|
|
I love the Lord and thank Him for all that He does in my life, therefore, I'm passing this on. Jesus is my source of existence and Savior. He keeps me functioning each and everyday because in Him I live and move and have my being.
Without Him, I would be nothing.
Without Him, I am nothing
but with Him I can do all things.
Phil 4:13
What would you like us to discuss in this thread?
Err...which particular version of the bible are you using? The KJV has
| Philippians 4;13-17 wrote: | 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. |
All things, eh?
I demand you prove it by turning me into a horse! (within 24 hours). (of reading this).
To what does 'all things' apply? It seems pretty clear to me...
| liljp617 wrote: | | What would you like us to discuss in this thread? |
Agreed. Good question. Not sure what to make out of it, other than that it is a personal point of view.
Well, let's pursue the other 'side' of the statement - 'without him I am nothing'.
What am I, as someone 'without him', to make of this? Well, I guess I would have to challenge the unit of measurement - exactly how are we defining 'nothing'? Clearly I exist as a physical entity (unless you want to get into an existential debate, which would probably go nowhere). So, given I exist then what defines my 'nothingness'? Perhaps lack of achievement? Not really. I'm pretty sure that many non Christians have achieved some pretty amazing things and although my own achievements are certainly not amazing, I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'.
How exactly are we to measure who is 'something' and who is 'nothing'? If the measure is simply those who believe, then we have a tautology and a circular argument...
| Bikerman wrote: | Well, let's pursue the other 'side' of the statement - 'without him I am nothing'.
What am I, as someone 'without him', to make of this? Well, I guess I would have to challenge the unit of measurement - exactly how are we defining 'nothing'? Clearly I exist as a physical entity (unless you want to get into an existential debate, which would probably go nowhere). So, given I exist then what defines my 'nothingness'? Perhaps lack of achievement? Not really. I'm pretty sure that many non Christians have achieved some pretty amazing things and although my own achievements are certainly not amazing, I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'.
How exactly are we to measure who is 'something' and who is 'nothing'? If the measure is simply those who believe, then we have a tautology and a circular argument... |
With all due respect Bikerman, I think you maybe looking at it from the wrong angle.
I think (albeit im not learned in bible literature) "nothing" here refers more towards powerless i.e. If only God wills, will it happen.
"So without him, I am nothing" means that without Gods help/aid, it cannot be done. Only if God allows it it will happen.
So whatever good you do (or even whatever evil you do), it is because God has allowed it.
btw: doing evil does not break Gods status either/.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | Well, let's pursue the other 'side' of the statement - 'without him I am nothing'.
What am I, as someone 'without him', to make of this? Well, I guess I would have to challenge the unit of measurement - exactly how are we defining 'nothing'? Clearly I exist as a physical entity (unless you want to get into an existential debate, which would probably go nowhere). So, given I exist then what defines my 'nothingness'? Perhaps lack of achievement? Not really. I'm pretty sure that many non Christians have achieved some pretty amazing things and although my own achievements are certainly not amazing, I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'.
How exactly are we to measure who is 'something' and who is 'nothing'? If the measure is simply those who believe, then we have a tautology and a circular argument... |
With all due respect Bikerman, I think you maybe looking at it from the wrong angle.
I think (albeit im not learned in bible literature) "nothing" here refers more towards powerless i.e. If only God wills, will it happen.
"So without him, I am nothing" means that without Gods help/aid, it cannot be done. Only if God allows it it will happen.
So whatever good you do (or even whatever evil you do), it is because God has allowed it.
btw: doing evil does not break Gods status either/. |
Any you really don't see any problems with that? Like basic logic, for example?
'Without God's will it cannot happen'
therefore (logically)
'Everything that happens is God's will'
therefore it follows that
'Evil is God's will'
therefore it follows that...
(well, you can put your own conclusions in at that point...for me the logic - like the basic argument, and in fact like most theology - is ludicrous).
| Quote: | | but with Him I can do all things. |
You can do ALL things?
I love how, even though andredesignz didn't state a question or even a discussion starter, people still find something to make out of it and argue  . People are very argumentative around here. Maybe andredesignz just wanted to tell everyone about this particular verse? Maybe someone in the world doesn't want to discuss everything  .
Maybe...
| pampoon wrote: | I love how, even though andredesignz didn't state a question or even a discussion starter, people still find something to make out of it and argue :) . People are very argumentative around here. Maybe andredesignz just wanted to tell everyone about this particular verse? Maybe someone in the world doesn't want to discuss everything :wink: .
Maybe... |
There are some people that do not want to discuss everything... but those people should not be in a discussion forum, let alone a philosophy forum. If you're not interested in discussing, then post in in the games section or something.
Furthermore, you cannot post a verse that is so blatantly absurd and then not expect a conversation to spark.
^It's only absurd because you have reason to believe it isn't true. Not everyone has the same mindset as you, that's something everyone has to learn eventually.
And who said that the games section isn't a place for discussion? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone in the world does.
I also never said that what andredesignz was right. I just said it may be what he was doing...
| pampoon wrote: | ^It's only absurd because you have reason to believe it isn't true. Not everyone has the same mindset as you, that's something everyone has to learn eventually.
And who said that the games section isn't a place for discussion? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone in the world does.
I also never said that what andredesignz was right. I just said it may be what he was doing... |
I never said that you cannot discuss in the games section - I merely implied that you can get away without discussing. I said that when you post here, you must be expected to discuss and that if you do not like it, go to the games section where you aren't necessarily expected to discuss. Sure you can discuss, but you do not have to. I've been to the games section and have seen threads like, "What is your favorite game?" I can make a post simply saying "chess," thus answering the question. There is a similar situation in the music section. There is an extremely pointless post (that has over 100 pages in replies) titled "What are you listening to right now?" I have actually tried getting that removed because of how useless it is. I can just go there and simply say "Slayer." The next day I can go there and simply post "Megadeth." I can then go there the day after that and simply say "Metallica." I can do this everyday, thus staying an active member while actually contributing and saying nothing. Sure you can discuss in both of those boards, but you can certainly get away without discussing or saying anything intelligent.
Furthermore, not everybody has to have the same mindset, but that does not mean that this is not absurd. It is absurd because it is logically inconsistent. It really doesn't even work on a "symbolic level." Some things are absurd no matter which way you look at it. Opinion doesn't really have much of a place in logic.
| pampoon wrote: | I love how, even though andredesignz didn't state a question or even a discussion starter, people still find something to make out of it and argue . People are very argumentative around here. Maybe andredesignz just wanted to tell everyone about this particular verse? Maybe someone in the world doesn't want to discuss everything .
Maybe... |
Maybe he wanted to spam for free hosting? (ding ding we have a winner)
This is a forum, a medium made for the primary function of discussion. Furthermore, a forum on the topic of Philosophy & Religion, two subjects that are utterly pointless without discussion or scrutinizing.
If he didn't want discussion, he should have set up a static website with the quote on it and no opportunity for feedback or discussion.
Perhaps he can use his spamming abilities to get free hosting for this static website!
| liljp617 wrote: | Maybe he wanted to spam for free hosting? (ding ding we have a winner)
This is a forum, a medium made for the primary function of discussion. Furthermore, a forum on the topic of Philosophy & Religion, two subjects that are utterly pointless without discussion or scrutinizing.
If he didn't want discussion, he should have set up a static website with the quote on it and no opportunity for feedback or discussion.
Perhaps he can use his spamming abilities to get free hosting for this static website! |
That's a possibility. Though with 190 posts, I don't see how at least one moderator noticed the spamming...
Back on topic.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Furthermore, not everybody has to have the same mindset, but that does not mean that this is not absurd. It is absurd because it is logically inconsistent. It really doesn't even work on a "symbolic level." Some things are absurd no matter which way you look at it. Opinion doesn't really have much of a place in logic. |
To you. Not to me. And apparently not to andredesignz. The way you look at it is absurd because you do not believe in the statement the scripture implies. If you had no idea that water could be frozen, and I tried to explain to you the wonders of ice, you would think I was a loony and call my statement absurd. Would you not?
