religious discrimination

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Perhaps you missed the 5th commandment "Thou shalt not murder". Those who read are generally inspired to do good, not create mayhem. As I stated before, Jesus never asked anyone to kill; "Love your enemy... Pray for your enemy". Doesn't much sound like someone who was inciting any kind of violence to me!

 

Yes, Dan.  Its all there.  The very good and the truly awful.  By cherry picking we can prove anything.  Again, my interest is not what could have been or what should have been.  My interest is what actually happened.  What happened was 2,000 years of bloody mayhem.  No matter how we dance around it, at least some of the Scriptures justified that awful history. 

The world might have been a better place if you or I had edited Scripture.  Its too late for that now.  The Bible in it's totality is what it is.  So is history.  So is the violence that goes on today.  Because people don't confine themselves to the sweet and gentle passages.  They read all of it -- and much of it is an incitement to pure evil.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 hours ago, mererdog said:

Of course. So why cite the violent interpretation as if it is the correct one? If someone believes the Bible to be inerrant, why would you tell them the Bible says to drown nonbelievers? What positive consequences are you hoping for?

That asside....

You cite only a portion of possible answers to the question of the Bible's purpose.

One popular belief is that it is only able to be properly understood under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If that belief is accurate, complaining that those who lack the Spirit's guidance fail to understand the Bible is like complaining that you can't breathe underwater.

Another popular belief is that the Bible is part of a greater test, wherein the "wheat is separated from the chaff". Essentially, the belief is that those who don't deserve the truth will not find it. To dispute that belief requires making assertions about what people deserve, and while I have strong opinions on that subject, arguing opinions is a waste of time that leads inevitably to rancor.

And still we are only scratching the surface. I have heard many explanations given for the Bible's purpose, and assume many other possible explanations exist that haven't been thought of yet. If an argument rests on an assumption that the Bible's purpose is any specific thing, that argument is not proven until that assumption is.

If someone is so ignorant of Scripture that they think it is all sweetness and light and goodness -- I am entitled to point to a few of the nasty bits -- if only to demonstrate that they exist.

I am not hoping for positive consequences.  Not from that Book.  I am stating my truth as I understand it.  In accordance with objective, external reality as I understand it.

I am not telling the believing faithful to drown non-believers.  I am pointing out that the Bible says that non-believers are worthy of being drowned.  I have read the Book.  It says what it says.  Good, bad and otherwise.  If we are not afraid of the truth, we must confront what Scripture actually says.  Not what we want it to say.  It is all there.  Anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-human dignity.  The truth is the truth, regardless of where it takes us.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Yet Dan even you seperate murder from a godly killing.

So many people killed were killed by those who felt justified to kill by their faith in a religion. I remember talking about the new years tsunami in india and you felt this was justified because they were not Christians.  I see even the seeds of such evils from the past are in you. 

Of course.  Cite the example of a Christian Church -- filled with worshippers -- destroyed by fire, lightning, hurricane, tornado or other natural disaster.  Suggest that it was God's will.  Then duck and cover when the outraged turn on you.  While we are at it -- Don't depend on Scripture like "Turn the other cheek" to protect you.  That never seems to live, quite like a desire to avenge an insult to the faith.

[cuchulain]

The book is infallible but the reader isn't.  How about that.  God made us both, right? And he made one part to deliver a message to us that he wants us to understand?  Then why did he go about it so stupidly?  Probably the answer you don't want to hear, Dan.  He doesn't exist, he didn't write or inspire the book, it was really written by a bunch of superstitious middle easterners with a slant against women.  And homosexuality issues.  And really a lot of issues with anything that goes on in the bedroom, for that matter. 

Don't murder, but if it's in God's name it isn't murder.  That's redefining to suit your purposes. It isn't killing if it's justified?  Well, most killers probably feel justified.  I think it's cherry picking, at best.  The book is clearly delusional.  It has many atrocities, as well as some few good points.  So people say the good outweighs the bad.  Well, a child molester might have some good points too, but that doesn't outweigh the bad for certain. 

[Dan56]

On 11/16/2016 at 5:22 AM, Pete said:

Yet Dan even you seperate murder from a godly killing.

