent.

The fact is, the women were killed. The male children were killed. And the little girls were taken into slavery and forced to be the wives of the Israelites (who proceeded to "enter in unto them").

Are you claiming that these things aren't horrible by your standards? If not, then who is responsible? If not God, and not Moses, who is the terrible villain in this scenario? Who did God punish in his justice? Or is it just "tough luck" for the Midianites?

I'm happy to progress to things God did when we resolve the Midianites. It seems to me like you're saying what happened "wasn't okay" but it also wasn't really bad. If you acknowledge it was bad, then I can bring up issues where God acted independently.

I've already, by the way, mentioned Elisha's youths and the plagues of Egypt.

[Matt R.]

OK, I looked at Numbers again.

It seemed that Moses and the Israelites believed STRONGLY that the plagues cast upon the Israelites were due to curses put onto them by the Midianites. They also "committed trespass against Yahweh", which I presume means they insulted Yahweh in some way.

Here's the thing -- yes I think it was morally reprehensible to kill the women and children. However, Moses really, truly believed (I presume) that the non-adult male population of Midia was responsible for the curse on his people.

Now, suspend disbelief for an instant -- let's pretend we're in Bible days and everything the Bible says really happened. If the entire population of Midia was responsible for the plagues, then of course Moses had to do something about it. If he let anyone responsible for the curse go -- the Israelites would continue to be cursed.

This is definitely getting borderline ridiculous though. Yes, I agree that the act was atrocious. But if you go back to the mindset of the day, it was almost necessary given the nature of their beliefs. They had no way of knowing their beliefs regarding the nature of plague were incorrect.

Now -- I know you will pin these "beliefs" as evidence that religion is dangerous. However, I'm pretty sure the belief in curses was not restricted to religion [edit]. It was something ingrained in their culture at the time.


So, just to be clear (this post could definitely be interpreted in a way I don't intend to), yes I think Moses's actions were morally atrocious. However, given the nature of his beliefs about how the plague worked, it can be justified -- not to the extent where he was not wrong -- but to the extent where he can be forgiven (and is not like Hitler/Stalin as you said). Further, these beliefs in "curses" did not originate with the religion, but with the culture at the time (i.e. it encompassed more than the religion), so the blame should not lie with Moses's religion.