I do not read the bible since it is to me a tool of powermongering!!!
But I am a christian...
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | Well, let's pursue the other 'side' of the statement - 'without him I am nothing'.
What am I, as someone 'without him', to make of this? Well, I guess I would have to challenge the unit of measurement - exactly how are we defining 'nothing'? Clearly I exist as a physical entity (unless you want to get into an existential debate, which would probably go nowhere). So, given I exist then what defines my 'nothingness'? Perhaps lack of achievement? Not really. I'm pretty sure that many non Christians have achieved some pretty amazing things and although my own achievements are certainly not amazing, I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'.
How exactly are we to measure who is 'something' and who is 'nothing'? If the measure is simply those who believe, then we have a tautology and a circular argument... |
With all due respect Bikerman, I think you maybe looking at it from the wrong angle.
I think (albeit im not learned in bible literature) "nothing" here refers more towards powerless i.e. If only God wills, will it happen.
"So without him, I am nothing" means that without Gods help/aid, it cannot be done. Only if God allows it it will happen.
So whatever good you do (or even whatever evil you do), it is because God has allowed it.
btw: doing evil does not break Gods status either/. |
Any you really don't see any problems with that? Like basic logic, for example?
'Without God's will it cannot happen'
therefore (logically)
'Everything that happens is God's will'
therefore it follows that
'Evil is God's will'
therefore it follows that...
(well, you can put your own conclusions in at that point...for me the logic - like the basic argument, and in fact like most theology - is ludicrous). |
Not necessarily. I believe God created evil, but his creation for evil is just. I believe some people are born pure evil, because that is how God created them to be.
I believe that his reason to create evil is to allow the greater good to prevail/to be emphasised.
In the words of Averroes, God had two choices:
| Averroes wrote: |
"Not to create those species which are liable to evil for the least part, or good for the most part, in which case the greater good would not have come to be, on account of the lesser evil; or to create those species, wherein the greater good exists side by side with the lesser evil.".
|
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ... I said that when you post here, you must be expected to discuss and that if you do not like it, go to the games section where you aren't necessarily expected to discuss.
|
Forgive me, but I don't remember seeing you posting in the Staff Forum. You don't have the right, or authority to tell anyone where, or how, they can, or should post. It is called Backseat Moderating and can lead to problems. The only expectation here is that the posts remain on topic and posted in the correct forum....just like it says in the rules.
| Vrythramax wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ... I said that when you post here, you must be expected to discuss and that if you do not like it, go to the games section where you aren't necessarily expected to discuss.
|
Forgive me, but I don't remember seeing you posting in the Staff Forum. You don't have the right, or authority to tell anyone where, or how, they can, or should post. It is called Backseat Moderating and can lead to problems. The only expectation here is that the posts remain on topic and posted in the correct forum....just like it says in the rules. |
I think it's more of an opinion than him trying to act like an authority figure here...
| Vrythramax wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ... I said that when you post here, you must be expected to discuss and that if you do not like it, go to the games section where you aren't necessarily expected to discuss.
|
Forgive me, but I don't remember seeing you posting in the Staff Forum. You don't have the right, or authority to tell anyone where, or how, they can, or should post. It is called Backseat Moderating and can lead to problems. The only expectation here is that the posts remain on topic and posted in the correct forum....just like it says in the rules. |
You keep accusing me of acting as an authority figure when I am, in no way, even attempting that. I am merely mentioning that you must expect a discussion because most people here will seek a discussion, given that it's a discussion forum. I am not telling him that he/she has to discuss, nor am I even berating him/her for not. I am simply saying that when you post, you need to expect a discussion because 99.9% of people that visit a philosophy forum will want to discuss.
| pampoon wrote: | | To you. Not to me. And apparently not to andredesignz. The way you look at it is absurd because you do not believe in the statement the scripture implies. If you had no idea that water could be frozen, and I tried to explain to you the wonders of ice, you would think I was a loony and call my statement absurd. Would you not? |
Of course not. If you told me that water can exist in a solid and gas state when I was only familiar with the liquid state, I would ask you for the evidence for that and the scientific explanation to how it works. You would then (assuming you're educated in basic science) explain the molecular reasons for water being a solid. If I still didn't believe me, you could simply show me ice or take me somewhere where ice exists.
The same thing can go for something really absurd sounding. Take pigs flying, for instance. If you told me that pigs could fly, I wouldn't believe you. But if you simply showed me a pig flying, I would realize that it's not absurd - it's the truth.
This is the complete opposite. What he said was logically inconsistent and shown to be incorrect. I am a man "without God" yet I am something and people "with God" still can't do everything. Bikerman even showed how that argument fails symbolically on a symbolic level.
Hmmm I cant seem to find that in my Bible...
But this was there:
Deu 6:4 HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE L-RD OUR G-D, THE L-RD IS ONE.
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the L-RD thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
This particular moderator has been laid up in bed (well, without being too graphic, mostly in the bathroom) for the past few days.
I will slowly catch up with threads over the next few days as I get stronger, but a comment is needed here.
As Max says, back-seat moderating is not permitted. In this particular instance I tend to take the view that Afaceinthematrix is perhaps pushing the line, but not crossing it, so no further action is required.
Please leave the moderating to me and the other mods - we will deal with postings that break the terms and conditions (including back-seat moderating) and issue warnings (or take other action) as required.
Now.....please continue (I'll try to join in with some more thoughts later - right now I need the bathroom again).
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Not necessarily. I believe God created evil, but his creation for evil is just. I believe some people are born pure evil, because that is how God created them to be.
I believe that his reason to create evil is to allow the greater good to prevail/to be emphasised. |
That is heresy in many religions. You are denying that all men can be 'saved'. You are essentially saying that God creates evil people to throw the good people into sharp relief - that is quite a sickening interpretation of already sickening scripture...
| Quote: | In the words of Averroes, God had two choices:
| Averroes wrote: |
"Not to create those species which are liable to evil for the least part, or good for the most part, in which case the greater good would not have come to be, on account of the lesser evil; or to create those species, wherein the greater good exists side by side with the lesser evil.".
|
|
Averroes didn't really know what he was on about here. Bright though he certainly was, he did spout some nonsense. You will also know that he talks about 'species'. Are we to then infer that 'evil' people are of a different species?
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | Not necessarily. I believe God created evil, but his creation for evil is just. I believe some people are born pure evil, because that is how God created them to be.
I believe that his reason to create evil is to allow the greater good to prevail/to be emphasised. |
That is heresy in many religions. You are denying that all men can be 'saved'. You are essentially saying that God creates evil people to throw the good people into sharp relief - that is quite a sickening interpretation of already sickening scripture...
|
Of course. From the day God created mankind, He knew if they will enter paradise or hell. The creation of jinn in particular of Satan (who was amongst the jinn), was purely for this sake.
The life we live will be a living testimony to the fate God has decided when he created us.
I believe some people are born evil, and whatever they do cannot alter the fact that they are evil. Although they may do a little good, they will do far greater evil.
Then there are people who of good nature, who will always thrive to do good and commit little evil.
Then there is the final group, of which the majority lie. These are the people who have choice to become good and/or evil based on their actions. I think God has created the former two groups to influence this group towards good: God creates evil for a lesson for this majority group.
Fine, you may regard it as BS, but like I said, the creation for evil is just. I think Averroes went onto say that the example of fire is another instance of where he has created evil for a just cause. Fire itself always harms your body. But the good brought from the fire, allows the cause for the greater good, which would be better than a world without fire and therefore no greater good.
| Quote: | In the words of Averroes, God had two choices:
| Averroes wrote: |
"Not to create those species which are liable to evil for the least part, or good for the most part, in which case the greater good would not have come to be, on account of the lesser evil; or to create those species, wherein the greater good exists side by side with the lesser evil.".
|
|
Averroes didn't really know what he was on about here. Bright though he certainly was, he did spout some nonsense. You will also know that he talks about 'species'. Are we to then infer that 'evil' people are of a different species?[/quote]
No. I think species is used because evil does not simply exist in the human population. Some Jinn are also created evil (e.g. Satan - example I gave). Species relates to the type of creatures (e..g man, jinn etc), and not "evil" people or "good" people.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | I believe some people are born evil, and whatever they do cannot alter the fact that they are evil. Although they may do a little good, they will do far greater evil.