I remember talking about the new years tsunami in india and you felt this was justified because they were not Christians.  I see even the seeds of such evils from the past are in you. 

I don't remember stating any such thing.. I've always believed that it rains on the just and unjust alike, and a tsunami doesn't care what religion you are.

On 11/16/2016 at 1:29 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

  Because people don't confine themselves to the sweet and gentle passages.  They read all of it -- and much of it is an incitement to pure evil.

I must of missed that part... Again, show me NT scripture that incites followers of Christ to commit pure acts of evil?

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The book is infallible but the reader isn't.  How about that.  God made us both, right? And he made one part to deliver a message to us that he wants us to understand?  Then why did he go about it so stupidly?  Probably the answer you don't want to hear, Dan.  He doesn't exist, he didn't write or inspire the book, it was really written by a bunch of superstitious middle easterners with a slant against women.  And homosexuality issues.  And really a lot of issues with anything that goes on in the bedroom, for that matter. 

Don't murder, but if it's in God's name it isn't murder.  That's redefining to suit your purposes. It isn't killing if it's justified?  Well, most killers probably feel justified.  I think it's cherry picking, at best.  The book is clearly delusional.  It has many atrocities, as well as some few good points.  So people say the good outweighs the bad.  Well, a child molester might have some good points too, but that doesn't outweigh the bad for certain. 

When you don't like the message, its easy to reject it.. Just as when you agree with a message (book), its easy to accept it. That's the real difference between you and myself, I agree with what the bible teaches, and you have problems with it... Its not that its a stupid message that's hard to understand, but rather a message that some regard as stupid because it over-rides their own perception of what's right. 

Murder is murder, its killing the innocent without cause. "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee"(Deuteronomy 19:11-13). Killing, unlike murder, is justified just about everywhere as a punishment for horrible crimes or when its done in self-defense. 

[Pete]

Dan you did say it. My question was why did a loving god not stop the tsunami and the killing of Jews by Hitler. You may of changed but you did say the tsunami victims were not Christians and to the latter you said the jews killed Jesus. I still think there is hate in you or you would have mourned for both and seen the injustice . 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Pete

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I don't remember stating any such thing.. I've always believed that it rains on the just and unjust alike, and a tsunami doesn't care what religion you are.

I must of missed that part... Again, show me NT scripture that incites followers of Christ to commit pure acts of evil?

When you don't like the message, its easy to reject it.. Just as when you agree with a message (book), its easy to accept it. That's the real difference between you and myself, I agree with what the bible teaches, and you have problems with it... Its not that its a stupid message that's hard to understand, but rather a message that some regard as stupid because it over-rides their own perception of what's right. 

Murder is murder, its killing the innocent without cause. "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee"(Deuteronomy 19:11-13). Killing, unlike murder, is justified just about everywhere as a punishment for horrible crimes or when its done in self-defense. 

You know not much about me.  I would love to be able to believe that book.  I just look at it and can't.  It isn't that I reject the message.  It's that it's fraught with error.  It's clearly not infallible, despite religious claims.  

Killing without cause the innocent.  Like...those kids...that God killed...because their friend called his prophet bald?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I don't remember stating any such thing.. I've always believed that it rains on the just and unjust alike, and a tsunami doesn't care what religion you are.

I must of missed that part... Again, show me NT scripture that incites followers of Christ to commit pure acts of evil?

When you don't like the message, its easy to reject it.. Just as when you agree with a message (book), its easy to accept it. That's the real difference between you and myself, I agree with what the bible teaches, and you have problems with it... Its not that its a stupid message that's hard to understand, but rather a message that some regard as stupid because it over-rides their own perception of what's right. 

Murder is murder, its killing the innocent without cause. "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee"(Deuteronomy 19:11-13). Killing, unlike murder, is justified just about everywhere as a punishment for horrible crimes or when its done in self-defense. 

Have you never read a history book, other than the Bible? 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Pete said:

Dan you did say it. My question was why did a loving god not stop the tsunami and the killing of Jews by Hitler. You may of changed but you did say the tsunami victims were not Christians and to the latter you said the jews killed Jesus. I still think there is hate in you or you would have mourned for both and seen the injustice . 

