A skeptic's view of Christianity (debate between Thôl and Eriol) [Archive] - Page 4

Eriol

08-20-2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]Now you have gone to far!

I love my girlfriend more than i love anything else!!

I have no lie! I do not believe in sin i am not lieing to me or to myself, i do not believe in it!!!

How many more times do you want me to say it!? And in how many different ways I DO NOT believe in sin!

I don't enjoy telling you that, Thôl, and you know it. Yet, I can't truly say I'm sorry that I said it; for perhaps it will impress on you the importance of the subject. You apparently think that this thread is a very good pastime, and that we can get a few minutes of intellectual pleasure (sort of) out of our fencing here. Not so, my friend, not so. This is the most important thing you've ever thought about -- or it will be, once you actually begin thinking about it.

No matter how many times you say you don't believe in sin, Thôl, the very depth of your love for your girlfriend shows that you DO believe in sin. There's no escaping that. If you love her more than anything else, it is because you think she is better than anything else. Conversely, the thing you hate the most must be the worst thing in the world. And there are a lot of things in between.

We, the other people in this thread, know that there is good and bad; your indignation only shows that you know it too. I just committed something that made you very angry; why are you so angry, if "it is all living?" Surely you think I did something wrong.

You can't escape it, Thôl, for that is how good and bad are completely intertwined with the human experience. You can deceive yourself about it, but in a deeper level you know it. I'm just showing you that deeper level.

It is all part of living.

But sinning has been so deeply intergrated into our lives that you are unable to let it go.

Why dont you open your eyes and leave the cave, for 5 minutes, look at how preposterous sin is. Its not that hard

Since you want to invert the positions, we can try that. Explain to me why there is no sin, and even so you just got mad with me and you love your girlfriend and you hate religion etc. etc.

There is one very simple criterion to determine which one is in the cave, Thôl -- it is the one who does not contradict himself.

By the same token, lies are always -- by definition -- contradictory with the truth. That is why we can catch them. You have been caught in some lies, Thôl -- in some self-contradictory concepts. You can't love and disbelieve in goodness; you can't hate and disbelieve in badness.

Simple as that.

Celebthôl

08-20-2003, 09:15 PM

Ok, just so im clear we have this right...

Can you define what you take sin to be please....

Eriol

08-20-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Ok, just so im clear we have this right...

Can you define what you take sin to be please....

The definition of sin is "to be away from God", as we said. But let's not beg the question of who exactly is God, for we both have somewhat different ideas of God. So a "religion-less" definition of sin is:

To be away from Goodness.

Take it from here ;).

Celebthôl

08-20-2003, 09:46 PM

Well i always thought that sin was how you made it out to be, like what was bad for God and he couldnt accept it etc.

Hence why i didnt believe in it.

My dictionary says:

"Transgression agains divine moral law"

I dont believe that God made any divine moral laws, therefore how could you transgress them?

Is there even a religious-less version of sin?

Eriol

08-20-2003, 10:04 PM

A very good question.

And this is why I began this thread with the matter of Good and Evil before exploring God Himself.

Good and Evil are immediate realities, which believers and non-believers alike perceive. You don't have to be a believer in God to believe in goodness and evil (as Lúthien shows).

Now, after you become a believer in God, there is good grounds to realize that this sense of good and evil is probably grounded in divine legislation. For there is no reason for this sense to develop in animals without divine intervention. (You remember when we were discussing that, don't you?)

The argument I was offering back then rested on the problem of the origins of morality. It took morality for granted (that is why I wanted you to accept the sentence "there is good and evil"). Morality itself does not need God to be reasonable or understood by us -- the immense majority of atheists believes in good and evil just as a believer.

Forget about God for a moment, Thôl. Don't try to understand him or predict how he would act. Look around and perceive that there is good and evil in the world. There are good things (your girlfriend) and bad things (religion) in your world, the world you have built as your personality developed. By the same token, there are good and bad things in my world, not matching yours. But the sense of good and evil is the same. We both feel it.

We both get angry when someone gives us less than what we think is our due -- i.e., we agree that Justice is good. We both get angry when we see a heartless person causing pain in animals or in fellow humans -- i.e., we agree that Compassion is good. And so on.

The virtues are so ingrained in us (and they are ingrained in the entire human species, and evolution could not very well have put them there -- that comment is for Lúthien ;) ) that we must close our eyes really hard to avoid seeing them. And, of course, if we manage that, we simply build a new set of virtues over the old one -- one in which Justice is NOT a good thing, Compassion is NOT a good thing, etc.

The one thing we can't get rid of is the notion of good and bad things. That notion is completely imbued in us.

Once you accept Good and Evil, I can answer your question, "how can we transgress non-existent divine laws?"

Celebthôl

08-20-2003, 10:18 PM

Right lets see...

God does not judge good and bad right or wrong.

But i guess people can be called good or bad...

Is that ok?

Eriol

08-20-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Right lets see...

God does not judge good and bad right or wrong.

But i guess people can be called good or bad...

Is that ok?

Yes, it is -- if you realize that the first sentence is an article of faith that is not at all proven. The second part, the existence of good and evil, is proven by our own experiences everyday.

You are assuming you know a lot about God's character when you say He does not judge. But we need not discuss that now -- I only point it out. If we find that your faith is contradictory with itself, you will have to review it -- ok?

Faith can't contradict itself.

But forgetting about your faith for now; if people can be good or bad, this means they can fall away from Goodness. Since Goodness is, by definition, Good :D, this "falling away" is evil. To approach Goodness is, therefore, Good.

Do you want to approach goodness, Thôl?

Celebthôl

08-20-2003, 10:33 PM

Well, i would have no choice but to review it.

Where you say about goodness, i must keep inmind that what you defined sin as. Therefore if i refuse this path i am sinning. But if i follow the path then, i will be accepting that there is sin. How about...i follow the path not because not doing so will be a sin (as i dont believe in it) but because i see it as the best way to serve myself.

If you can accept that, then we can continue.

Ok?

Ciryaher

08-20-2003, 10:40 PM

I love playing Devil's Advocate (so to speak), so don't get the idea that I'm doubting God or anything, just that I like to see how people think about it. I'm on the side of "three parts of a whole" as Eriol put it, like mind, body, and spirit making up a person...well anyways.

Well I still know a small ammount, such as it involves sin and thats enough, i do not believe in sin, so i will not believe in christianity.

You do not believe in sin. You do not believe in Christianity. By those two statements, do you believe that sin and Christianty don't exist? Or do you mean that sin doesn't exist and Christianity is real? Or do you mean that sin exists but not in the context of Christianity? Any way you cut it, you're wrong (using your tactic of dictionary definition).

I don't believe in Jesus. Never existed. Never helped anyone, never said anything good. There is no Bethlehem, no Rome, and no Jerusalem. No Jews or Egyptians, either.

I don't believe in Mexico. Never existed. All lies. There were no Aztecs, there was no Cortéz.

While we're at it, there is no Germany. There are no Nazi's, nor were there ever any. There was no Holocaust, and no man named Hitler.

Now that we're on the same system of thought, allow me to return to reality.

All the things I previously listed do/did exist, and did actually occur. Jesus did exist, whether you blind yourself to it or not. Jesus did tell people to do good things; help eachother, be humble, etc etc. There is a Bethlehem, Rome, and Jerusalem, and there are most definitely Jews and Egyptians.

Don't believe in sin? Do you believe in right and wrong?...oh, wait, those are all based on religion, they must be incorrect. It is ok if somebody waltzed into your house, pulled out a knife, and proceeded to decapitate your family. It is ok to steal anything you want from anybody, tangible or no. It is ok to drive right by a dying man on the side of the road. Nothing wrong with that, survival of the fittest! Why not let's go take candy from babies and then proceed to rape, loot, and pillage the town! Laws? Laws imply that something you do is wrong (a "sin" in essence against the demigod that government has become) so laws do not apply to anybody that doesn't believe in them!

Civilization is based upon sin. Not in the sense you see it, but because Civilization depends on Religion for law. What is bad by god/ess(s) is bad for Hammurabi! What is bad by YHWH is bad for King David! What is bad by god/ess(s) is bad for Cæsar! What is bad by YHWH/Christ is bad for Thôl!

BTW, ignorance is the root of all the world's problems. I suggest you ask a Nazi why they don't like Jews, or why a Klansman doesn't like negroes. They won't give you a good answer, I assure you. They don't know anything about what they hate, only their predjudiced opinions...sounds familiar to me.

Celebthôl

08-20-2003, 11:04 PM

You do not believe in sin. You do not believe in Christianity. By those two statements, do you believe that sin and Christianty don't exist? Or do you mean that sin doesn't exist and Christianity is real? Or do you mean that sin exists but not in the context of Christianity? Any way you cut it, you're wrong (using your tactic of dictionary definition).

Worded badly i guess...

I mean that sin does not exist, and that christianity is wrong.

BTW, ignorance is the root of all the world's problems. I suggest you ask a Nazi why they don't like Jews, or why a Klansman doesn't like negroes. They won't give you a good answer, I assure you. They don't know anything about what they hate, only their predjudiced opinions...sounds familiar to me.

No religion is the root of the worlds problems...
Nazi's hated the Jews because they refused to fight etc because of their religion.
Klansmen because they believe that (i think it was protistant) christianity is perfect and supiror and that blacks and other peoples and religions are infirior.
Me because i believe christianity is wrong.