Then there are people who of good nature, who will always thrive to do good and commit little evil.
Then there is the final group, of which the majority lie. These are the people who have choice to become good and/or evil based on their actions. I think God has created the former two groups to influence this group towards good: God creates evil for a lesson for this majority group. |
Yes - I understand your point, as I summarised in my previous posting - God creates evil people to throw the good into sharp relief. I think it is sickening, as I said.
| Quote: | | Fine, you may regard it as BS, but like I said, the creation for evil is just. I think Averroes went onto say that the example of fire is another instance of where he has created evil for a just cause. Fire itself always harms your body. But the good brought from the fire, allows the cause for the greater good, which would be better than a world without fire and therefore no greater good. |
Another example of Averroes talking complete nonsense. There is nothing inherently evil in fire - it is a physical phenomenon that can be used however one wishes. It really is kindergarten nonsense to suggest that the ability to cause harm renders an entity or phenomenon evil...
| Quote: | | No. I think species is used because evil does not simply exist in the human population. Some Jinn are also created evil (e.g. Satan - example I gave). Species relates to the type of creatures (e..g man, jinn etc), and not "evil" people or "good" people. |
Complete nonsense. A species is a 'type' of creature (we normally define a species in terms of fertility with similar animals). The notion that species are created 'good or evil for the most part' is anthropomorphic gibberish.
Do we read . . . by Bluedoll
The Bible is a book of many books and contains Philippians, a very short book ( a few pages ) is actually a letter (post) written in Greek the language of the day.
__________________________________________________________________
Bluedoll 1:1
To all you guys . . .
Bluedoll 4:8
Whatever . . .
Whatever things are true, seriously worth discussing, loveable . . .
Continue with . . .
Bluedoll 4:12
Whatever, if I have all I need or feeling empty, I am learning how to behave.
Bluedoll 4:13
Whatever, full or empty, in all ways, I get my strength from the one who gives this way of thinking to me.
Bluedoll 4:22
It was nice communicating with you.
______________________________________________________________________
I guess if we are going to have a discussion about a verse, we might want to read the post (Philippians 1 -4)
I'm quite new to this forum and new to posting so i hope you will forgive me if I make mistakes.
I have read a lot of these discussion in this forum and it seems to me they nearly always drift away from the original point.
In this case I believe the question was quite simple.......Do you read the Bible.....
After that I think it was merely an expression of the posters own beliefs, not sure if he wanted them discussed.
As far as the verse goes I think it should be taken in context with the previous two verses 11 and 12 where Paul describes what he can do and then goes on to the afore mentioned verse 13 which states that he can do these things with Christs' help.
Oh a verse he might have quoted from the same letter.....
Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. (Philippians 4.4)
In answer to the original question :-
No I havn't read the Bible for along time. (I did dust it of to answer this post)
My own favorite verse from the Bible.
For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect your right to express an opinion on theoretical things,
I accept your knowledge on factual things.
and I agree to disagree, without rancour, when our minds do not meet.
Twotone
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | I believe some people are born evil, and whatever they do cannot alter the fact that they are evil. Although they may do a little good, they will do far greater evil.
Then there are people who of good nature, who will always thrive to do good and commit little evil.
Then there is the final group, of which the majority lie. These are the people who have choice to become good and/or evil based on their actions. I think God has created the former two groups to influence this group towards good: God creates evil for a lesson for this majority group. |
Yes - I understand your point, as I summarised in my previous posting - God creates evil people to throw the good into sharp relief. I think it is sickening, as I said.
|
Okay, how can God distinguish from the good and the bad? Let's say this world consisted of purely good people, now where is the test in that?
God created the angels, which could only do good. There is no test for them. He has angels worshipping him. They cannot do evil. Then he created man, fully aware that man (along with jinn) can make mistakes. That was his intention. And man and jinn will be called for account for what they do, and not angels.
| Quote: | | Fine, you may regard it as BS, but like I said, the creation for evil is just. I think Averroes went onto say that the example of fire is another instance of where he has created evil for a just cause. Fire itself always harms your body. But the good brought from the fire, allows the cause for the greater good, which would be better than a world without fire and therefore no greater good. |
Another example of Averroes talking complete nonsense. There is nothing inherently evil in fire - it is a physical phenomenon that can be used however one wishes. It really is kindergarten nonsense to suggest that the ability to cause harm renders an entity or phenomenon evil...
[/quote]
I am not certain if Averroes said that.
But my point is simple: whoever touches fire, it harms him. In ancient beliefs, fire is regarded as evil like water is regarded as good. And the good (water) can overcome the evil (fire).
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | No. I think species is used because evil does not simply exist in the human population. Some Jinn are also created evil (e.g. Satan - example I gave). Species relates to the type of creatures (e..g man, jinn etc), and not "evil" people or "good" people. |
Complete nonsense. A species is a 'type' of creature (we normally define a species in terms of fertility with similar animals). The notion that species are created 'good or evil for the most part' is anthropomorphic gibberish. |
[/quote]
Okay, don't you think that there people in the world who are pure evil? People with no heart(not literally)? Men like Josef Fritzl for instance?
And don't you think there are people in this world who are good? No matter what you do to them, they will side with justice? Men like Ghandi?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Okay, how can God distinguish from the good and the bad? Let's say this world consisted of purely good people, now where is the test in that? |
LOL - but you say that God creates people who are pure evil. Where is the test in that? How can pure evil attain salvation?
God doesn't have to distinguish between good and bad people - he already knows (by definition, since he is omniscient).
| Quote: | | God created the angels, which could only do good. There is no test for them. He has angels worshipping him. They cannot do evil. |
Tell that to Lucifer...
| Quote: | | Then he created man, fully aware that man (along with jinn) can make mistakes. That was his intention. And man and jinn will be called for account for what they do, and not angels. |
Make mistakes? How is that possible when God already knows? How do you call a 'pure evil' person to account when you created that person and knew in advance what they would do? Account for what?
| Quote: | I am not certain if Averroes said that.
But my point is simple: whoever touches fire, it harms him. In ancient beliefs, fire is regarded as evil like water is regarded as good. And the good (water) can overcome the evil (fire). |
That is a hugely over-simplistic summary.
| Quote: | | Okay, don't you think that there people in the world who are pure evil? People with no heart(not literally)? Men like Josef Fritzl for instance? |
No. I think there are people who are way outside what we regard as 'normal', and there are behaviours which we regard as 'evil'.
I don't believe in 'pure evil'. There are certainly psychopaths who appear to have no moral/ethical sensibilities, but I regard them as damaged (allbeit dangerous) not 'pure evil'.
| Quote: | | And don't you think there are people in this world who are good? No matter what you do to them, they will side with justice? Men like Ghandi? |
I don't think so. I don't really believe in 'saints'. I think that people are a mix of genetic and environmental factors. I suspect that any individual, given the 'right' conditioning, can be made to do pretty much anything. Give me a young Ghandi and allow me to set the environment - I'm pretty sure I could make him do things you would regard as 'evil'.
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | | Okay, how can God distinguish from the good and the bad? Let's say this world consisted of purely good people, now where is the test in that? |
LOL - but you say that God creates people who are pure evil. Where is the test in that? How can pure evil attain salvation?
God doesn't have to distinguish between good and bad people - he already knows (by definition, since he is omniscient).
|
Indeed, God does know. But he gives us life as a testimony that we have lived a life of good, or a life of sin.