I remember saying the Jews were responsible for Jesus death (they demanded it), but I don't recall saying a tsunami was justified against non-Christians.. Tragedies occur, but I don't know how you associate them with 'hate in me'. 

10 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You know not much about me.  I would love to be able to believe that book.  I just look at it and can't.  It isn't that I reject the message.  It's that it's fraught with error.  It's clearly not infallible, despite religious claims.  

Killing without cause the innocent.  Like...those kids...that God killed...because their friend called his prophet bald?

You reject the message because you think its full of errors, and that's a good reason.. I accept it because I've found no errors, other than a few scribal (copyist) mistakes... Apparently, God didn't find those 'kids' as innocent as you do, He had a reason that justified death,and I agree with it.

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Have you never read a history book, other than the Bible? 

When it comes to what Christ lived and taught, I rely solely on the bible. I realize history is full of atrocious acts committed by the church in the name of Christianity, but they defy the example of Christ because they do not do as he did.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I remember saying the Jews were responsible for Jesus death (they demanded it), but I don't recall saying a tsunami was justified against non-Christians.. Tragedies occur, but I don't know how you associate them with 'hate in me'. 

You reject the message because you think its full of errors, and that's a good reason.. I accept it because I've found no errors, other than a few scribal (copyist) mistakes... Apparently, God didn't find those 'kids' as innocent as you do, He had a reason that justified death,and I agree with it.

When it comes to what Christ lived and taught, I rely solely on the bible. I realize history is full of atrocious acts committed by the church in the name of Christianity, but they defy the example of Christ because they do not do as he did.  

You are remarkably consistent.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:05 AM, Dan56 said:

I don't remember stating any such thing.. I've always believed that it rains on the just and unjust alike, and a tsunami doesn't care what religion you are.

I must of missed that part... Again, show me NT scripture that incites followers of Christ to commit pure acts of evil?

When you don't like the message, its easy to reject it.. Just as when you agree with a message (book), its easy to accept it. That's the real difference between you and myself, I agree with what the bible teaches, and you have problems with it... Its not that its a stupid message that's hard to understand, but rather a message that some regard as stupid because it over-rides their own perception of what's right. 

Murder is murder, its killing the innocent without cause. "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee"(Deuteronomy 19:11-13). Killing, unlike murder, is justified just about everywhere as a punishment for horrible crimes or when its done in self-defense. 

What is the point?  No matter what I come up with; you will tell me that I don't understand the Scriptures.  That whole not having the Spirit thing.  When it suits your purposes, it's allegory.  When it does not suit your purposes, it's history.  Or you argue that its not relevant. I observe atrocity and you say it's because I don't understand.   Or you argue for a historic chain of events that defies reason.  It gets old.

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You know not much about me.  I would love to be able to believe that book.  I just look at it and can't.  It isn't that I reject the message.  It's that it's fraught with error.  It's clearly not infallible, despite religious claims. 

Modern psychology suggests that if you already reject a position, sound arguments supporting it will seem full of errors to you. Also that if you already accept a position, error-filled arguments supporting it will seem sound to you. This would mean that when things seem wrong to us it might simply be because we dont want them to be true and, further, that we are ill-equipped to know when this is the case...

[mererdog]

On 11/16/2016 at 0:53 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It says what it says.  

Words have only the meaning we bring to them. You interpret a passage to mean one thing. Dan interprets it to mean another. Neither of you is really wrong, nor is either of you really right. But you were right about interpretation mattering because it has consequences. When you insist that the violent interpretation is the correct one, you are encouraging violent consequences. And for what? To spread a "truth" based on an assumption that words can only mean what you think they do?

Edited November 20, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

Words have only the meaning we bring to them. You interpret a passage to mean one thing. Dan interprets it to mean another. Neither of you is really wrong, nor is either of you really right. But you were right about interpretation mattering because it has consequences. When you insist that the violent interpretation is the correct one, you are encouraging violent consequences. And for what? To spread a "truth" based on an assumption that words can only mean what you think they do?

No.  Simple irritation.  I observe 2,000 years of Christian mayhem.  Dan tells me that they weren't real Christians.  Where does the mayhem flow from Scripture? I show him an example and he tells me that I don't understand Scripture.  I'm not arguing.  I'm done.  

