Why do atheists blame an entire religion on the actions of the few? (This question is being used to gain information, not to be used against atheists). Do you check whether actions done by religious extremists are approved by there religious texts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
＠UnKnown:
"Do you check whether actions done by religious extremists are approved by there religious texts?"
There are many criteria. For example:
1. How much room for wilful misinterpretation is there in the holy books?
2. How long has the evil been happening?
3. How loudly has the evil been condemned from within the religion?
4. Are religious leaders/teachers actively involved in the evil?
Would you agree that Muslims should accept collective responsibility for IS savagery, or Christians for the excesses of the Westboro Baptists and child abuse by Catholic priests?
If the religious texts approve of IS savagery, excesses of Westboro Baptists and the child abuse by priests, then collective responsibility should be taken. Do you agree with this?
If an organization to which I belonged committed atrocities, I'd feel responsible regardless of what the texts said. But the Islamic and Judeo-Christian holy books provide plenty of loosely or explicitly written verses to justify almost any kind of nastiness that people can imagine.
Totally agree, when Christians do stupid things in the name of Jesus my first feeling is to bury my head, second is that they be exposed and third that they'd actually 'get it'.
Jesus was the best human representative of who God is. He is not just the son but the core of what God is like. He could have commanded angels and he could have fought to be taken. He 'gave' his life. It was not taken. He was and is more patient than he is tolerant. Big difference.
Today people of various background are like pot lids trembling over boiling water. Love is... 'patient'. God is.. 'love'. Today we are 'tolerant' that is until too many tolerant people start bumping into each other...
He said if you hate your brother you've murdered them. Why'd he say such a ridiculous statement? To shake up the religious vibe, or righteous vibe for those non-religious.
Patience creates freedom for tolerant thinking. Tolerance eventually gets sick of the patient guy and hangs him on a cross thinking they actually took care of the issue only to realize they helped open the door to a bunch of other patient dips like me.
Then took it back 3 days later; at least according to the story.
The only 'religion' with a trinity. But that is precisely why it is not a religion. It is a relationship, i.e. the trinity. Doesn't make seeing a son die less painful. No beginning and no end. Other religions will flat out get annoyed if you ask who 'created' or came before...
Fun thoughts- Our relationship with God is based on a relationship of yielding. (Reminder Jesus was no narcissist- he's all about putting his finger on a problem and then allowing you to figure out the scientifically discrepancy) Now all the world outside of Jesus, is based on works (and probably too much of Christianity) No way around it...
Stop signs have eight sides. Infinitely stopping going nowhere.
Yield signs have three sides, love God and Love others as yourself... and keep on moving forward.
Last but not least- two company and threes a crowd. Only one who does it right? Father Son and Holy Spirit...
Uhh are you on drugs? That makes no sense; even from a theist.
Apologies, not too articulate of me, terrible grammar too. Couple examples instead-
What does Jesus tell the rich young man to do? To do the one thing he can't do, which forces him to find 'what or who' can help him with that.
What does he tell the Pharisee who wants a 'big' miracle? He says "hey I got one for you, how about Jonah, you know, the guy in the whale for three days?"
"How's that for a big miracle?"
Of course later he was raised up after three days as you correctly stated. Probably blew that guys doors off that Jesus was nice enough to use a story (probably the most ridiculous one in the Bible, believe me Jesus knew that and was sticking it back in this guys face since he was a 'religious' leader) to show this guy later that he really was the messiah after he rose three days later even while he was more interested in trapping him in a bunch of words.
Jesus stayed on topic, I'm trying too as well.
Don't you mean see yourself die?
I guess so, deep thought there though that's only 2/3rds of the Trinity so using a child's logic (I'm not trying to demean you, I'm implying that I am using it) I'd say he could still be brought back to life. I'm not into numerology but all numbers point to biblical points. I mean even a third of the angels fell with the devil (all of free will I might add)
The symbolism is everywhere. 3 Trinity, 8, new beginnings, infinity, 10 is always of completion/fulfillment/kings/royalty 15 represents rest (the total of the 5 vertical commands) 40 is the total of the 5 horizontal commands which always represents trials and tests.