For those who are "pure evil", they exist to influence the majority in their decisions e.g. satan.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | God created the angels, which could only do good. There is no test for them. He has angels worshipping him. They cannot do evil. |
Tell that to Lucifer...
|
If Lucifer is Satan, then he was of the Jinn - not an angel. And therefore prone to mistakes.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Okay, don't you think that there people in the world who are pure evil? People with no heart(not literally)? Men like Josef Fritzl for instance? |
No. I think there are people who are way outside what we regard as 'normal', and there are behaviours which we regard as 'evil'.
I don't believe in 'pure evil'. There are certainly psychopaths who appear to have no moral/ethical sensibilities, but I regard them as damaged (allbeit dangerous) not 'pure evil'.
|
Arn't you just playing with words? If they are damaged (and dangerous) and have traits of no morality/ethical sensibilities and there is nothing you can do to alter this, then is that not the same as being pure evil?
Also remember that those in a state of "abnormality" who are not responsible for their actions (i.e. out of their control - but not through self intent i.e. intoxication from alcohol), God will not judge them.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | And don't you think there are people in this world who are good? No matter what you do to them, they will side with justice? Men like Ghandi? |
I don't think so. I don't really believe in 'saints'. I think that people are a mix of genetic and environmental factors. I suspect that any individual, given the 'right' conditioning, can be made to do pretty much anything. Give me a young Ghandi and allow me to set the environment - I'm pretty sure I could make him do things you would regard as 'evil'. |
[/quote]
I doubt it. Look at the in-mates in guantanamo bay and how they are treated and what has been thrown at them. I bet if they were forced to denounce their religion (or commit sin which goes against their religion), even after all that they have been treated and things x10000 times worse, they will never do so - not even for a second.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indeed, God does know. But he gives us life as a testimony that we have lived a life of good, or a life of sin. |
Sorry, but that is simply gibberish.
| Quote: | | For those who are "pure evil", they exist to influence the majority in their decisions e.g. satan. |
Yes, so you keep repeating, and, as I keep repeating, it is a sickening philosophy.
| Quote: | | If Lucifer is Satan, then he was of the Jinn - not an angel. And therefore prone to mistakes. |
You keep talking about the Jinn - perhaps you can refer me to the passages in the OT? Perhaps you are referring to the references in the Quran - a completely different set of myths. Let's stick with the bible as per OP. We could have a whole thread on the 'jinn' or 'djinn' or 'genie' and the origin in Arabic folklore - but that would be another thread...
| Quote: | | Arn't you just playing with words? If they are damaged (and dangerous) and have traits of no morality/ethical sensibilities and there is nothing you can do to alter this, then is that not the same as being pure evil? |
No. An atomic reactor has no morals, and is very dangerous. It isn't pure evil. The whole concept of 'pure evil' is something I can't relate to. Evil, in simple terms, means morally objectionable. It is, therefore, a movable target. Religious people like to think there is some absolute morality - indeed that their scriptures enshrine it. If, however, you compare the actions of those who devoutly followed those scriptural injunctions over history, you see just how 'relative' the morality really is. Killing someone is evil, unless of course....(add your own list depending on what country, period and political persuasion you choose. If you want to stick to the Old Testament then you will find a WHOLE RAFT of exceptions to the 'killing' rule )...
| Quote: | | Also remember that those in a state of "abnormality" who are not responsible for their actions (i.e. out of their control - but not through self intent i.e. intoxication from alcohol), God will not judge them. |
But nobody is responsible for their actions - you have already stated that God creates three types of people. The 'pure evil' cannot be responsible for their actions because that is how they were created. The pure good cannot be responsible for their actions for the same reason. That leaves the bunch in the middle - the bunch who you say are supposed to take their example from the other two bunches. I say that is complete hogwash. There are a relatively tiny number of people who have such severe psychologies that they are dangerous. You say God made them that way - I think it is a combination of genetics and environment - which is most important is difficult to say. | Quote: | | I doubt it. Look at the in-mates in guantanamo bay and how they are treated and what has been thrown at them. I bet if they were forced to denounce their religion (or commit sin which goes against their religion), even after all that they have been treated and things x10000 times worse, they will never do so - not even for a second. |
Give me those same people aged 5. Leave them with me for a few years. There won't be any religion for them to denounce...
Alternatively give me those same people aged 5 and put them in US families. They could well be the guards in GITMO....
They were not BORN Muslim you know. There is not a little chip inside us that tells us what religion, if any, we will adopt/follow. We LEARN that stuff.
| Bikerman wrote: |
No. An atomic reactor has no morals, and is very dangerous. It isn't pure evil. The whole concept of 'pure evil' is something I can't relate to. Evil, in simple terms, means morally objectionable. It is, therefore, a movable target. Religious people like to think there is some absolute morality - indeed that their scriptures enshrine it. If, however, you compare the actions of those who devoutly followed those scriptural injunctions over history, you see just how 'relative' the morality really is. Killing someone is evil, unless of course....(add your own list depending on what country, period and political persuasion you choose. If you want to stick to the Old Testament then you will find a WHOLE RAFT of exceptions to the 'killing' rule )...
|
Religion is not responsible for what men do if it contradicts religion. As I always say, I cannot speak for the Bible. But the Quran states killing is wrong. The only time when killing is permissible is by the state (e.g. death sentence) or in fighting. Sure, people can debate on issues such as: for instance if killing those living in Jewish settlements who have taken Palestinian lands (i.e. are they innocent) is justified ? But I am not talking about those people. And religion isn't responsible for creating the vagueness, as I always say, it is a piece of literature that can be misinterpreted, just like any code of laws.
When I say evil: I am talking about men like Josef Fritzl - a man who raped his own children, or Adolf Hitler who put to gas chambers millions of Romani and Jews, or the men responsible using napalm which set a little girl on fire in Vietnam in 1972. There is no debate over what evil is in this case in any scripture or code of laws.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Give me those same people aged 5. Leave them with me for a few years. There won't be any religion for them to denounce...
Alternatively give me those same people aged 5 and put them in US families. They could well be the guards in GITMO....
They were not BORN Muslim you know. There is not a little chip inside us that tells us what religion, if any, we will adopt/follow. We LEARN that
|
Okay consider this: what about people born gay? At a young age his sexuality hasn't properly developed, but I still doubt that whatever you tell him, you will not be able to alter his sexual orientation. It is like a chip built inside them, even they don't realise they are gay at that age.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Religion is not responsible for what men do if it contradicts religion. |
It most certainly is a contributory factor. I don't say that every religious person is going to turn into a monster - that would be silly. The thing is, though, that 'what contradicts religion' is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Theologians like to pretend that they have some rigorous tools that they use to get the true interpretation of scripture - but that is laughable nonsense.*
Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and you will see Yahweh in full flow - telling his chosen people who they should kill, and sometimes even giving them the reason. Some of the reasons are pretty trivial, to be sure. If a child 'cheeks' the parents - kill that child. Gay? Kill! Adultery? Kill! Sex before marriage (for the women, of course, not men)? Kill! Non-believers? Kill! - in fact if one single person in a town worships a 'false' God then you need to kill the whole town just to make sure. Working on the Sabbath? Kill! Blasphemer? Kill!
I could continue - but the message is clear. Just read through Deuteronomy and Leviticus when you have a moment....
* The basic problems in philosophy/logic thrown up by Christianity have remained 'unsolved' to this day - the problem of evil, the contradictions inherent in 'infinities' - whether that be power or knowledge. Apart from the REAL scholars (the historians, linguists, archaeologists, anthropologists and so on), who actually DO tell us interesting things about the periods in question, then I doubt there is a single coherent contribution to human knowledge in the entire sum of ALL Christian theology since Aquinas. (And I am really NOT joking at all. It is such a wildly, general and damning claim that it must surely seem that I can't be entirely serious. Well, regulars know that I'm not given to making sweeping generalisations, much less damning ones, in these terms - but in this case I mean every word.
| Quote: | | As I always say, I cannot speak for the Bible. But the Quran states killing is wrong. The only time when killing is permissible is by the state (e.g. death sentence) or in fighting. Sure, people can debate on issues such as: for instance if killing those living in Jewish settlements who have taken Palestinian lands (i.e. are they innocent) is justified ? But I am not talking about those people. And religion isn't responsible for creating the vagueness, as I always say, it is a piece of literature that can be misinterpreted, just like any code of laws. |
Err, it certainly isn't. The bible (and I intend to stick with that - since it was the subject of the OP) is full of contradictions. We absolutely NEED the Christians to NOT interpret their scripture (particularly the 'old' bits) in anything like a literal manner, since much of it is a recipe for murder and mayhem, as well as deeply bigoted. We therefore have a whole industry - theology - whose sole purpose is to confuse and obscure where possible, re-interpret and 'cover over' where necessary, and just simply 'make it up' when all else fails.