Now without religion what is there to hate or cause hate?

syongstar

08-20-2003, 11:28 PM

Jesus said "God is love" because all the other words in the bible are how to get to this level.
also "the way to tell if someone is a christian is they heal laying on hands,drink all manner of poisons unharmed,and lift up serpents"this is symbolic.Healing with hands is accupressure,when you study Tsubo you find that accupressure is temporary and for true healing you must lay your hands upon their life=diet,liquid,rest,exercise,and attutude.These can be balanced with herbs(looking for miricles try herbology),all manner of poisons is religons,philosopy,myths....any where one can find wisdom(want a miricle listen to some great music if that's not enough compose some for several instruments)Lift up serpents could be kundlini that everyone does(at least in wet dreams)but also a serpent is a lowly creature,the symbol of one of the most intelligent,a doctor is a snake on a caladus,there for the word serpent is used for uplifting everyone.(a miricle of joy)
Perhaps it would be wonderful to decree a thing and light shine on your ways or ask what you will and it shall be done into you but there is a time for every purpose under heaven.perhaps a lump of coal needs pressure to become a diamond or a diamond is pruned so it brings forth rainbows~~*~~
~~*~~

Eriol

08-21-2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Now without religion what is there to hate or cause hate?

Ok, we are still assuming that "sin" = "falling away from Goodness". So this statement of yours amounts to saying that without religion we would never fall away from goodness, right? We would be good.

Well, obviously you have a very twisted idea of "religion", which should be defined before I analyze it. But even without going into that, it should be simple to notice that great mass murderers are atheists. A very simple factual observation. How do you explain it?

In your world view atheists should be saints, and religious people should be fiends. Yet, the saints are all in religion - Mother Teresa, Gandhi, to name the most famous and recent. (I would not consider Gandhi "a saint", but according to your worldview he is certainly not among the fiends).

At the other hand, the killers are atheists.

How come?

Haters are atheists, lovers are religious.

You said that if you found a contradiction in your faith you'd be forced to re-examine it. Go ahead.

As for your earlier question: You can say you will avoid sin because it is the best way to serve yourself. But this will not change the nature of sin. You will be saying, in fact, that you think that the highest good is "serving yourself"; and this would be your rule-of-thumb to decide whether a thing is good or not.

In other words, you would be following an ethical theory over your ethical instincts; and to do that requires a prior ethical theory, that "ethical theories are more precise than ethical instincts".

For you to believe in that theory you would have to condemn everyone who does good things without that goal in mind as misguided souls who just happened to hit on the right action.

And any single instance of an evil deed done with that goal in mind should disprove your theory.

HLGStrider

08-21-2003, 06:33 AM

And i know there was some thing about when every peoples knows of Christianity he will return, but that does not hold water.

Why not? And it didn't say he'd return that instant. It said he'd return afterwards and that he wouldn't tell us when. It wasn't for us to know.

So Christianity has three deities?

Mrs. M once posted an interesting post that, I think, said she believed it does and that it was a misinterpetation of the Old Testament that was leading us to believe it didn't. I don't know about that. I would like to look into it, but I don't know where to do so. . .I should ask Mrs. M someday. . .I might've been misunderstanding her.

Anyway, Christianity has three interdependent "beings" for lack of a better word. ..entities might be a better word.

Then why is one a Father, one a Son, and one a Holy Spirit? Shouldn't they be Two Brothers and Spirit?

I personally believe that fatherhood in this sense is spiritual, not physical. . .more of a set of characteristics than a being. . .but somehow still inate and undeniable.

Is God trying to confuse us or what?!
No, but you're doing an ok job at it. ;)

Oh but they will go to hell though. How can he want to work with them? Hes already damned them

I think this is another one of the things God has stated is "not our business" to know. . .who he has saved. I truly expect to be surprised by many of the people I see in Heaven . . .sort of a "He let YOU in" reaction.

And i do blame him, it is entirely his fault if i go to hell because he was to lazy to prove that he existed outside of a book.

Because you were too lazy to look into it even though he was active enough to send his son, to let you hear the message many times in your life, and to constantly cry out to you.

And if as someone who has never studied the thing doesnt even believe, why the heck should i want to study further into it?
How about so he can talk sensibly about it?

You can dress it up all you want, make it all seem pretty, but it does not escape from the fact that it is not proven that christianity is correct.

It's a pretty powerful message for those who have ears to hear.

and i do not have the faith needed to believe in christianity

It doesn't take that much. . .and if you believed and accepted you would be able to tap into God's everlasting store of it.

I know many people that have read the bible and disbelieve it even more

I know plenty of people who read it a lot and have their faith strengthened by it, who have read it and come to believe it. . .etc. So what does that proove?

Dont think about it, dont care about it....

You don't think about relativity so you won't study it. . .However, you do think about Christianity, so why won't you study it?

If christianity is true why doesnt everyone believe it straight away on hearing it? if God made this religion, why is it not believable?

If it were UNbelieveable no one would believe, so it is clearly, at least to a LOT of people, believeable. A lot of people just don't want to believe it. They don't want to admit dependecny on God. They don't want to believe they can sin. They want to believe this, they want to believe that. . .that's part of free will.

Not once have i said i no more about christianity than you and i freely admit i know nuthing on the subject...what are you trying to prove?

I personally avoid giving opinions on things I know nothing about.

Thing is i tryed and got bored...im not going to read a book i dont want to read. That isnt right...

How did you survive school? I had to read a lot of textbooks that were 'boring." I read them because I wanted to know what was in them.

And by the way, if there is no right and wrong (because if there were no sin, there couldn't be because right and wrong implies sin), how would it be not right?

ell I still know a small ammount, such as it involves sin and thats enough, i do not believe in sin, so i will not believe in christianity.

Luthien, you're so fond on lecturing us about assumptions. ..time to talk to Thol.

Ok, you are in a jewish family and are forced to be jewish, is that fair at all upon you?! You arent even given the choise. Not fair at all, that borders on sick!

Is how I'm being forced involve a gun? I already gave my opinion on this. It is impossible to be forced to believe. Even if you are only told one thing all your life is truth you have the ability to think and therefore the ability to doubt. Even if you won't openly admit you don't believe, you still don't.

What do you mean they aren't given a choice? You can go to church without believing in it. People probably do. You can fake it all you want. . .without believing in it.

If the person doubts Judaism, he will grow up and look for an alternative. If he can't find one, he will either give up and not think about it, or make one up.

You're premesis teaches that we can't think.

I bash cristianity because of what it is doing to people, it stops them living how they want to live. And i will never agree with it, it controls your free wills indirectly. And it hurts me to see it.

This is the way I want to be. . .I don't want to be an adulterer. I don't want to be a liar. I don't want those around me to be liars. I don't want to marry an adulterer. This seems to be how you think people should be naturally. . ,liars and adulterers. That is what you are defending when you attack the ten commandments.

No, i distinctly remember saying it so you would continue on the thread. I still dont believe it.

You shouldn't say things you don't believe. It messes the entire thread up.

You are therefore putting words in my mouth, i never said i didnt care about christianity, just because i dont care about relativity doesnt mean i dont care about christianity.

You said you wouldn't study it. Why?

There is no way i will believe there is sin

Why? Because you don't believe it exists seems to be the only reason you can give us, which is circular reasoning. You won't believe because you dont' believe.

What if you married a jewish lady, what religion would your children be? Would you give them the choise? Would your wife?

This is why I don't believe in interfaith marriages. They may be able to work out, but it is not a good idea to enter the race with one leg lopped off.

I'm assuming we would either not talk about religion at all as a compromise, and the kids would limp around blindly. Or both of us would do our best to convince the kids we were right, and they would make up their own minds based on whihc of us they thought was more convincing.

No i prefer to not be sucked into a religion that i dont believe and trust in.

Religion isn't a vaccuum cleaner! I AM A VACUUM CLEANER! Get your facts straight. . .humph. . .

Would you believe in something that made no sense? Christianity makes no sense to me at all. So shy should i believe in it?
You haven't done a very good job at showing us that it doesnt' make sense. . .just in misunderstanding it.

See that is your problem, you can't see that there is no sin, you have deluded yourself into thinking that humans are so very bad that we must sin.
Another assumption. I think I would believe in sin even if I weren't a Christian, though I would be confused as to my base and my why.

!? And in how many different ways I DO NOT believe in sin!
You said that. Now you have to say why and be convincing.

Why dont you open your eyes and leave the cave, for 5 minutes, look at how preposterous sin is. Its not that hard

But it isn't at all preposerous. I don't see how you can think it is. If it weren't you wouldn't care about any actions.

No I dont assume about Lúthien, she may very well believe in right and wrong, but she does not believe in sin, for the very reasons i dont.

I think if you believe in right and wrong you believe in sin. Sin is doing things that are wrong and not sinning is doing things that are right.

I dont believe that God made any divine moral laws, therefore how could you transgress them?

I believe that he did. Statements like that aren't goin gto get us anywhere. They are statements, they aren't backed. . .and I just did improper puncuation. ..I must be getting tired.

Is there even a religious-less version of sin?
That would be dualism. The idea that good and evil are two opposing forces in the world that are natural and constantly opposed. . .

No religion is the root of the worlds problems...

Then where did religion come from? And you'll have a hard time proving that thesis.

Nazi's hated the Jews because they refused to fight etc because of their religion.

Historically incorrect. The reasons included a lot of age old propaganda (I don't think Jews are forbidden to fight by their religion). The Jews were successful when everybody else wasn't so they got blamed for everybody elses problems. . .They were an easy scape goat. There was also hate to it, but it was just hate, pure, reasonless hate.

Klansmen because they believe that (i think it was protistant) christianity is perfect and supiror and that blacks and other peoples and religions are infirior.

Again, historically incorrect. Most American blacks were Christians at the time and had been for generations. I'd say the reasons was, again, reasonless hate.