As a buddy of mine would say- "Ask Him" so my point is God created numbers and the Trinity.
Sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like a setup.
Again, I'd say allowing your kid to go to war and die for the sake of others is still painful, no matter how it happens...
This one is making Occam shit a brick.
V.S.:
Well you sure seem like you are into numerology.
Anyways, that's where my insight into numerology ends. Just thought it was interesting to share.
Up to you to decide whether it's just randomness or God.
Not going to find out till you ask Him yourself.
We already know the bible (being a westerner, Christianity is the religion I have most of my experience with) can be used to approve just about anything. So what would be the point?
Can you tell me how the bible approves murder, thievery and child abuse?
We could do that all day long, but just for starters:
OK that should be enough to get you started on the obligatory mental gymnastics. Hope you stretched!
My answer to Deuteronomy is that he commanded the stoning of followers of other religions within the tribe of Israel. However you might say that he ordered the deaths of other non-followers of him (as he does). The answer to this is that God has that right. If a man makes something entirely by himself, then he has the right to do with that something whatever he wants to. According to the Christian religion, everyone deserves hell (Romans 3:23), so the stoning is what we all deserve because of our sin. At the time, the Jews deserved the stoning and more, but because of their faith, they weren't stoned. This also applies to the 1st Samuel passage and Numbers. Now for murder to happen, the victims need to be innocent, but in this case they weren't, they didn't follow the Jewish God.
@Unknown
"According to the Christian religion, everyone deserves hell (Romans 3:23), so the stoning is what we all deserve because of our sin."
On that basis, it's fine to do anything to anybody, since we're all guilty. Thanks for confirming that Christianity is a dangerous, insane death cult like all the other Abrahamic creeds.
The crime that I stated is disbelief. The crime is not against us. It's against God. We can't do anything to anyone because we do not have that right. (On that basis, it's not fine to do anything to anybody, since we're all guilty). That's the same as saying if thief (x) stole from another thief (y), and justifies that by saying "you are guilty". Although thief (y) is guilty of stealing, thief (X) has no right taking the stolen money, unless the original victim agrees with thief (x) taking that money. (Sorry if the analogy is confusing).
Not how it started. Adam and Eve (everyone) lived in heaven (eden). So apparently everyone deserved heaven. I think everyone would also agree everyone deserves freedom, which the devil had and us as well. Freedom involves having the ability to make a bad choice, (being trapped anywhere, even in paradise, makes you a pawn, except Cuba, its perfect) we also had a bad choice- the wrong tree.
It's kinda like That Calvinism argument- does God choose us or we choose God. Answer- What father 'needs' kids? None. Instead, he wants us. After that, it's up to us to choose him back or choose something else, religion, atheism whatever.
That sound suspiciously like divine command theory; the ultimate form of subjective morality. So I assume you won't be making any arguments for objective morality? Who am I kidding, I'm sure you will!
Anyway, I have to give you a 8.8 for you mental gymnastics. You forgot to say that is the old law, so I had to deduct some points.
That is the divine command theory.
Well at least you admit it.
What are some problems with:
1. Objective Morality
2. Divine Command Theory
When explaining, is it possible to talk about objective morality problems without the bible/religion if possible, cheers.
There is really no reason to discuss morality with someone who endorses Divine Command Theory. Makes about as much sense as arguing with a solipsist. It is the end of a conversation; not the beginning.
I could have made a similar argment when posting on this site
You could have had a similar argument when answering my questions
Could you just state what problems you have
@unknown: Your reply that all people deserve hell and that god has the right to murder anyone that displeases him puts you in the camp of gullible followers responsible for christian atrocities. You are here in the 21st century continuing to promote these heinous teachings. You are responsible for spreading this shit.
All you have said is rewording what I said and said your own opinion of it. Murder implies that we are all innocent. We deserve hell, so ending our live would be killing, not murder.
Unknown: "If a man makes something entirely by himself, then he has the right to do with that something whatever he wants to."
That statement earns a big fat NOPE. It's a completely ridiculous statement.
"If a man makes something entirely by himself, then he has the right to do with that something whatever he wants to." Sorry. I should have added "as long as it doesn't harm someone unjustly. Do you find this correct?
Pages