The difference - both in 'tone', but also in 'message', between the Old and New Testament could hardly be larger. The 'gentle leader' Jesus, compared to the psychopathic, childish, insecure monster Yahweh. The select and clannish Hebrews, contrasted with the more inclusive (but still ferociously misogynistic) Pauline Christians, who wanted to move away from the Jewish take on Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers and the like, as well as opening up their particular sect to the non-Jews The differences are SO huge that the theologians had to invent a cover-story to keep the appearance that they are really the 'same entity'. Thus they talk of 'New Covenants' and of Jesus making a new set of laws to bring people into the 'Christian' fold, whilst at the same time saying that 'not one word' of the OT can be 'put aside'.
It really is quite hilarious watching grown men (normally in academic gowns, which adds to the comedy) abusing logic, spluttering incoherent fancy or pompous platitudes, trying their utmost to invent some new nonsensical concept to explain the clear and obvious contradictions, inconsistency and plain 'un-relatedness' of the two 'halves' of the bible. They have been at it for 2 millenium and the gibberish is no more comprehensible, no more logical, and no more sensible than it was then.
Theologians, of course, have to keep up the act, though, because that is ALL they do for a living. Their entire career is spent wriggling and squirming to ensure that, whilst there is nothing actually 'testable' in their writings, those publications have a pretence, a veneer, of academic rigour and scholarship.
It is difficult to think of a better candidate for the 'balloon game' than a theologian*. The theologians would never get a parachute in MY balloon basket. Actually, thinking a bit more about this - there are very few jobs/careers that we could completely do away with and yet feel no major 'ill effect'. Road sweepers, shop workers, nurses, doctors, teachers - it is very difficult to imagine getting rid of a whole 'career' without bad consequences. Theology, though - no problem at all. The whole lot of them could vanish up the ass of an angel, and I really can't think of a SINGLE negative consequence. We wouldn't know any less, we would be far less confused, and the approach of the Church of England could be seen as the 'gentle ebbing' of religion, as the new century passes. There is something very 'English' in that picture, which is probably why I find it appealing.
* You probably know the game - where you pretend the balloon is going down and you each chose a job/role/personality and defend it as 'the most important' - so you can keep a parachute, whilst the 'losers' go over the side....
| Quote: | | When I say evil: I am talking about men like Josef Fritzl - a man who raped his own children, or Adolf Hitler who put to gas chambers millions of Romani and Jews, or the men responsible using napalm which set a little girl on fire in Vietnam in 1972. There is no debate over what evil is in this case in any scripture or code of laws. |
LOL. OK - let's deal with Fritzl first.
He was/is certainly right off the scale for most people. False imprisonment, routine rape, cruelty, neglect - the works. Frizl is, in the best judgement of the professional psychologists who have worked with him, an extremely damaged person. He has personality disorders, sexual disorders, strong psychopathic traits (lack of empathy and emotion, inability to comprehend how other people see his actions - and so on). Now, Fritzl is where he belongs - in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Any society of sufficient size has its Fritzls - the best we can hope to do is spot them and lock them away quicker than the Austrians managed.
However, now let's compare and contrast with a person at the opposite end of the scale - a veritable paragon - revered, or at lest hugely respected, by Jews, Christians and Muslims all over the world. Remember the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God plays a merry little jape on Abraham and tells him to bind and kill his son, Isaac? Not directly comparable, to be sure. For a start we know that Abraham was going to do it - no question. We don't know if Frizl would have deliberately killed any of his children (and yes, I know that a baby DID die - Michael - but my point is that Fritzl didn't mean to kill the baby, in my reading of events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case
Now, if that (Abraham's abortive sacrifice) happened today it would probably not get as much press as the Frizl case, but it would certainly be front-page news. Abraham would be tried for attempted murder, false imprisonment and occasioning actual bodily harm. I'm pretty sure he would go down for a stretch - even if he had a clean record (which he didn't, of course, as we learn in Genesis and Exodus). We would, rightly of course, regard Abraham much the same as Fritzl if he tried his sacrificing today - a dangerous loony who needs to be secured for the sake of himself and those around him. We live in different times, of course. But I can see no way in which Abraham's actions are anything but criminal, cruel and, yes, I'll use the word - evil. I'm not actually sure which is the more 'evil' - a madman who is so damaged and 'separate' from the generality of humanity, its norms and society, that he goes on to imprison his children, have sex with them, mentally abuse them and scar them in a way which is never likely to heal* OR a perfectly sane and popular man being tortured by a sadistic monster into agreeing to kill his only son?
*and please let us not have anyone saying I'm sticking up for Fritzl or minimising his crimes - I am certainly not.
I don't think Abraham is quite as evil as Frizl - after all he was certainly under duress. He sure isn't a shining example of Christian love though, is he? (for anyone except 'God' of course).
As for Hitler - let's not go off on yet another 'Hitler' distraction - there are plenty in the forums. Suffice it to say that although Hitler may beat God at the killing game in terms of sheer numbers, I think God easily 'wins' if you adopt a fairer measure. When God was slaughtering all and sundry some thousands of years ago, the population of the earth was tiny, compared to today. If you want to consider who killed the greatest proportion of humanity then I really don't think Hitler gets close to Yaweh - after all even Hitler didn't drown 99.99% (or whatever suitable figure you can accept) of humanity in one sitting, did he?
| Quote: | | Okay consider this: what about people born gay? At a young age his sexuality hasn't properly developed, but I still doubt that whatever you tell him, you will not be able to alter his sexual orientation. It is like a chip built inside them, even they don't realise they are gay at that age. |
And what has this got to do with anything? Sure, I'm pretty convinced that sexuality has a strong 'bio-chemical' mechanism involved, and is something which people are 'born' with.
(Let's avoid talk of genes - there has been far too much loose speculation on the gay gene for my liking).
There is certainly 'something' beyond the control of the foetus/infant going on. Research indicates that hormones in the womb seem to be linked, and there are lots of other little indicators ( - but anyway, let's agree that, by and large, you are born with your sexuality - even though it takes a few years to develop. We may never know the exact mechanisms and factors - it certainly isn't going to be anything as 'simple' as a single gene. Anyway - we agree, I think.
Now, in what way is that remotely comparable with religion? Sexuality is much more like height, gender, colour - those things which we are dealt at birth. That's completely different from religion.
There are some shallow similarities - your parents are BY FAR the most important factor in determining which religion you will 'settle into' - just as they are in passing genes down to you.What actually happens in practice (and I'll confine THIS generalisation to the UK, where I have a lot of experience and know this to be true) is that the kids don't actually KNOW what their religion is all about. They get a few sermons on a Sunday which are fairly general and tend to give the same sort of message they get from teachers and other authority figures - behave yourself, think of others - that sort of unobjectionable thing. Pick a Church of England young adult and ask them a question about THEIR theology - what THEY believe (according to their 'leaders') and I absolutely guarantee that the vast majority wouldn't have the faintest idea. Even worse - if you actually push them with some of the more unbelievable items of Dogma that are central to 'their faith' then they usually either get annoyed or embarrassed and accuse YOU of being some sort of religious zealot, or they just smile and say something like - well, I know its not really true, but it is harmless at worst, and you shouldn't really go so deep into it.
I've had that said to me, in more or less those exact words, on at least half a dozen occasions.