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 02:29 PM

Why not? And it didn't say he'd return that instant. It said he'd return afterwards and that he wouldn't tell us when. It wasn't for us to know.

There we go, what is this some big sevret game in which we are the expendable pawns?

No, but you're doing an ok job at it. ;)

So is he...

I think this is another one of the things God has stated is "not our business" to know. . .who he has saved. I truly expect to be surprised by many of the people I see in Heaven . . .sort of a "He let YOU in" reaction.

I have to emphasize the let he lets you in, he doesnt accept you in then?

Am i going to hell? Or will i be one of those people he lets in?

Because you were too lazy to look into it even though he was active enough to send his son, to let you hear the message many times in your life, and to constantly cry out to you.

I never saw his son, i never hear his son, as far as im concerned his son is not here and hasnt been in 2000 years

How about so he can talk sensibly about it?

I see...

It's a pretty powerful message for those who have ears to hear.

Does not by any means, mean its correct...

It doesn't take that much. . .and if you believed and accepted you would be able to tap into God's everlasting store of it.

Thats if i get caught up in it, but until there is hard proof of it it will still seem like lies to me...

I know plenty of people who read it a lot and have their faith strengthened by it, who have read it and come to believe it. . .etc. So what does that proove?

That it is believable as it is unbelievable...

However, you do think about Christianity, so why won't you study it?

Because in doing so i open myself to the lies of it, and i might get dragged into it and that is something i cant deal with right now.

If it were UNbelieveable no one would believe, so it is clearly, at least to a LOT of people, believeable. A lot of people just don't want to believe it. They don't want to admit dependecny on God. They don't want to believe they can sin. They want to believe this, they want to believe that. . .that's part of free will.

If you can see this why can God not? Why does he have to be such a cump as to say either put your faith entirely into this book, or go to hell? Again that is not all loveing.

How did you survive school? I had to read a lot of textbooks that were 'boring." I read them because I wanted to know what was in them.

And by the way, if there is no right and wrong (because if there were no sin, there couldn't be because right and wrong implies sin), how would it be not right?

I have no idea...

Ok, it isnt very productive reading a book where ill go over the words and forget them. Im sure you have been over books that this has happened to you with...

Is how I'm being forced involve a gun? I already gave my opinion on this. It is impossible to be forced to believe. Even if you are only told one thing all your life is truth you have the ability to think and therefore the ability to doubt. Even if you won't openly admit you don't believe, you still don't.

What do you mean they aren't given a choice? You can go to church without believing in it. People probably do. You can fake it all you want. . .without believing in it.

If the person doubts Judaism, he will grow up and look for an alternative. If he can't find one, he will either give up and not think about it, or make one up.

You're premesis teaches that we can't think.

If you are taken to church from the age of 3 - 16 every sunday for 13 years then you will start to listen, that is how indoctrination starts and after a while you believe it because it seems to make sense unless you think about it really hard and by that time unless you have a very strong will you cant rench yourself out and then the whole process starts over again with your children.

This is the way I want to be. . .I don't want to be an adulterer. I don't want to be a liar. I don't want those around me to be liars. I don't want to marry an adulterer. This seems to be how you think people should be naturally. . ,liars and adulterers. That is what you are defending when you attack the ten commandments.

Why must you assume that i am defending them? I am neither defending nor opposing them.

Elgee, can you honestly say that if there was no religion in your life you would become an adulterer or a murderer? Think about that. I have no reliogion in me at all, and i do not desire to break any of the 10 commandments. But what is the deal with "Thou shalt not make any engraven images!"?

You shouldn't say things you don't believe. It messes the entire thread up

Or moves it along...

Why? Because you don't believe it exists seems to be the only reason you can give us, which is circular reasoning. You won't believe because you dont' believe.

Because an all loving God would not do something like that, there are two alternatives here, either God isnt all loveing, or that there is no sin. There can be no other alternative. Which would you believe?

This is why I don't believe in interfaith marriages. They may be able to work out, but it is not a good idea to enter the race with one leg lopped off.

I'm assuming we would either not talk about religion at all as a compromise, and the kids would limp around blindly. Or both of us would do our best to convince the kids we were right, and they would make up their own minds based on whihc of us they thought was more convincing.

That wouldnt be a very meaningful relationship if something as small as religion was as big as "entering the race with one leg lopped off"

Best thing would be to leave the child/children to their own devices and discover religion on their own, that is the only unsick way to do it...in any family, not just interfaith marriages. Please correct me if im wrong...

Religion isn't a vaccuum cleaner! I AM A VACUUM CLEANER! Get your facts straight. . .humph. . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D

Another assumption. I think I would believe in sin even if I weren't a Christian, though I would be confused as to my base and my why.

Explain please....

You said that. Now you have to say why and be convincing.

Ok, why should there have to be sin?

I think if you believe in right and wrong you believe in sin. Sin is doing things that are wrong and not sinning is doing things that are right.

No thats doing right and wrong. Sinning is where you "Transgression agains divine moral law"

There is a big difference

I believe that he did. Statements like that aren't goin gto get us anywhere. They are statements, they aren't backed. . .and I just did improper puncuation. ..I must be getting tired.

Ask yourself the question, "why would he want to?"

That would be dualism. The idea that good and evil are two opposing forces in the world that are natural and constantly opposed. . .

And whats wrong with this?

Then where did religion come from? And you'll have a hard time proving that thesis.

Off the top of my head, people that wanted to control the masses and they have done a very good job at it.

Historically incorrect. The reasons included a lot of age old propaganda (I don't think Jews are forbidden to fight by their religion). The Jews were successful when everybody else wasn't so they got blamed for everybody elses problems. . .They were an easy scape goat. There was also hate to it, but it was just hate, pure, reasonless hate.

Why were they so successful? Because they worked hard due to their religion...it was unjust hate, but still caused by a religion.

Again, historically incorrect. Most American blacks were Christians at the time and had been for generations. I'd say the reasons was, again, reasonless hate.

Blacks aside, what about the other peoples they attacked? Jews Catholics etc....

Lúthien Séregon

08-21-2003, 03:01 PM

Haters are atheists, lovers are religious.

That’s very VERY generalised ( and rather discriminatory ). You’re ignoring the fact that most Nazis were Christian. The vast majority of wars have been committed for the sake of religion, as well as a lot of world division ( in fact, I’d go as far as to say the majority of world division ). There has not been a single side in war that HASN’T believed that God was on their side. And look at the way Islamic culture works. Honour killings are often carried out to preserve the family’s honour on behalf of religion, and interpretation of the Koran actually allows it. A lot of saints weren't exactly entirely saintly in their life ( Thomas Beckett, for example. When Henry was away in France, violent crime increased dramatically because Beckett would never impose punishment of any kind at all on them. It may seem loving to forgive murderers and rapists, but a lot less people would have been victims if he had actually given the criminals punishment ), it's just the way that religion portrays them that makes them seem like saints. Lovers are all religious, yeah right. :rolleyes: That statement is so ridiculous, when all belief really is is an interpretation of the life that ALL of us live in. There’s no such thing as “haters are atheists, lovers are religious” – individuals are defined by personality, experience, and genes ;) not by their theories.

I’m not religious – does that make me a hater?

Eriol

08-21-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
That’s very VERY generalised ( and rather discriminatory ). You’re ignoring the fact that most Nazis were Christian. The vast majority of wars have been committed for the sake of religion, as well as a lot of world division ( in fact, I’d go as far as to say the majority of world division ). There has not been a single side in war that HASN’T believed that God was on their side. And look at the way Islamic culture works. Honour killings are often carried out to preserve the family’s honour on behalf of religion, and interpretation of the Koran actually allows it. A lot of saints weren't exactly entirely saintly in their life ( Thomas Beckett, for example. When Henry was away in France, violent crime increased dramatically because Beckett would never impose punishment of any kind at all on them. It may seem loving to forgive murderers and rapists, but a lot less people would have been victims if he had actually given the criminals punishment ), it's just the way that religion portrays them that makes them seem like saints. Lovers are all religious, yeah right. :rolleyes: That statement is so ridiculous, when all belief really is is an interpretation of the life that ALL of us live in. There’s no such thing as “haters are atheists, lovers are religious” – individuals are defined by personality, experience, and genes ;) not by their theories.

I’m not religious – does that make me a hater?

Lúthien, you're smarter than that. I should not have to point out to you that I use different language with you and with Celebthôl -- it is quite obvious for those who want to see. Yes, it is a very generalized statement, but it was made with a purpose, and that purpose was persuading Thôl.

You are so fond of Aristotle, read up on Rhetoric :).

Also, you was so upset by this generalized statement not directed at you that you shut down your logic. "Haters are atheists" is not the same thing as "Atheists are haters" -- and you know it. I never said "Lovers are ALL religious". And so on.

In the context of that paragraph, I was comparing mass murderers with saints. Taking it out of context also does not help. And I dare you to give me one example of an atheist saint. You speak of what you know nothing about when you say that "it is the way religion portrays them that makes them look like saints". I advise you to read up on the lives of the saints before making such statements. Attacking the saints' administrative skills is a bad way to start -- they are not saints because they are great statesmen, you know. Sainthood is quite different.

"I dare you", I said -- but you won't take my dares. I also dared you to discuss the role of religious wars in saving lives. Do you want to do it? I'll repeat the dare here -- every war of Christianity (or Islam) against non-God fearing people saved innumerable lives -- and it saved in a very practical way, by preventing their deaths. You can keep on believing that religions killed more than saved, though, I can't force you to listen...

