The war on faith.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I, and others in this thread, think that is absurd and extremely convenient for you to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "others" you mean "other" (madnak), then okay.

[ QUOTE ]
When you say Christ's teachings, you ALSO mean everything in the OT, since he accepted all of it as true and legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept Isaac Newton's works as true. Are these my teachings now?

And even if it were impossible to separate someone's teachings from a text that was written thousands of years before (did I just write that?), it still hasn't been demonstrated that the Bible advocates unnecessary war.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are (unjustly) seperating the things which Christ explicitly said and taught from the things he IMPLICITLY taught by his acceptace of the OT as the literal word of God. I, and others in this thread, think that is absurd and extremely convenient for you to do. When you say Christ's teachings, you ALSO mean everything in the OT, since he accepted all of it as true and legitimate.


[/ QUOTE ]
What about the vision given to Peter as explained in the Book of Acts? Does that apply here?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I, and others in this thread, think that is absurd and extremely convenient for you to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "others" you mean "other" (madnak), then okay.

[ QUOTE ]
When you say Christ's teachings, you ALSO mean everything in the OT, since he accepted all of it as true and legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept Isaac Newton's works as true. Are these my teachings now?

And even if it were impossible to separate someone's teachings from a text that was written thousands of years before (did I just write that?), it still hasn't been demonstrated that the Bible advocates unnecessary war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...are you claiming to be some sort of trinity-style physical manifestation of the spirit of Isaac Newton? Ok thanks.
EDIT: Oh and you had previously asked what parts of your posts I found to be intentionally misrepresenting things. This one is a great example. Madnak has stated SEVERAL times that he is unconcerned with whether the violence advocated by the Bible is 'just' or 'necessary,' and simply was asserting that it was strongly and obviously in favor of violence. And yet you CONTINUE to repeat, over and over, these phrases like 'just war' or 'necessary violence.' That is EXACTLY what I mean by intentionally misunderstanding.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are (unjustly) seperating the things which Christ explicitly said and taught from the things he IMPLICITLY taught by his acceptace of the OT as the literal word of God. I, and others in this thread, think that is absurd and extremely convenient for you to do. When you say Christ's teachings, you ALSO mean everything in the OT, since he accepted all of it as true and legitimate.


[/ QUOTE ]
What about the vision given to Peter as explained in the Book of Acts? Does that apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]
As an example of how the OT no longer applied? I suppose it can, although I'm not too concerned about it. I believe that you believe there is a justification for preserving some parts of OT law and ignoring the unsavory parts. I also believe there is scriptural support for this very thing. And I believe there is scriptural support AGAINST doing this very thing. Jesus accepting the OT as the literal word of God, and then God giving a message that certain parts are no longer applicable, while confusing and obviously contradictory (at least to me, although presumably not to you), is certainly par for the course.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm...are you claiming to be some sort of trinity-style physical manifestation of the spirit of Isaac Newton? Ok thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmmm... no I'm not! But, for this analogy to have any relevance, the Bible would have to be written by God. It's widely accepted that the Bible was written by humans, not by God. Inspired does not equal written. Thank you please try again!

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and you had previously asked what parts of your posts I found to be intentionally misrepresenting things. This one is a great example. Madnak has stated SEVERAL times that he is unconcerned with whether the violence advocated by the Bible is 'just' or 'necessary,' and simply was asserting that it was strongly and obviously in favor of violence. And yet you CONTINUE to repeat, over and over, these phrases like 'just war' or 'necessary violence.' That is EXACTLY what I mean by intentionally misunderstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just blew my mind. Seriously, my head exploded and stuff. You mean I'm "intentionally misunderstanding" something because I was trying to make my position perfectly clear?! Please define "intentionally misunderstanding". Because, in your mind, it must either mean that, or the equally ridiculous "we were arguing different points". Because you know, I said maybe 8... 9 times that it is extremely pointless to argue that religion sometimes advocates violence when it is warranted. Of course it does, that was never under scrutiny.

PLEASE show me where madnak pointed out "SEVERAL times" that he was "unconcerned whether the violence advocated in the Bible was just or necessary". [EDIT: OK, I kind of see a post where he *sort of* touches on the "justification". But to say that violence is wrong regardless of the reasons for it is ludicrous, as I've pointed out in the rest of this post and thread.] Also, you are now arguing that religion is BAD because they say violence/war is okay when it is JUST OR NECESSARY. Are you [censored] kidding me?