Now, the fact that I know a great deal more about their religion than they do is perhaps not a surprise - I'm reasonably bright, used to working in 'academic' environments and have a good grounding in Catholic dogma. The Church of England is what I call religion-lite. It still has the fancy robes, the air of gravitas, the clerics in stupid clothes, the hymns and ceremony, and the dribbling theologians, but it isn't really about religion at all - it is a social/cultural 'focus' for events, little more. People go along to the garden party or the church bizarre, and it gives them a sense of belonging and community. Nothing wrong with that, of course - in fact, as an Englishman I find that oddly re-assuring
Gay - hm the soul has no gender - so beeing gay isn't that strange - love is love.
I can agree that men can do evil things and that men will be ‘killed’ in one manner or another.
A man’s end is death, certainly.
It is not acceptable though that God should be held responsible for any hate killings.
Only for death justifiably.
__________________________________________________________
living and loving it
| Bluedoll wrote: | I can agree that men can do evil things and that men will be ‘killed’ in one manner or another.
A man’s end is death, certainly.
It is not acceptable though that God should be held responsible for any hate killings. |
I can't decide if that is quite deep or quite dumb.
Perhaps you are questioning whether God can actually hate? Clearly if he can't then he can't 'technically' be responsible for hate killings by his own hand (such as the flood, for example). He could, of course, still be responsible for hate killings by his minions, since he created them knowing fine well that they would do the crime.
The problem that follows is that you can call my two small dogs 'Belgian Barge Dogs' with some justification, apparently, since that is a common nickname for them. Now I would say that clearly they are not Belgian, because they were born in the UK, and represent third generation UK dogs. You call my dogs Belgian Barge Dogs if you like, and I'll call them Schipperkes. In the end, however, they are still both small four legged animals with a tenancy to pig-out on anything vaguely edible. The name doesn't really make too much difference. If God doesn't, or can't, hate then fine - I'll buy that, since it makes about as much sense as any other theological assertion. I'd therefore rephrase it to say that God can't be held responsible for any hate killings - just killings which were discussed, acted out and later described in terms for which I find the only suitable word to be 'hateful', and which any unbiased source would probably agree. If you want to call that something different then fine - let's call it 'FGDKLD killings' - does that help?
Now - this next bit really makes me worry..... | Quote: | | Only for death justifiably. |
Yet again I can't work out if that is quite deep (ie you are saying that God can't be blamed for specific deaths but, justifiably, CAN be blamed for the whole concept of death, since he invented it).
I must confess that I don't really think that was your meaning, since it would really need a comma after death. However, if that isn't your meaning then I'm not sure I can put any sense to it at all. Justifiable? What does that mean? To whom? By whom? Does God have to justify himself?
| Quote: | I can agree that men can do evil things and that men will be ‘killed’ in one manner or another.
A man’s end is death, certainly.
It is not acceptable though that God should be held responsible for any hate killings.
Only for death, justifiably. |
by Bluedoll
I’ve made a correction, one common has been placed after death. There all better now!
The quote above is mine and is my writing, my composition, my thoughts, and it is my privilege to be able to express.
________________________________________________________________
In a phrase, for example, “only for dogs, justifiably” in keeping with my poetry style of writing to me justifiably means that there is a specific and deceive reason for something.
_____________________________________________________________
God is responsible for doing but not to be ‘blamed’.
Now, if i may be allowed as well, to make a point on biker man's entire post? The whole mood of that post is filled with anger, hate, sacasim and is in a confused state of what actual point he is trying to make?
It is fine, he can certainly express how he feels, thinks and what he believes however he has introduced a ‘condradiction’ into his writing.
The valediction could be changed which accompenies his real name in this post because it doesn’t really fit in with the general theme of his topic.
| Bluedoll wrote: | | In a phrase, for example, “only for dogs, justifiably” in keeping with my poetry style of writing to me justifiably means that there is a specific and deceive reason for something. |
What has the word 'justifiably' got to do with 'deceive'? What is a 'deceive reason'? I quite like poetry, but it should not be used as an excuse for incomprehensibility.
| Quote: | | God is responsible for doing but not to be ‘blamed’. |
Why? Because God says so? I don't know about you, but if someone does something hateful then I think they are to blame for that action.
| Quote: | | Now, if i may be allowed as well, to make a point on biker man's entire post? The whole mood of that post is filled with anger, hate, sacasim and is in a confused state of what actual point he is trying to make? |
I wasn't trying to make ANY point - I was merely trying to understand what you wrote. There is no anger or hate in the posting. The sarcasm you detect is in your mind. Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean for the purpose of belittling or making fun of an opponent. If you read my posting again you will find no such thing.
| Quote: | | It is fine, he can certainly express how he feels, thinks and what he believes however he has introduced a ‘condradiction’ into his writing. |
I see no contradiction in anything I have written. Perhaps you could point it out? | Quote: | | The valediction could be changed which accompenies his real name in this post because it doesn’t really fit in with the general theme of his topic. |
I genuinely haven't got a clue what that means. I offer everyone best wishes with my 'sig'. That is entirely genuine, since I don't personalise debates - I stick to what people post.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It most certainly is a contributory factor. I don't say that every religious person is going to turn into a monster - that would be silly. The thing is, though, that 'what contradicts religion' is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Theologians like to pretend that they have some rigorous tools that they use to get the true interpretation of scripture - but that is laughable nonsense.*
Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and you will see Yahweh in full flow - telling his chosen people who they should kill, and sometimes even giving them the reason. Some of the reasons are pretty trivial, to be sure. If a child 'cheeks' the parents - kill that child. Gay? Kill! Adultery? Kill! Sex before marriage (for the women, of course, not men)? Kill! Non-believers? Kill! - in fact if one single person in a town worships a 'false' God then you need to kill the whole town just to make sure. Working on the Sabbath? Kill! Blasphemer? Kill!
I could continue - but the message is clear. Just read through Deuteronomy and Leviticus when you have a moment....
* The basic problems in philosophy/logic thrown up by Christianity have remained 'unsolved' to this day - the problem of evil, the contradictions inherent in 'infinities' - whether that be power or knowledge.
|
Nationalism has been a far greater contributor to violence than religion.
And religion denounces nationalism:
| Prophet Muhammad said wrote: |
"He is not one of us who calls for asabiya (tribalism/nationalism), fights for asabiya, or dies for asabiya."
|
Again, I cannot speak for the Bible but I can speak on the Quran.
The Quran does not say kill the homosexuals or kill the nonbelivers (except in war/self defence where it is justified in any society).
The Quran says that on Friday you should leave off any business during the time of jummah prayer (lasts something like 10 mins), but does not declare a punishment for those who do not adhere to it. There is no punishment on blashempy in the Quran either. There is no mention clenses a towns people beacuse a few people may worship a false God.
If the Bible says the things you have mentioned, then it is wrong. I have not read it, so I cannot comment on it.
Although, didn't Jesus heal a cripple (or blind) on the sabbath? Isn't this a testimony therefore, that work for Christians can be done on teh sabbath?
| Bikerman wrote: |
Apart from the REAL scholars (the historians, linguists, archaeologists, anthropologists and so on), who actually DO tell us interesting things about the periods in question, then I doubt there is a single coherent contribution to human knowledge in the entire sum of ALL Christian theology since Aquinas. (And I am really NOT joking at all. It is such a wildly, general and damning claim that it must surely seem that I can't be entirely serious. Well, regulars know that I'm not given to making sweeping generalisations, much less damning ones, in these terms - but in this case I mean every word.
|
Regarding the sum of all Christianity since Aquinas being zilch, perhaps because Christianity is not as strong as it once was. I mean, look at Islam, the contributions in theology by men like AlGhazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Haym happened many centuries ago. In an age of capitalism, there is not much money to be made in commenting on religious texts or discussing theology, unlike during the middle Ages where it would have had near upmost priority. The state no longer invests in religion as much as it once did. Although there have been recent theologists commenting on Islamic text like Maududi and Tariq Ramadan (and his father), it is however, nothing how it used to be.