The end of your paragraph slipped off badly, logically speaking. I don't think I should address it, therefore. In fact, the beginning was not so hot either. "Most Nazis were Christian" is laughable. And so on. I guess you were really upset with my "discriminatory" statement, not realizing that it discriminated against haters, not atheists; you were so upset that you wrote your post without thinking it through.

You really, really should read up on things before speaking about them. Such as Islam, for one. You bash it constantly. What do you know of Islam, Lúthien? I know some things, enough for me to think of Muslims as brothers in faith; enough to know that wholesale bashing of Islam is ignorance.

When you criticize religious wars on grounds of ignorance, you are criticizing the Lúthiens of the world.

Now, Thôl:

You said this when Elgee said Christianity is a powerful message:

Does not by any means, mean its correct...

You are, of course, right. But it does not mean that it is incorrect either. You have to check it up. And why won't you do it? Because of this:

Because in doing so i open myself to the lies of it, and i might get dragged into it and that is something i cant deal with right now.

Exactly. You fear Christianity. It might be right, and you might be dragged into it. Accepting your fear is the first step.

*Eriol is glad that Thôl made the first step*

Sinning is where you "Transgression agains divine moral law"

If you take that "divine" out of the definition, would it make any difference to you? Do you approve of transgression against moral law, even if not divine?

A religious-less doctrine of sin is exactly like a religious doctrine of sin -- the only difference is that word "divine". In practical matters, both would condemn evil deeds and encourage good deeds.

Let me ask you a very interesting question, Thôl, keeping in mind that definition above, without the "divine" (or the question makes no sense):

Can God sin?

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 05:23 PM

You fear Christianity. It might be right, and you might be dragged into it. Accepting your fear is the first step.

I dont want to be dragged into it however, and there is still the matter of sin to make it wrong...

If you take that "divine" out of the definition, would it make any difference to you? Do you approve of transgression against moral law, even if not divine?

Yes it makes a difference. Divine makes it Godly.

Can God sin?

You're asking 3 questions there, so ill address them all...

1) I do not believe in sin therefore no he cannot, so, No God cannot sin

2) Yes he can as we are all God and therefore if we sin, God sins.

3) However, with your God I am not so sure, I don't get how he works...

Eriol

08-21-2003, 06:37 PM

And what is the difference of Godly? What does it matter to you whether Good is Godly or not? You still perceive it as Good. You still want it (for Good is desirable, by definition).

You can easily disregard the divine aspect of sin, "file it under undecided". As you said before, "people can be good or bad" -- that's the point. To say that, you have to believe in a moral law (Godly or not), even if the moral law is completely wicked itself (like, for instance, "all must work to satisfy Celebthôl's pleasures no matter what"). You could not say that anyone is good or bad without referring to an outside standard, which is called "moral law".

The definition of sin that I offered (answering a question from you, remember) is not Godly at all. It is "falling away from Goodness". God is not in the picture, and there is no need for us to consider the relationship between God and Morality before studying it.

Your definition of sin, without that word "divine", is just as good. We can use either definition. Let's say that sin is "Transgression against moral law".

I ask you again -- can God sin? You see, you answered the question with the "divine" word in the definition, and I asked it with the "non-divine" definition. With the "non-divine definition", let's look at your 3 answers:

1) But you do, in fact, believe in sin, under the non-divine definition. You believe that people can be good or bad.

2) "We are all God" and "There is no God" are equivalent statements, Thôl. We have discussed that already.

3) I'm talking about the God who created the universe and everything in it. Aristotle's "Prime Mover". We don't have to get into details of the Christian God, such as the Trinity, to answer that question. Can the Creator of the Universe, the Higher Power, the Ultimate Source of Goodness, sin?

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 06:51 PM

But once we take out the "divine" it is no longer sin, it is something else...you have changed the definition.

1) But you do, in fact, believe in sin, under the non-divine definition. You believe that people can be good or bad.

1) But it is a different thing, not sin.

2) "We are all God" and "There is no God" are equivalent statements, Thôl. We have discussed that already.

2) How are they equivalent, i dont remember discussing this. If we are God how can there be no God? That IS contradictory...

3) I'm talking about the God who created the universe and everything in it. Aristotle's "Prime Mover". We don't have to get into details of the Christian God, such as the Trinity, to answer that question. Can the Creator of the Universe, the Higher Power, the Ultimate Source of Goodness, sin?

3) Well if he did create sin, then yes he can sin as he is everything. So he must be sin. But this depends on whether or not he DID create sin.

Eriol

08-21-2003, 07:11 PM

You are objecting to the use of the word "sin". Perhaps you are right. "Sin" is indeed filled with religious overtones, and I don't think we need to bother with them at this point. Pick another word then. The important thing is the "falling away from goodness" point. Call it "evil", then.

The question then is, can God (an omnipotent, all-knowing being) fall away from goodness?

As for the equivalence of "everything is God" and "there is no God", the problem is that if you define God as being everything, then God becomes a meaningless concept. Just as "Nature" was becoming a meaningless concept in Lúthien's posts. Meaningless concepts are dangerous, and not because they have no meaning -- because you can infuse them with different and contradictory meanings at different occasions, and this leads to error.

I remember a post by Lúthien in which she said that cats did have some kind of moral law, because "otherwise they would be more violent" -- i.e., she was opposing the "feline moral law" to Nature. She was, in fact, saying that cats disobey Nature when they don't kill -- i.e., that Nature is violent and kills.

In the same (!) post, she attacks the church for not accepting homosexualism, which (according to her) is "perfectly natural".

So you see how "Nature" can become a meaningless concept -- and in that process it can be used to defend or attack anything.

The same thing happens with "God" if you say that "Everything is God". If mass murderers and saints are both God, then God becomes nothing, just a word devoid of meaning. If you want to use the word "God" in that sense, then I'll have to use some other word to describe the REAL God, the God who has a personality and acts (for your God has no personality, and never acts).

Let's call it "Lord", then.

Can the Lord fall away from goodness?

Do you believe in the Lord? A God with personality?

If the Lord exists, is he aware of the moral law?

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 07:44 PM

Can the Lord fall away from goodness?

Do you believe in the Lord? A God with personality?

If the Lord exists, is he aware of the moral law?

If he so wished it.

He is both good and bad therefore if he wished to rain fire down on us for kicks, he could.

Anybody, anybeing, has the capability to be "evil".

I believe there is a Lord an exterior being who watches us, but its like us in a dream, we have a dream and we watch it unfold without taking part in it. We are there, but we dont act out, and all the people in the dream are part of us as they are part of the dream.
That is the best i can clear it up.

He is well aware of it, he knows what it's all about.

Eriol

08-21-2003, 09:44 PM

I can act in a dream. I change the direction of dreams if I thought they are going in a bad way; and I've done it since I was about 7 years old. I can "turn off" a nightmare.

Anyway. If God decided to become a killer, would killing become good? In other words:

Is Goodness Good because the Lord wills it to be Good, or does the Lord will it to be Good because it was Good even if He did not will it?

A mouthful :D. Read it carefully, and answer it carefully.

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
I can act in a dream. I change the direction of dreams if I thought they are going in a bad way; and I've done it since I was about 7 years old. I can "turn off" a nightmare.

Anyway. If God decided to become a killer, would killing become good? In other words:

Is Goodness Good because the Lord wills it to be Good, or does the Lord will it to be Good because it was Good even if He did not will it?

A mouthful :D. Read it carefully, and answer it carefully.

Yes, so can God, and if you wished it, you can leave out affecting the dream.

I dont rightly know, that is the first time it has come up...care to comment aswell?

I believe that goodness is good because it is good, not that God wants it to be Good, lets face this: Where God is in the physical (im assuming that somwhere he has a physical body), there must be a good and bad there, which influences God himself...(kinda confusing) and that in turn is passed onto us...

Eriol

08-21-2003, 10:09 PM

The point you made about the dream made it clear (to me at least) that your God can't act. But now you seem to mean that He can -- He can interfere with the dream. Which one is it?

Anyway. You are saying that morality is above religion, right? That God recognizes a standard of Goodness. That if there were more than a God, and this extra God chose evil over good, we could say that he was an Evil God; we, mere mortals, could judge this God and decide that he is evil. Right?

I must make sure before I proceed.

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 10:36 PM

No, God can interfier, but he chooses not to, that is what i mean.

I believe so yes...

But before you go on, please inform me if you are planning on building a trap to catch me in :rolleyes: as it seems like its going that way...

Eriol

08-21-2003, 10:42 PM

If God can interfere, then if presented with evidence that He did interfere, you would have to discard your assumption that He won't interfere -- right?

"God won't interfere" is a dogma, an assumption, that you have not established at all. But we need not go into that right now.

As for the "trap" -- YES! I'm trying to "trap" you into thinking about Jesus and Christianity without the ungrounded assumptions you carry with you. I've been trying to "trap" you into that since I first posted here.

:)

Let's continue, then. Good is above God - God must obey Goodness, or He will be evil -- right?

HLGStrider

08-21-2003, 10:46 PM

There we go, what is this some big sevret game in which we are the expendable pawns?

What is sevret? No. The reason God didn't tell us when is because he A. Wants us to be always ready and B. Wants us to live productive lives.

If you knew you were leaving this earth in the year 2006, for example, you'd plan your life accordingly. You probably wouldn't go to college because you would know you were leaving just when you were getting out. You probably would alter your behavior dramatically.

So is he...

It's perfectly clear to me.

I have to emphasize the let he lets you in, he doesnt accept you in then?
I think he'd have to accept me to let me in. It isn't about him accepting me as much as me accepting him,however.

Am i going to hell? Or will i be one of those people he lets in?