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

  I'm not arguing.  I'm done. 

You have no argument.. I asked a simple question, which was to cite me one NT scripture where Christ inspired his followers to commit any acts of evil. You couldn't do so because there are none. So all the mayhem and atrocities you've observed for 2000 years could not have been inspired by anything taught by Christ. I agree that religious zealots have done some horrific things, but nothing commanded by Christ.

[Pete]

You narrow this to something reported about Jesus. I think of Paul and his claim of those who have another form of Christianity and the churches eager for being perfection.  This has led to fighting within denominations through the years with the cry of we are the only true church and Christians .  Then there is the persecuting of gay people .  Paul also did stand against slavery .  Maybe the cause is those who build on Paul but it has caused centuries of murder and misery.

Then their is the persecution of Jews and other faiths. All in all Christianity has not always been a force for good.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Pete

[cuchulain]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:23 AM, mererdog said:

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:23 AM, mererdog said:

Modern psychology suggests that if you already reject a position, sound arguments supporting it will seem full of errors to you. Also that if you already accept a position, error-filled arguments supporting it will seem sound to you. This would mean that when things seem wrong to us it might simply be because we dont want them to be true and, further, that we are ill-equipped to know when this is the case...

Modern psychology suggests that if you already reject a position, sound arguments supporting it will seem full of errors to you. Also that if you already accept a position, error-filled arguments supporting it will seem sound to you. This would mean that when things seem wrong to us it might simply be because we dont want them to be true and, further, that we are ill-equipped to know when this is the case...

modern psychology would also suggest that if a person wants to believe something they will find a way to do so.  I want to believe in an afterlife, God, etc...I simply cannot find a way to do so that meshes logically.

[cuchulain]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:14 PM, Dan56 said:

You have no argument.. I asked a simple question, which was to cite me one NT scripture where Christ inspired his followers to commit any acts of evil. You couldn't do so because there are none. So all the mayhem and atrocities you've observed for 2000 years could not have been inspired by anything taught by Christ. I agree that religious zealots have done some horrific things, but nothing commanded by Christ.

Keep the old law.  Christ said that.  Keep it until all has been fulfilled.  It hasn't.  The old law is evil in many places.  But of course, evil is a value judgment that we place on it which you reject.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/20/2016 at 11:14 PM, Dan56 said:

You have no argument.. I asked a simple question, which was to cite me one NT scripture where Christ inspired his followers to commit any acts of evil. You couldn't do so because there are none. So all the mayhem and atrocities you've observed for 2000 years could not have been inspired by anything taught by Christ. I agree that religious zealots have done some horrific things, but nothing commanded by Christ.

No.  I'm bored and can't be bothered.  I asked myself why I was bothering to argue Scripture -- which I don't care about -- with someone who is indifferent to history, reason, evidence or even external reality.  There is no point.  I'm bored and can't be bothered.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/21/2016 at 4:33 AM, Pete said:

You narrow this to something reported about Jesus. I think of Paul and his claim of those who have another form of Christianity and the churches eager for being perfection.  This has led to fighting within denominations through the years with the cry of we are the only true church and Christians .  Then there is the persecuting of gay people .  Paul also did stand against slavery .  Maybe the cause is those who build on Paul but it has caused centuries of murder and misery.

Then their is the persecution of Jews and other faiths. All in all Christianity has not always been a force for good.

Why stop there?.  In the Gospels, Jesus is reported to have said, "I and my father are one."  Unless he was talking about Joseph, he meant God.  That means that all the kill them all statements which are attributed to God, also can be said to be Jesus statements.

Since I do not take the idea of God seriously, or the historic reality of Jesus, or the Authority of Scripture -- there seems small point in cherry picking.  What is worth looking at is 2,000 years of Christian mayhem -- which did happen and which continues to happen -- and I don't really care where these blood thirsty butchers got their inspiration.  We would have to ask them what was in their hearts.

What we do have is the battle cry from the last 2,000 years, that they gave their Jewish victims.  "You killed Christ!"  Now, where did they get a crazy idea like that?  Oh, yes.  The Scriptures.  And from Dan who insists on quoting the Scriptures as though they were history; which he believes.  In Dan's reality, Belief trumps facts.

After all, God said so.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl