The war on faith.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you think professor's with Ph.D.'s in religious studies are like Tom Cruise as well? I learned from (mostly) very good teachers. Equating any type of religious education with Tom Cruise's mentality demonstrates your biases and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was just referring to you :-)
But if we're going to fall back on the 'my daddy' argument, you have to keep in mind that any major religion past or present has their Phd teachers, people that devoted their lives to the study. It's your dismissal of their study and your insistance that yours is 'true' that is tom cruisish.
hope that's clearer,

luckyme

[John21]

I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

[Matt R.]

luckyme,
WTF, can you not read?? I said this:

[ QUOTE ]
I actually believe (more or less) that all major religions are "equally correct" if you will -- they just have different interpretations of spiritual/metaphysical/whatever ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

in this very thread. If you cannot read, I cannot debate with you. Your ignorant posts based on stuff I've never said are very clear. I hope the above quote makes my position "clear" to you, although I'm not holding my breath.

And as for this:

[ QUOTE ]
No, I was just referring to you :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly then, do you know about my religious education that allows you to compare me with Tom Cruise's fanaticism?

Here, let me finish your argument for you, "U study religun... der der derbi der religion bad!@%.... der doobie do, you brainwashed like scienciloogy tom cruse!!419... m"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Near as I can tell, you're arguing with yourself. 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? you've my curiousity perked up.

thanks, luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really dont get this or you are being facetious? I think its pretty clear that there are pacifist teachings in the Bible. None here would argue that. But what luckyme and madnak and the rest are trying to show is that there are ALSO plenty of violent teachings. So, yes, Jesus said turn the other cheek, but then the Bible ALSO encourages violence. That there is a contradiction in the message is a problem for you, not for us.

[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 ]
So if a legion of computer scientists went on a rampage killing spree, and claim that their killings were "in the name of the God of computer science", does that make computer science "morally wrong"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If groups of computer scientists independently tended to go on killing rampages, I would identify a correlation between a focus on computer science and violence. Then I would examine the body of computer science as well as the histories of the violent individuals to test my initial hypothesis: that computer science causes violence. If neither case served to falsify my hypothesis, then I would believe computer science causes violence.

The "morality" question would involve further study. What part of computer science causes violence? What are the benefits of computer science (as compared to the costs)? What are the other causes of the violent behavior?

In the end I'd probably put some blame on computer science itself, and some on the individual computer scientists, and possibly some on other variables, based on the results of my research.

Examples of my conclusions are religion (70% the fault of religion, 20% the fault of religious leaders, 10% the fault of practitioners) and violent video games (10% the fault of the games, 60% the fault of the players, 30% the fault of the parents).

[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.