Not for me to judge.

I never saw his son, i never hear his son, as far as im concerned his son is not here and hasnt been in 2000 years

You haven't really looked into it from what I've seen.

Thats if i get caught up in it, but until there is hard proof of it it will still seem like lies to me...

You don't need hard proof to disbelieve. . .you're going on negative evidence, which to quote a scientist who was discussing some theory or other in my science book "You can't prove a theory on negative evidence."

That it is believable as it is unbelievable...

You need to talk to your writing instructor about clarity.

Because in doing so i open myself to the lies of it, and i might get dragged into it and that is something i cant deal with right now.

Doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to you? The idea that reading a book means you have to believe it? The idea that it might drag you into it? You seem to think that you can't think and must believe if you read. . .either that or you think the Bible has occult powers or some sort.

If you can see this why can God not? Why does he have to be such a cump as to say either put your faith entirely into this book, or go to hell?

He didn't. YOu can be a Christian without ever touching a Bible.

Ok, it isnt very productive reading a book where ill go over the words and forget them. Im sure you have been over books that this has happened to you with...

Of course. . .that's all a matter of will.

If you are taken to church from the age of 3 - 16 every sunday for 13 years then you will start to listen, that is how indoctrination starts and after a while you believe it because it seems to make sense unless you think about it really hard and by that time unless you have a very strong will you cant rench yourself out and then the whole process starts over again with your children.

You listen. You don't naturally believe. Belief is a choice.

You really don't believe people can think for themselves, do you?

Elgee, can you honestly say that if there was no religion in your life you would become an adulterer or a murderer? Think about that. I have no reliogion in me at all, and i do not desire to break any of the 10 commandments. But what is the deal with "Thou shalt not make any engraven images!"?
No, in fact I very clearly said if I didn't belive in Christianity I would still believe in sin. I would just be confused as to where they came from.

God gives a very clear base for good. Bad is falling away from good. Etc.

Or moves it along..

It really didn't, as we are now butting heads over the same subject.

Because an all loving God would not do something like that, there are two alternatives here, either God isnt all loveing, or that there is no sin. There can be no other alternative.

I gave a third alternative. God is loving and there is sin. Prove it wrong. Don't just say it can't exist.

That wouldnt be a very meaningful relationship if something as small as religion was as big as "entering the race with one leg lopped off"

Religion isn't a small thing. It is entwined in the way we believe about life. It is a large thing for most people.
What if you marry a Christian? She'll want to take the children to church, most likely. You won't. It will be a fight.
What if she reads them a Bible story before bedtime? You'll come in and be trying to convince them that it was garbage. She'll say it was truth. Confusing for the poor six-year-old. Stressful for you.

Best thing would be to leave the child/children to their own devices and discover religion on their own, that is the only unsick way to do it...in any family, not just interfaith marriages

You're wrong (You told me to tell you if you were). I know certain things that will help my child in life. Religion is one of them. I tell my child about religion because I believe it is truth and it will help them. That is very loving and not at all sick.

If the child later doubts me, I will do my best to convince her, just as I am doing my best to convince you. . .I don't control the child's thoughts however. I don't control her belief. She is thinking for herself.

Explain please....

I would believe good and evil existed but I wouldn't know where they came from. I wouldn't know how to prove them. I wouldn't have a base for them.

God is a base.

Ok, why should there have to be sin?
There doesn't have to be. One day there isn't going to. Jesus came to rid us of sin, and in heaven there will be no sin. Pre-fall there was no sin. Sin is here by choice of man.

No thats doing right and wrong. Sinning is where you "Transgression agains divine moral law"

In another conversation, Dictionaries were unsuitable proof becaue they were written by society. Why should I believe yours now?

Ask yourself the question, "why would he want to?"

To tell us what not to do in order that we might live better lives.

And whats wrong with this?

In dualism right and wrong are equal. However, they come from no where. It's just a choice which you are. Lewis could tell you moe about it than I can. . .
Also, dualism is incorrect in how it defines evil, as a seperate power. Evil is just a corruption of Good. (Sort of like how Melkor can't create. He can only corrupt).

Off the top of my head, people that wanted to control the masses and they have done a very good job at it.
Think about Christianity. Think about how it started and spread. Think about it being surpressed and its followers tortured. This doens't seem to fit your definition.

Why were they so successful? Because they worked hard due to their religion...it was unjust hate, but still caused by a religion.

Yes, they worked hard due to their relgion. . .You're saying that this was a bad thing? And it didn't cause the hate. The hate was caused by jealousy.

That's like saying that, since a man is good because he follows god and people hate him because he is good, it is the fault of god that people hate him.

It is Jenna's fault for being pretty that the ugly girl, Susy, hates her.

It is Dora's fault for being smart that the not so smart Ed hates her. . .

You're misplacing blame.

Blacks aside, what about the other peoples they attacked? Jews Catholics etc....

A matter of groundless hate. Any research they would've done would've turned up that Jesus and the disciples were al ljews so hating jews because of Christianity is ridiculous. . .And also they would've found out that Catholics are just another breed of Christians. . .

so, they had groundless hate.

You’re ignoring the fact that most Nazis were Christian.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. For one thing, there was alot of propaganda by the Nazi's against the old testament, half of Christianity's book, because it was Jewish. Etc.

There has not been a single side in war that HASN’T believed that God was on their side.

Tell that to Stalin.

I dont want to be dragged into it however, and there is still the matter of sin to make it wrong...

You can't get dragged in if you don't want to be. .

Celebthôl

08-21-2003, 11:04 PM

Ok, well he doesnt interfier in certain ways, but he will, say to write a book etc...he doesnt never interfier...but he wont to say drown the world in a flood and only save 8 people....

No wrong, he can alter it inside as in his imagination, but he will have to interfier with our minds and so effect our free will, and that is one thing he will never do.

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 12:06 AM

What is sevret?

Secret ;)

No. The reason God didn't tell us when is because he A. Wants us to be always ready and B. Wants us to live productive lives.

If you knew you were leaving this earth in the year 2006, for example, you'd plan your life accordingly. You probably wouldn't go to college because you would know you were leaving just when you were getting out. You probably would alter your behavior dramatically.

We can still be ready, even more so, we can still live productive lives...I mean what? Does the world end or something when he comes back?

This is all way to convenient.

Not for me to judge.

I think you already have...

You haven't really looked into it from what I've seen.[

Should i have to?

You don't need hard proof to disbelieve. . .you're going on negative evidence, which to quote a scientist who was discussing some theory or other in my science book "You can't prove a theory on negative evidence."

More believable with hard proof....

You need to talk to your writing instructor about clarity.

Yes i do :(

Doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to you? The idea that reading a book means you have to believe it? The idea that it might drag you into it? You seem to think that you can't think and must believe if you read. . .either that or you think the Bible has occult powers or some sort.

Yes it is rediculous...no, but i could get drawn into into it, and i dont want to be.

He didn't. YOu can be a Christian without ever touching a Bible.

Thats even worse...

Of course. . .that's all a matter of will.

Yes it is...and some things test your will...

You listen. You don't naturally believe. Belief is a choice.

You really don't believe people can think for themselves, do you?

After 13 years of being forced to listen, you will start to believe.

No, in fact I very clearly said if I didn't belive in Christianity I would still believe in sin. I would just be confused as to where they came from.

God gives a very clear base for good. Bad is falling away from good. Etc.

But the point is you would still not break the 10 commandments, neither would I, so why would anyone else?

I gave a third alternative. God is loving and there is sin. Prove it wrong. Don't just say it can't exist.

That is an impossible one, an all loving God will not allow us to do wrong to ourselves that will hurt us later on.

Religion isn't a small thing. It is entwined in the way we believe about life. It is a large thing for most people.
What if you marry a Christian? She'll want to take the children to church, most likely. You won't. It will be a fight.
What if she reads them a Bible story before bedtime? You'll come in and be trying to convince them that it was garbage. She'll say it was truth. Confusing for the poor six-year-old. Stressful for you.

No, i will sit down with my wife and discuss with her about how i feel and how she feels and then make a more informed decission and well i cant say how it will finish as i havent had the conversation yet...

You're wrong (You told me to tell you if you were). I know certain things that will help my child in life. Religion is one of them. I tell my child about religion because I believe it is truth and it will help them. That is very loving and not at all sick.

If the child later doubts me, I will do my best to convince her, just as I am doing my best to convince you. . .I don't control the child's thoughts however. I don't control her belief. She is thinking for herself.

That is not fair, what if you are wrong? What if your spirituality (:confused: ) is different to that of your daughters and you stifle that? That is very far from fair, what if your child is atheist and would you shun her then?

I would believe good and evil existed but I wouldn't know where they came from. I wouldn't know how to prove them. I wouldn't have a base for them.

God is a base.

I see...

There doesn't have to be. One day there isn't going to. Jesus came to rid us of sin, and in heaven there will be no sin. Pre-fall there was no sin. Sin is here by choice of man.

I never made that choice, i dont remeber being asked about it.

In another conversation, Dictionaries were unsuitable proof becaue they were written by society. Why should I believe yours now?

You dont have to, but that just helps you not to answer the question, therefore cant answer the question...

To tell us what not to do in order that we might live better lives.

But then hes telling us how to live, therefore curbing our wills....

In dualism right and wrong are equal. However, they come from no where. It's just a choice which you are. Lewis could tell you moe about it than I can. . .
Also, dualism is incorrect in how it defines evil, as a seperate power. Evil is just a corruption of Good. (Sort of like how Melkor can't create. He can only corrupt).

Well i agree there...