And regarding your first statement on real scholars: the aim of a Christian theologist would be the study of God from a Christian perspective. Whether he wants to do it with scientific reason or not, is up to him.
A historian studys history, a linguist studys language, an archaelogists studys archaeology, an antropologist studys anthropology, and a christian theologists is not different in studying christian theology.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Err, it certainly isn't. The bible (and I intend to stick with that - since it was the subject of the OP) is full of contradictions. We absolutely NEED the Christians to NOT interpret their scripture (particularly the 'old' bits) in anything like a literal manner, since much of it is a recipe for murder and mayhem, as well as deeply bigoted. We therefore have a whole industry - theology - whose sole purpose is to confuse and obscure where possible, re-interpret and 'cover over' where necessary, and just simply 'make it up' when all else fails.
The difference - both in 'tone', but also in 'message', between the Old and New Testament could hardly be larger. The 'gentle leader' Jesus, compared to the psychopathic, childish, insecure monster Yahweh. The select and clannish Hebrews, contrasted with the more inclusive (but still ferociously misogynistic) Pauline Christians, who wanted to move away from the Jewish take on Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers and the like, as well as opening up their particular sect to the non-Jews The differences are SO huge that the theologians had to invent a cover-story to keep the appearance that they are really the 'same entity'. Thus they talk of 'New Covenants' and of Jesus making a new set of laws to bring people into the 'Christian' fold, whilst at the same time saying that 'not one word' of the OT can be 'put aside'.
It really is quite hilarious watching grown men (normally in academic gowns, which adds to the comedy) abusing logic, spluttering incoherent fancy or pompous platitudes, trying their utmost to invent some new nonsensical concept to explain the clear and obvious contradictions, inconsistency and plain 'un-relatedness' of the two 'halves' of the bible. They have been at it for 2 millenium and the gibberish is no more comprehensible, no more logical, and no more sensible than it was then.
Theologians, of course, have to keep up the act, though, because that is ALL they do for a living. Their entire career is spent wriggling and squirming to ensure that, whilst there is nothing actually 'testable' in their writings, those publications have a pretence, a veneer, of academic rigour and scholarship.
|
I can't comment on the Bible.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It is difficult to think of a better candidate for the 'balloon game' than a theologian*. The theologians would never get a parachute in MY balloon basket. Actually, thinking a bit more about this - there are very few jobs/careers that we could completely do away with and yet feel no major 'ill effect'. Road sweepers, shop workers, nurses, doctors, teachers - it is very difficult to imagine getting rid of a whole 'career' without bad consequences. Theology, though - no problem at all. The whole lot of them could vanish up the ass of an angel, and I really can't think of a SINGLE negative consequence. We wouldn't know any less, we would be far less confused, and the approach of the Church of England could be seen as the 'gentle ebbing' of religion, as the new century passes. There is something very 'English' in that picture, which is probably why I find it appealing.
* You probably know the game - where you pretend the balloon is going down and you each chose a job/role/personality and defend it as 'the most important' - so you can keep a parachute, whilst the 'losers' go over the side....
|
loll... you are joking?
I don't know the way you see it, but when I read the Quran and view its laws, I gradually find them to be best. And there are so many books written on Islamic theology (past and present), such that it would require your entire life to read them all (and that won't even suffice) - and thats reading let alone understanding.
For me, the more I know and understadn, the closer I feel to Islam - forget about God, it is more about how to improve my ownself. Islam has rules for everything: how to greet people, how to eat, loving your neighbour, loving God's creatures, and how to even have sex, all of which I find to complement science and display the best of morals and ettiquettes.
Not only do I feel that these rules are the best, but they are also provide solutions. For instance, there are hadith that state whenever a plague inflicts a city, no one should enter it and no-one should leave it. Another is to marry when your young, and if you do not have the emans to get married, then fast. For fasting deminishes ones sexual desires.
| Bikerman wrote: |
LOL. OK - let's deal with Fritzl first.
He was/is certainly right off the scale for most people. False imprisonment, routine rape, cruelty, neglect - the works. Frizl is, in the best judgement of the professional psychologists who have worked with him, an extremely damaged person. He has personality disorders, sexual disorders, strong psychopathic traits (lack of empathy and emotion, inability to comprehend how other people see his actions - and so on). Now, Fritzl is where he belongs - in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. Any society of sufficient size has its Fritzls - the best we can hope to do is spot them and lock them away quicker than the Austrians managed.
|
Agree.
| Bikerman wrote: |
However, now let's compare and contrast with a person at the opposite end of the scale - a veritable paragon - revered, or at lest hugely respected, by Jews, Christians and Muslims all over the world. Remember the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God plays a merry little jape on Abraham and tells him to bind and kill his son, Isaac? Not directly comparable, to be sure. For a start we know that Abraham was going to do it - no question. We don't know if Frizl would have deliberately killed any of his children (and yes, I know that a baby DID die - Michael - but my point is that Fritzl didn't mean to kill the baby, in my reading of events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case
Now, if that (Abraham's abortive sacrifice) happened today it would probably not get as much press as the Frizl case, but it would certainly be front-page news. Abraham would be tried for attempted murder, false imprisonment and occasioning actual bodily harm. I'm pretty sure he would go down for a stretch - even if he had a clean record |
Abraham situation is quite different.
The Quranic statement is as follows:
| Quran 37:100-110 wrote: |
“(Abraham prayed:) "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!". So We gave him tidings of a gentle son. And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast. Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face, We called unto him: O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good. Lo! that verily was a clear test. Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim. And We left for him among the later folk (the salutation): Peace be unto Abraham! Thus do We reward the good.
|
As the verses above show, he did not kill his son. He also asked his son of his opinion. And most importantly, in some EU countries (amybe soon in UK), this form (had he killed his son) would be permitted (fall under euphanasia).
Fritzl did something different. He raped his children. He tortured them. He killed them. He did not feed them adequetly despite having the means to do so. And he deprived them from the rest of civilization. And all this against their children's will.
| Bikerman wrote: |
As for Hitler - let's not go off on yet another 'Hitler' distraction - there are plenty in the forums. Suffice it to say that although Hitler may beat God at the killing game in terms of sheer numbers, I think God easily 'wins' if you adopt a fairer measure. When God was slaughtering all and sundry some thousands of years ago, the population of the earth was tiny, compared to today. If you want to consider who killed the greatest proportion of humanity then I really don't think Hitler gets close to Yaweh - after all even Hitler didn't drown 99.99% (or whatever suitable figure you can accept) of humanity in one sitting, did he?
|
God is not a person. That makes all your arguments invalid. Do you really want to blame Nature (Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding) for the mass killing of civilization? Surely that would make you extremely foolish.
| Bikerman wrote: |
And what has this got to do with anything? Sure, I'm pretty convinced that sexuality has a strong 'bio-chemical' mechanism involved, and is something which people are 'born' with.
(Let's avoid talk of genes - there has been far too much loose speculation on the gay gene for my liking).
There is certainly 'something' beyond the control of the foetus/infant going on. Research indicates that hormones in the womb seem to be linked, and there are lots of other little indicators ( - but anyway, let's agree that, by and large, you are born with your sexuality - even though it takes a few years to develop. We may never know the exact mechanisms and factors - it certainly isn't going to be anything as 'simple' as a single gene. Anyway - we agree, I think.
Now, in what way is that remotely comparable with religion? Sexuality is much more like height, gender, colour - those things which we are dealt at birth. That's completely different from religion.
|
okay, I was not referring to religion. I was stating that if someone can be born with a "fetish" for same-sex relations, wouldn't it be just as easy for someone to be born with "hate" for all sex relations?
Can't people be born evil just as easy they are born gay?