So, let me get this straight. You are saying this WHOLE thread was about religion, Jesus, and/or the Bible advocating violence or war in just situations. What the hell was the point of this thread then? Did I really waste this much time arguing that Jesus says it is okay to fight off oppressors sometimes or stand up for yourself?


Just to be a little NITPICKY. When you say something "advocates war", in a general sense (i.e. you aren't talking about a specific scenario), you TYPICALLY MEAN that this something advocates war IN GENERAL. In other words, they think war is a good thing and a solid choice as a means to an end in most cases. Typically, it means they are proponents of war even when it is unjust -- or when most believe it is unjust in a certain situation. For example, wars in the name of religion where one religion is trying to exterminate another religion.

When I say Hitler "advocates war", I mean Hitler believed war was okay to wipe out anyone he didn't like, or when he simply wanted more power. I don't mean "oh, Hitler only thought war was okay when the German people were oppressed!" Otherwise, I can say even the most extreme pacifists are "advocates of war" when they say they believe its okay for a people to fight back against another people who are systematically trying to exterminate them. Does this mean they are advocates of THAT war? Yes. Does it mean they advocate war IN GENERAL? No.

If this is what you are, and have been, arguing this is really really really the most stupid thread ever in existence. May I please ask why you didn't stop the debate earlier when you realized that I was ARGUING IN THE CASE OF JUST WAR? Why did you just sit back and say 'wtf omg he's intentionally misinterpreting everything'. I mean, when I emphasize 'just war' a million times and no one corrects the direction of the argument, I assume we're arguing the same thing because, you know, everyone kept right on debating.

When I pointed out that I, of course, was not saying that Christians *never* advocate war (such as when a people are being oppressed) because this is absurd, no one chimed up to say "oh [censored]! well that's not what I'm arguing at all! Better correct this mess!" Nooo.... everyone kept on debating my point in regards to *JUST WARS*.

So, why didn't you stop me or point out that we were arguing different points? I'll tell you why. It's because now, you've realized that you've completely lost the debate and are pretending that this WHOLE THREAD was me claiming that religion believes that war is never okay under any circumstances. You have, again, attempted to twist my argument around into something where you can claim you've "won" the argument. Well, sorry bud, but I pointed out NUMEROUS times that this whole thread is absurd if the topic is what you claim it is. If you didn't point out this extremely important miscommunication when it was actually relevant, I have a hard time believing you thought this the whole time.

[revots33]

In the 10th plague of Egypt, God had the Angel of Death kill every Egyptian first-born son in the middle of the night. Not the adult men, not the rulers, not the slavemasters, not the Pharaoh himself. Only the children. As they slept in their beds.

I'd like an explanation of how this fits with Jesus' teachings of love and peace.

Of course, if you don't take the OT literally, the logical answer is that it is a made-up story used to prove that god is on the side of the Israelites. And that the Israelites are justified in using any force against their oppressors, since they are fighting on god's side. Of course, this is the same rationale Islamic terrorists use for killing innocents.

Interestingly, the just-released Baylor Religion Survey shows that almost 20% of Americans think God favors America in world affairs. I am happy I happened to be born into the real estate god cares most about.

[Matt R.]

YES! This is a good Bible passage to argue against. At least here we can "blame God" for the deaths of the infants. My explanation for this would need to be quite long, and at this moment I can't type it up. Also, I feel like some other posters on here may be better equipped than I to specifically refute the argument. I would be much obliged if someone else would jump in. If no one responds, I'll try to get it to it in the next day or 2 (maybe tonight if I get this work done).

I also realize it was brought up before in this thread. But there were like a million other things for me to respond to and it seemed the Midianite story was the main focus.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, if science is what gives you the confidence to fly the plane and be certain that reality won't disappear at any moment, it's your ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was a philosophy forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my observations it is more of a fantasy forum full of fairies, unicorns, gods, and other imaginary beings. None being more plausible than any other.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
YES! This is a good Bible passage to argue against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I referenced the same passage multiple times in this thread...

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, if science is what gives you the confidence to fly the plane and be certain that reality won't disappear at any moment, it's your ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was a philosophy forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my observations it is more of a fantasy forum full of fairies, unicorns, gods, and other imaginary beings. None being more plausible than any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't dis imaginary beings...you are one as well. Btw you probably shouldn't try to respond to any more of my posts. My ideas are pretty far beyond your pathetic, group approval-seeking excuse for an intellect.