Think about Christianity. Think about how it started and spread. Think about it being surpressed and its followers tortured. This doens't seem to fit your definition.

Why not? It seems believable...why not stick up for it "just in case"

Yes, they worked hard due to their relgion. . .You're saying that this was a bad thing? And it didn't cause the hate. The hate was caused by jealousy.

That's like saying that, since a man is good because he follows god and people hate him because he is good, it is the fault of god that people hate him.

It is Jenna's fault for being pretty that the ugly girl, Susy, hates her.

It is Dora's fault for being smart that the not so smart Ed hates her. . .

You're misplacing blame.

No, but it was still due to their religion...

A matter of groundless hate. Any research they would've done would've turned up that Jesus and the disciples were al ljews so hating jews because of Christianity is ridiculous. . .And also they would've found out that Catholics are just another breed of Christians. . .

so, they had groundless hate.

But they thought their "religion" was perfect, you take that away and they still hate, then you can call it groundless.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. For one thing, there was alot of propaganda by the Nazi's against the old testament, half of Christianity's book, because it was Jewish. Etc.

Im pretty sure shes right, there was lots of christian things going on with the Nazi's Hitler even practised some occult things aswell...and he stole some guys spear from a musiem (sp) as it was prophesised that the holder of it would "win"

Lúthien Séregon

08-22-2003, 12:53 AM

Taking it out of context also does not help. And I dare you to give me one example of an atheist saint.

The only reason there’s no atheist saint is because only those who are religious are portrayed as saints BY RELIGION. Bias, in other words. People only think of others as saints if they do charitable deeds in the name of God. That has nothing to do with actually being a good person, there are plenty of atheists who I think could be saints in themselves.

And as for mass murderers being atheists, you still haven’t really addressed the fact that war is mainly created by religion. For all the wars that are supposedly for saving lives, there would be no war at all if it weren’t for religion.

And I know quite a lot about Islamic culture – half of my family is Islamic. As for muslims being “brothers of faith”…have you been to Saudi Arabia before? Some of the practices that go on in normal families are quite horrible. Maybe you should read some of the books ( by Norma Khouri, for example ) that have come out recently, that give eyewitness accounts of crime committed in the name of religion and honour.

If the statement about Nazis being supported by Christians is laughable, then I dare you to try and refute it. ;) There were a LOT of Christians that supported Hitler.

Ciryaher

08-22-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote from Hitler (p284, Life "World War II", 1st Edition.)

"We are not out against the hundred and one different sects of Christianity, but agaisnt Christianity itself."

Quote from Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - Testimony, Vol. 5

"Concerning the extermination of asocial elements, Doctor Goebbels is of the opinion that the following groups must be exterminated: All Jews and Gypsies; Poles who have to serve 3 or 4 years penal servitude; Czechoslovakians and Germans who have been condemned to death or hard labor for life or placed in protective custody. The idea of extermination by work is best."

Lt. Lambert from the same source:

I offer in evidence Document 838-PS, as Exhibit USA-684. I shall not burden the Record with extensive quotation from this exhibit, but merely point out that this is a copy of a Bormann decree dated 3 June 1939, which laid it down that followers of Christian Science should be excluded from the [Nazi] Party.

The attention of the Tribunal is next invited...referring with approval to an earlier Bormann decree of 9 Feb. 1937 in which the Defendant Bormann ruled that in the future all [Nazi] Party members who entered the clergy or who undertook the study of theology were to be expelled from the [Nazi] Party.

I next offer in evidence...addressed to all the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter--top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party--transmitting a copy of directions relating to the non-participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations. The Reich Labor Service, the Tribunal will recall, compulsorily incorporated all Germans within its organization.

The reference to Goebbels was referring to the Czechs, Poles, and Germans in question as Christians, not because of any ethnicity (which is why Germans are included). All of this evidence proves that the Nazis are not pro-Christian and are in fact, anti-Christian.

More info:

Pastor Martin Niemoller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others formed the "Pastors Emergency League". The organization would later become known as the Confessing Church. The League sought and end to Nazi manipulation of the churches. Initially, the Confessing Church was concerned with the the policy of exclusion that the Aryan Paragraph advocated. The Confessing Church's leaders believed the exclusion of Jews from the church community was in direct violation of Christian teaching. As evangelical Christians they believed in the concept of spreading the Gospel, a concept the Aryan Paragraph contradicted. Some historians have been critical of the Confessing Church's motivations in opposing Nazism. Many view their evangelicalism as symptomatic of the mentality that helped engineer the rise of Nazism. Such views are short sighted. True, as evangelical Christians they may have sought to convert non Christians, but their opposition to the Nazis was not restricted to issues of conversion.

Members of the Confessing Church helped approximately 2000 Jews escape to freedom. They also assisted political dissidents and fellow Christians persecuted by the regime. Bonhoeffer even liasoned with members of the military resistance, some of whom were involved in the July 20th bombing of the Wolf's Lair. He helped draft memoranda on a future democratic government in the event that the regime was toppled. Bonhoeffer also compiled evidence of SS crimes, and coordinated contacts with foreigners abroad to gain support for a number of resistance groups. Bonhoeffer's actions indicate a level of concern that superseded particular theological assertions. Members of the Confessing Church actively protested against the Nazi regime and its anti-Semitic policies.

On 20 July 1933 the Catholic Church and Germany signed a Papal Concordat. The agreement was to guarantee the safety of the Catholic Church's institutions in Germany. In return for Nazi guarantees of security, the Catholic Church promised not to intervene in Germany's domestic policies. Despite this fact, a significant amount of the Church's leadership did protest the Nazi regime's programs. Clerics like Archbishop Michael von Faulhaber, Bishop Konrad Graf von Preysing, and Bishop Clemens Graf von Galen protested Nazi policies of abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia. Unfortunately, some of these protesters were much less vocal with regard to the crimes committed against Jews. Some Catholics, like Father Litchenberg, refused to be silent. Father Litchenberg publicly spoke out against Nazi policies. He frequently ended each Mass with prayers for the Jews. Litchenberg was eventually arrested, and served 2 years of penal servitude. He was arrested a second time, but died on his way to Dachau.

Unfortunately, as an institution, the Catholic Church's efforts at assisting victims of the regime (including their own clerics) is minimal at best. Like their Protestant counterparts the Catholic Church had for the most part been silent. This should however, not subtract from the remembrance of those priests, nuns, monks, and lay people who sacrificed their lives to resist oppression.

Consider your dare taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

As for wars all being religious, I'll go through which ones in the past 300 or so years weren't religious, and then you name which ones were (most of mine will be in the Americas)

French and Indian War
American Revolutionary War
French Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Napoleonic Wars
American Civil War
Russian Revolutionary War
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
World War 1
World War 2
Korean War
Vietnam War
Six-Days War (partially religious, but only because the nations that wanted eachothers land happened to be of different religion)

Your turn. And remember that the Crusades were mostly political with a veil of religion cast over them to get more people to join ;)

Lúthien Séregon

08-22-2003, 11:12 AM

About Hitler and Christianity:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm

Some persons claim that Adolf Hitler was an atheist. But the historical record shows that Hitler believed in God and was convinced he was carrying out God's will.

Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.

Even after World War II, Catholic assistance to the Nazis continued. The Vatican aided the escape of more Nazis than did any other governmental or private organization.

Christians constituted a wellspring of support for Hitler. Steve Allen notes that in the 1930s, Nazi Germany "was the most church-affiliated nation in Europe. The German people were almost entirely Catholic and Lutheran. Despite such factors they launched the Holocaust and World War II." Charles Kimball adds that the Holocaust "would not have happened without the active participation of, sympathetic support of, and relative indifference exhibited by large numbers of Christians."

As for the religious wars, I think it's silly to list every single war, because practically EVERY side that has gone to war has said that "God is on their side", whether for political reasons or not. Even in the war in Iraq, Bush said that God was on America's side. I'm not surprised you haven't listed any non-religious wars that were beyond 300 years ago - probably because there are VERY very few. I'm talking about wars throughout human history - practically every single one may have had a political front, but all were also religious. Including the Crusades – their aim as to “recover the Holy Land””, now if that’s not religious then nothing is. There were about 7 crusades in all.

The wars you've listed are mostly of America. What about all of those conflicts in other parts of the world? ( these are all fairly recent ):

Middle East
Israel vs. Hamas and Hizbollah: since1975 - Religious and Territory
Iraq government (Sunni) vs. Shi'ite: 1991 - Religious
Kurdish factions vs. govts. of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey: 1961 - Independence

Asia
Afghanistan: Taliban vs. Other Factions: 1978 - Ethnic and Religious
Cambodia govt. vs. Khmer Rouge and Royalists: 1979 - Political
India govt. vs. Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front: 1989 - Ethnic and Religious
India govt. vs. Punjab: 1982 - Religious
India vs. Pakistan: 1948 - Ethnic and Religious
Indonesia govt. vs. Revolutionary Front for East Timor: 1975 - Independence
Indonesia govt. vs. Irian Jaya and Aceh: 1969 - Autonomy and Religious
Philippines govt. vs. New People's Army, National Liberation Front: 1969 - Ideological and Religious
Sri Lanka govt. vs. Tamil Eelam: 1978 - Ethnic and Religious

Out of 11 conflicts, 8 are religious, surprise surprise.

And as for the whole of history, there's no way I can list every single war that is religious, because even the vast majority had ( and still have ) at least religious incentive, and a large number actually on the grounds of religion.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Ok, well he doesnt interfier in certain ways, but he will, say to write a book etc...he doesnt never interfier...but he wont to say drown the world in a flood and only save 8 people....

As I said above, you are assuming a lot of things about God's character. If you witnessed a miracle, like a guy walking on water, you would have to believe in it -- right? Think well before answering that.

No wrong, he can alter it inside as in his imagination, but he will have to interfier with our minds and so effect our free will, and that is one thing he will never do.

Hmmm.... You said above that Good is "outside" God and influences Him; now you say that Good is created by God's will. Which one is it? Is Goodness Good before God wills it to be Good? Or is Goodness Good because God wills it to be Good?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 03:27 PM

As I said above, you are assuming a lot of things about God's character. If you witnessed a miracle, like a guy walking on water, you would have to believe in it -- right? Think well before answering that.

Right.

But you know my belief, and you know that that is not God interfiering (sp) but that that person has attained a certain degree of Ultimate Knowledge....

Hmmm.... You said above that Good is "outside" God and influences Him; now you say that Good is created by God's will. Which one is it? Is Goodness Good before God wills it to be Good? Or is Goodness Good because God wills it to be Good?

Well, again i'm assuming that there is an outside world to God (makes sense that there would be...)
But as this is the equivalent of a dream like state where the dreamer is concious (sp) he can affect what Good and Bad is, as you can in a dream, but the outside world (the waking world) effects certain aspects of your dream...
Therefore it is natural that good and bad are what they are, however they can be changed if God really wanted to (inside the dream). But he wont do that, as he would have to affect our minds to bend to his whim, and that is the one thing he will never do...

(I dont know that this makes sense...sorry if it doesn't)

Eriol

08-22-2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
The only reason there’s no atheist saint is because only those who are religious are portrayed as saints BY RELIGION. Bias, in other words. People only think of others as saints if they do charitable deeds in the name of God. That has nothing to do with actually being a good person, there are plenty of atheists who I think could be saints in themselves.

And this shows you know nothing about sainthood, if you think saints are merely "nice people", "good persons who do charitable deeds".

And as for mass murderers being atheists, you still haven’t really addressed the fact that war is mainly created by religion. For all the wars that are supposedly for saving lives, there would be no war at all if it weren’t for religion.

Ciryaher did a good job of laughing off the "Nazi Christians" claim, so I'll pick this one to laugh about from now on, if you don't mind. "There would be no war at all if it weren't for religion", hehe. I see you don't want to talk about it, you just want to proclaim what you learned (sort of). Do you know what it seems to me? The B-word.

Oh, and by the way, I noticed you subtly changed your statement from "most Nazis are Christians" to "a lot of Christians supported Nazism". Twist, twist, twist...

And I know quite a lot about Islamic culture – half of my family is Islamic. As for muslims being “brothers of faith”…have you been to Saudi Arabia before? Some of the practices that go on in normal families are quite horrible. Maybe you should read some of the books ( by Norma Khouri, for example ) that have come out recently, that give eyewitness accounts of crime committed in the name of religion and honour.

Are you bashing your family's religion, then? Gosh, it's worse than I thought.

"Islamic culture" is a non sequitur. There is Islamic religion, and a lot of cultures within Islam. Just as Christianity ceased to be a culturally homogenous group when it spread over America and Africa and Asia. There's no such thing as a "cultural Christian".

You are, of course, bashing Arabic culture. I could find some things to criticize there myself -- but I know (and you seem not to know -- or to have forgotten it) that it was the most advanced culture on the planet for a long time, and was the most tolerant as well. The recent downswing in Arabic culture is, well, recent ;) ; and it has nothing to do with Islam proper, a lot to do with ignorance and prejudice.

I'm still appalled that you would speak like that about your family's religion. I think I see now why you got so upset with that "haters" analogy. Lúthien, look at yourself and see if you are not hating too much, on this thread at least.

If the statement about Nazis being supported by Christians is laughable, then I dare you to try and refute it. ;) There were a LOT of Christians that supported Hitler.

Well, perhaps you seem that this is an issue for discussion, even after Ciryaher posted documental evidence (not opinions from historians) about it. It is really like arguing that Hitler was a kind, misunderstood guy. Go ahead if you want to believe it.

There are a lot of Christians who support Bush; there were a lot of Christians who supported Saddam, in Iraq. "There is a lot of Christians that..." is really a sad, sad line of argument.

The Catholic "support" for Nazism is so, so funny... I hope Malbeth posts more here about it, he knows a lot. I only call your attention that this nonsense about "Hitler's Pope" is very recent, and written by Church haters. But this would not matter if they were right; problem is, they are not. Look at the documents shown by Ciryaher.

Not a surprising turn of events for Catholics, to be bashed by people without any ground in the facts. You get used to it after 2000 years ;). The Sanhedrin (Jew leaders at the time of Christ) started the tradition.

Finally, the list of "religious wars" is also fantastic. Could you define what is a "religious war", Lúthien? If an individual Christian murders an individual atheist, is it a religious war? I guess it is, according to you.

Thôl:

Isn't your God constantly "affecting our minds to bend to his whim" if he prevents sin?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 03:55 PM

Isn't your God constantly "affecting our minds to bend to his whim" if he prevents sin?

Not at all, as there is not sin, so he doesn't have to prevent it...

Eriol

08-22-2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Not at all, as there is not sin, so he doesn't have to prevent it...

This is the problem of using the same word for two different concepts. I'm falling into the same trap, Thôl, this is not a criticism of you, but rather of us.

We have two definitions of sin, competing against each other.

Sin = Transgression against divine moral law

Sin = Transgression against moral law.

I am not speaking about definition 1 here; in fact, to make it easier for us, when I refer to definition 1, "religious" sin, I will write sin*.

So.

You said to Elgee that

an all loving God will not allow us to do wrong to ourselves that will hurt us later on.

Is sin (note the absence of * :D) something that hurts us? Is transgressing against moral laws something that hurts us?

If it is, then your God prevents us from sinning. If it is not, then why are moral laws called "laws"?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 04:44 PM

Hurts us how? Spiritually? Or Earthly?

Spiritually no, not at all, Earthly, depends on which "Law" was broken...

But when you say "Law" do you mean what the government creates? what God creates? Natural laws? etc...

Malbeth

08-22-2003, 04:46 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even after World War II, Catholic assistance to the Nazis continued. The Vatican aided the escape of more Nazis than did any other governmental or private organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would sure like to see the documentation for this claim; it would mean that Pope Pius XII had multiple personalities, for, apart from the Allied Armies (that had quite a lot more resources), no institution was more responsible for the saving of Jewish lives than the Catholic Church; the Church saved from 700,000 to 860,000 jews, according to Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide. This is about 30% of all jews who survived the Holocasut, and for this the Church received the praise of many proeminent Jews after the war, like Golda Meir and Albert Einstein, for Her role during the holocaust. The chief rabbi of Rome even converted to Catholicism and took Pius XIIs Christian name, Eugenio.

Of course, perhaps Pius XII had multiple personality, and so he saved Jews and attacked Nazis on Monday and reversed that policy on Tuesday... however that is very hard to believe without documentation.

Let us consider now the role of the Church on the years preceeding World War II.

She signed a concordat with Hitler's regime. The Church did this with all countries who would, trying to protect the faith, knowing that She was hated in a lot of countries, whether totalitary or liberal. This does not mean that the Church agreed with the Nazi regime, since She denounced the regime before the concordat and continued to do so after it. Within three years of the signing, the pope had issued nearly forty notes of formal protest to the Nazi regime. In 1937 there came the most dramatic papal denunciation of Nazism (and this, remember, was a time when a lot of people still liked Hitler). Delivered into Germany by stealth and read from every pulpit, Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning anxiety) was a papal encyclical cataloguing the Nazi's violation of the concordat, affirming Christianitys roots in Judaism, underlined the universality of the Catholic faith that treated all men of whatever nation and race as the childrens of God, and condemned the neo-paganism of the Nazis and their mad prophet Adolf Hitler. Against this, the pope wrote, There is but one alternative left, that of heroism.

The site you posted also says that Christians have always hated Jews; however, the Council of Trent, in the 16th century made explicit the Catholic Teaching that those responsible for deicide were only those directly envolved, and that no race is to be blamed collectively for that (of course, in a wider sense, we are all responsible for the deicide, since we all sin).

Nazis would agree with you when you defend abortion, though; they legalized abortion, euthanasia and sterilization, ignoring the protests of the Church.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Hurts us how? Spiritually? Or Earthly?

Spiritually no, not at all, Earthly, depends on which "Law" was broken...

But when you say "Law" do you mean what the government creates? what God creates? Natural laws? etc...

Moral law = goodness. It is not a human law, and not a natural law (like gravity). That is why sinning can be described as either "falling away from goodness" or "breaking a moral law" -- two ways to state the same thing.

Now, by breaking a moral law we are falling away from goodness. Don't you think that hurts us, spiritually? Don't you think that bad guys are worse than good guys?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 05:12 PM

No not really, lets see...

The bad guys...lets say the guys who crashed the plane into The Twin towers.
They didnt do it one day because they thought "I want to for no reason", they did it for what they believed in.

What im trying to get accross is that moral laws are different for each person...so there can only be a falling from your own moral laws, someone may fall from a moral law as you see it, but they see it from a different perspective...

Eriol

08-22-2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
No not really, lets see...

The bad guys...lets say the guys who crashed the plane into The Twin towers.
They didnt do it one day because they thought "I want to for no reason", they did it for what they believed in.

What im trying to get accross is that moral laws are different for each person...so there can only be a falling from your own moral laws, someone may fall from a moral law as you see it, but they see it from a different perspective...

But were they right?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 05:24 PM

In whos view? Mine? no, theirs? Yes.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
In whos view? Mine? no, theirs? Yes.

If you were on the Twin Towers, would you agree that they were right on their views?

If I steal you because I think you don't have the right to own property, am I right?

If I enslave you because I don't think you have the right to freedom, am I right?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 05:36 PM

It is not what i think, i do not pass judgment, you judge yourself, if you feel that you should steal, then thats your call, and the same for if you want slaves.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 05:47 PM

You did not realize that the "you" on those questions was YOU, the real you. Would you agree to being enslaved or stolen or killed?

We have gone through that, if you remember. You would be angry with a guy who raped your sister -- but he would be right, according to his views. You were angry with me a few posts ago; but I was right, according to my views. Why were you angry, then?

Your anger contradicts your words. Think about it with your whole being instead of with the words your mind fell in love with, and answer: would you agree to your OWN slavery/rape/murder?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 05:53 PM

No I wouldnt, but that is negligable, im not the one who thinks that they are ok, I wont do them, bit that doesnt mean that a bad person wont. If its right for them then it isnt making them fall from goodness is it?

Eriol

08-22-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
No I wouldnt, but that is negligable, im not the one who thinks that they are ok, I wont do them, bit that doesnt mean that a bad person wont. If its right for them then it isnt making them fall from goodness is it?

I'm not asking them, I'm asking you.

;)

Are they falling away from goodness if they enslave you?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 06:25 PM

If they judge themselves to be, then yes.
If they judge themselves to not be, then no.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
If they judge themselves to be, then yes.
If they judge themselves to not be, then no.

Again, I'm asking you, not them. What do you judge them to be?

We really have to get back to the first pages of this thread and the difference between a view and a fact, Thôl? We have seen that people can be mistaken regarding sums. Why do you believe they can't be mistaken regarding morality?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 07:19 PM

Because you cant lie to yourself. You know whats wrong and right and if you are going against them or not, but each others morals are different, or else we would all be the same we wouldnt have this discussion, there would be no murderers...etc...different moralities means different characteristics...

Eriol

08-22-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Because you cant lie to yourself. You know whats wrong and right and if you are going against them or not, but each others morals are different, or else we would all be the same we wouldnt have this discussion, there would be no murderers...etc...different moralities means different characteristics...

Hehe, I think you can lie to yourself. In fact, all psychologists agree with me.

The point is not that the terrorists have a different moral code; that is obvious. The point is, is that moral code right? We don't have to ask them this question, for they obviously think it is. But they can be mistaken.

Are they? That is what I am asking to YOU, not to them.

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 07:36 PM

Not as easy as "Yes they are"

No they are not wrong. Just because it doesnt agree with your morals doesnt make it wrong.

Eriol

08-22-2003, 07:42 PM

According to your views, they are not wrong?

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 07:44 PM

They are doing what serves them....therefore not wrong...

Eriol

08-22-2003, 07:51 PM

As you see, it is quite possible for one to lie to himself. You have just done it -- again.

;)

Thôl, I guarantee you that if someone raped your sister you would not think "well, the guy is doing what serves him, therefore he is not wrong".

The problem is that your view is that there is no such thing as a view. It is, therefore, self-contradictory. You can't say that "your view" has any authority. I am telling you that raping is WRONG. You can't discuss it with me, because your views are that there are no views, (or that all views are the same, which amounts to the same thing). You have to agree with me. Then, the rapist comes up and he says that raping is RIGHT. You have to agree with him too.

As you see, your views are lunatic, and lead to madness. Luckily, you don't really believe in that; you just say you believe in it. If your sister ever gets raped, you'll see in what you believe...

In other words, you are lying to yourself.

Celebthôl

08-22-2003, 10:00 PM

Unless he is a psychopath, he is not doing something as he sees as morally wrong.

HLGStrider

08-22-2003, 11:56 PM

Ok, well he doesnt interfier in certain ways, but he will, say to write a book etc...he doesnt never interfier...but he wont to say drown the world in a flood and only save 8 people....

Someday I am going to start correcting your spelling. . .

But I say he does interfere. . .so what makes you right and me wrong?

We can still be ready, even more so, we can still live productive lives...I mean what? Does the world end or something when he comes back?

This actually depends on your interpetation of Biblical prophecy, and I am not sure. I think it begins the 2,000 year period of him ruling earth.

This is all way to convenient.

Whoever said God likes to make it hard on us?

I think you already have...

Admittedly I did consider the question and think, "From what I know of him, he probably will go to hell" but I immediately realized that that was "from what I know." and I don't know everything, unlike God.

Should i have to?

If you want to make an informed decision, yes. I don't see why you'd want to make an uninformed one.

Yes it is rediculous...no, but i could get drawn into into it, and i dont want to be.
How? Are you going with the occult powers idea?

Thats even worse...

How so? Yes, I admit it is better to know everything about your faith, but it is all right if you just believe. . .

After 13 years of being forced to listen, you will start to believe.

If so, everyone who went to church as a child would always remain a Christian. Everyone in Russia would've been an atheist. Etc.

People still can think.

But the point is you would still not break the 10 commandments, neither would I, so why would anyone else?

I never said I wouldn't. I do occasionally. I dishonor my father and mother every so often. I lie occasionally. I've comited sins in my mind and such as you think, therefore you are.

I bet you have as well.
Anyway, my statement was arguing that the Ten Commandments are good and that God is not being a tyrant by giving them to us. It seems you admit they are good. . .so why do you think he was a tyrant?

That is an impossible one, an all loving God will not allow us to do wrong to ourselves that will hurt us later on.

I don't see where freewill comes into this.

No, i will sit down with my wife and discuss with her about how i feel and how she feels and then make a more informed decission and well i cant say how it will finish as i havent had the conversation yet...

Meaning you'll have to compromise on somethign that was very important to both of you. I don't think this is a good way to enter a relationship. Marriage takes compromise, but it shouldn't be all compromise.

That is not fair, what if you are wrong? What if your spirituality ( ) is different to that of your daughters and you stifle that? That is very far from fair, what if your child is atheist and would you shun her then?

Children aren't born atheists. So what you mean is what if she decides to become one. Of course, I wouldnt' shun her, but I would do my best to convince her she was wrong.

Everyone has the same spirituality in that we all have the capability to be Christians or anything else. We just express it differently.

I never made that choice, i dont remeber being asked about it

You're saying that you've never sinned or considered sinning?

You dont have to, but that just helps you not to answer the question, therefore cant answer the question...

I'm saying that that isn't the definition I would use for sin. I can work into one I would if I tried, but I don't prefer it. What was the question?

But then hes telling us how to live, therefore curbing our wills....

I say, 'Cel, don't smoke. It is bad for you. ' Have I curbed your will?

Why not? It seems believable...why not stick up for it "just in case"

I think Christianity is a better just in case.

No, but it was still due to their religion...

If you really like to split hairs.

But they thought their "religion" was perfect, you take that away and they still hate, then you can call it groundless.

They didn't understand their own religion which forbade what they were doing, so it would be hard to say they were following it.

Im pretty sure shes right, there was lots of christian things going on with the Nazi's Hitler even practised some occult things aswell...and he stole some guys spear from a musiem (sp) as it was prophesised that the holder of it would "win"

Undoubtably he was superstitious. He was also a tad bit nutty. He always insisted his body guard check under the bed before he went to sleep. Christianity isn't occult. it's opposed ot the occult.

Ciryaher

08-23-2003, 08:36 AM

That is an impossible one, an all loving God will not allow us to do wrong to ourselves that will hurt us later on.

I think the following quote from a very good television show (that I used before but was ignored) sums this up:

If God answered all our prayers, there'd be nothing left for us to do ourselves. Life is about problems, and overcoming those problems, and growing and learning from obstacles. If God just fixed everything for us, then there'd be no point to our existence.

If God made it so that we would all end up at the same place, no matter what, what would the point of life be? True freewill allows us to do whatever we want, but we are held accountable for those actions. Life is the most complicated thing in existence. It is easy to do things that are wrong, even if they feel wrong inside you. But once you lower that barrier, it becomes easier to do things that you once thought wrong. If God made it so that we could not stray, there would be no point to life. We could just as well shoot ourselves and get to the good place fast as possible.

Eriol

08-24-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Unless he is a psychopath, he is not doing something as he sees as morally wrong.

Yes, we have agreed on that. The terrorists were looking after their own good, as they viewed it. You know, Thôl, at some moment you will have to answer what I am asking you.

Were they right to do it, according to YOU?

Could the terrorists be wrong about what is their own good? Remember the difference between a view and a fact. People can make mistakes with arithmetic, which is something so simple even a computer can get right :D; surely they can goof up in ethics.

Let me make a big post now instead of waiting for your answer. You have only two alternatives to answer the italicized question: Yes, and No.

If you answer Yes: then you have to examine whether they were, actually, right or wrong about their own good. You have to ask what is goodness according to you; and whether your notion of goodness claims to have any universal authority, which is really the big question.

If you answer No to that question, you are actually answering "no" to the big question. You will be admitting that your "goodness" is as good as the terrorists' "Goodness". And this means that there is no such thing as goodness, and that you CAN'T call people "good" or "bad". "Goodness" becomes an instinctive, irrational preference, like "what is your favorite color". If you accept that, you can't condemn anyone -- including the rapist of your sister.

If you accept goodness -- and you already accepted it when you agreed that there are moral laws, and that people can break them -- then you must answer Yes to both the italicized question and the big question. And after you do that, you will have to answer the first question in this post:

Were the terrorists right?

Bonus question:

Is there evil in the world?

Note that I never used the words "God" or "sin". This is not a religious problem, Thôl -- it is a problem of morality, of ethics.