Homosexuality is not like height, gender or colour. These are physical characteristics. Homosexuality is a state of mind. You can be born gay. Similarly, You can be born evil. I think there is a similarity - not between gay and evil of course, but that fact that you can be born gay in the same way you can be born evil.
| Bikerman wrote: |
There are some shallow similarities - your parents are BY FAR the most important factor in determining which religion you will 'settle into' - just as they are in passing genes down to you.What actually happens in practice (and I'll confine THIS generalisation to the UK, where I have a lot of experience and know this to be true) is that the kids don't actually KNOW what their religion is all about. They get a few sermons on a Sunday which are fairly general and tend to give the same sort of message they get from teachers and other authority figures - behave yourself, think of others - that sort of unobjectionable thing. Pick a Church of England young adult and ask them a question about THEIR theology - what THEY believe (according to their 'leaders') and I absolutely guarantee that the vast majority wouldn't have the faintest idea. Even worse - if you actually push them with some of the more unbelievable items of Dogma that are central to 'their faith' then they usually either get annoyed or embarrassed and accuse YOU of being some sort of religious zealot, or they just smile and say something like - well, I know its not really true, but it is harmless at worst, and you shouldn't really go so deep into it.
I've had that said to me, in more or less those exact words, on at least half a dozen occasions.
Now, the fact that I know a great deal more about their religion than they do is perhaps not a surprise - I'm reasonably bright, used to working in 'academic' environments and have a good grounding in Catholic dogma. The Church of England is what I call religion-lite. It still has the fancy robes, the air of gravitas, the clerics in stupid clothes, the hymns and ceremony, and the dribbling theologians, but it isn't really about religion at all - it is a social/cultural 'focus' for events, little more. People go along to the garden party or the church bizarre, and it gives them a sense of belonging and community. Nothing wrong with that, of course - in fact, as an Englishman I find that oddly re-assuring
|
I agree that many people follow religion blindly: the same is true for Islam. But honesltly, that same proportion of the population are a similar number that follow politics blindly. There are extremely handful of people who can engage in discussion on politics as much as religion. And shouldn't politics concern them? Are their rights not important? Shouldn't we at least know why the heck our children are being sent halfway across the world only to be returned back in bodybags?
And yes, I have stated many hadith that shows Islam is not as supportive of sex segregation as they think. Or how Islam is for music (believe it or not, some Muslims consider music to be haram - unlawful). It is funny the expression on their face. I ask them to cite one hadith in favour of their arguement, and they can't. Some say they will get back to me, but they never do. Some even say I follow a crazy Islam, and I reply by saying that "I am quoting you Quran and hadith - bring me your verse of the quran", but they can't. I even question their beliefs, on how they would follow a certain religious scholar but would never even look to the source (quran and hadith).
And I think society is more to blame for this: our undenying love for entertainment, whether it is tvs, ps3s, football, celebrities or even saturday nights. And Religion is not the only thing blindly followed. I bet most of the children today would follow the same political party as their parents also, without even knowing their views. They won't be able to quote any of their nation's history, but will be able to quote every match with their results that their football team played so far thats season.
Most geniunely don't care about going deep into religion in the same way they don't want to go deep in politics. So long as their nations gives them rights, they don't care who is in power. And so long as religion provides them inner satisfaction, they don't care about the delicate details of what you said about the 'kill, kill, kill' outlined in the Bible. Albeit there is nothing wrong with this, just don't expect a serious discussion amongst these people.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Nationalism has been a far greater contributor to violence than religion.
And religion denounces nationalism: |
Nationalism is often compounded or even combined with religion. Look around the world at the various conflicts - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan...in each you will find nationalism AND religion are the major 'banners' which define the opponents.
| Quote: | | And regarding your first statement on real scholars: the aim of a Christian theologist would be the study of God from a Christian perspective. Whether he wants to do it with scientific reason or not, is up to him. |
Theology is, I think, usefully defined as
"the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences, and of the nature of religious truth".
Now, no problem with the first two bits - but I think that is sociology/psychology/history/anthropology/archaeology etc, not theology. The last bit (the nature of religious truth) is, of course, entirely subjective depending on which 'type' of theology you are practising. The point I am making is that theology, as a discipline, is rather ill-defined (there are no 'universal' theological 'truths' which apply) and, I think, rather useless. Christian theology has, as I said, achieved nothing of value in the last millennium (arguably ever).
Theological dispute quickly degenerates into silly discussions about angels on pin-heads, the nature of omniscience/omnipotence, the 'problem of evil' and the like - and theology offers nothing but semantic sophistry and circular reasoning. | Quote: | | loll... you are joking? |
No - quite serious. I genuinely believe that theology is a non-subject. As for not being supported by the state - I disagree. Theology is still a university subject in which you can obtain a degree, masters, or even doctorate. Theologians are frequently asked onto the public media when any issue of ethics or morality comes up. Why this should be I don't know.
I actually quite like the definition of theology coined in the wonderful TV series "Yes Minister" by Sir Humphrey Appleby:
"Theology is a device designed to enable agnostics to remain within the Church"
| Quote: | | I don't know the way you see it, but when I read the Quran and view its laws.... |
Well...again I'm not going to get into the Quran in this thread....
| Quote: | | Abraham situation is quite different. As the verses above show, he did not kill his son. He also asked his son of his opinion. And most importantly, in some EU countries (amybe soon in UK), this form (had he killed his son) would be permitted (fall under euphanasia). |
a) It is very much a comparable case. In both cases a man falsely imprisoned his child. Abraham did so with the intention of killing the child. The only reason the child survived is that God was playing a sick little game - Abraham would certainly have killed him otherwise. Abraham therefore falsely imprisoned his son with the intent of murdering him. Fritzl falsely imprisoned his daughter, and her subsequent children, with the intent of raping her. Which is worse? Luckily for Abraham God let him off the hook - but he would, as I said, certainly be prosecuted and probably committed under the mental health act.
b) It would certainly NOT be permitted in ANY western country. It has nothing to do with euthanasia, it is religiously motivated murder.
Euthanasia is not permitted anyway - assisted suicide (which is currently being debated here) is something quite different.
| Quote: | | Fritzl did something different. He raped his children. He tortured them. He killed them. He did not feed them adequetly despite having the means to do so. And he deprived them from the rest of civilization. And all this against their children's will. |
Well, he didn't directly kill the baby (Michael, I believe) - manslaughter would be the charge. Abraham, on the other hand, fully intended to murder Isaac.
As I say - you can argue about the relative severity of the two 'crimes' but there is absolutely no doubt that, from a civil perspective, both WERE crimes of a pretty horrendous nature. The only real difference is that Abraham believed God was telling him to do the crime whilst Fritzl probably heard different voices in his head...
| Quote: | | God is not a person. That makes all your arguments invalid. Do you really want to blame Nature (Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding) for the mass killing of civilization? Surely that would make you extremely foolish. |
LOL - this is the normal religious cop-out, and the only real argument left for most religious disputants.
God is not nature - unless you are a Deist or a pantheist. God intervenes in the world - we call such interventions miracles - in a way which contravenes 'nature'.
Of course we don't 'blame' nature for volcanoes and such because there is no such entity as 'nature'. Nature is just a word for the physical laws of the universe and that includes human behaviour (which is why I always object to the word 'unnatural' since I don't actually know how you could define that, unless you mean 'miracle').
God, on the other hand, IS an entity (or three entities depending on whether you go for the notion of a 'trinity'). It is therefore sensible to attribute 'blame' (or at least causation) to that entity. You may wish to say that human moral/ethical judgements cannot apply to God - indeed that is normally the next argument made by the religious at this point. That is simply 'special pleading' however. The notion of 'supra-morality' which the religious define here (meaning that God is outside or beyond normal notions of morality) conflicts with huge swathes of Christian theology which tells us that we are made in God's image and that God is 'love', 'truth' etc.
Love, truth and the rest are notions which only make sense if you accept the underlying philosophical definitions. It makes no sense at all to talk about those concepts in the context of a 'supra-moral' God.
| Quote: | | Can't people be born evil just as easy they are born gay? |
Well, if we assume that they can, then can they be blamed for being evil? Surely it is unjust to blame or judge someone for something which they cannot influence?
| Quote: | | Homosexuality is not like height, gender or colour. These are physical characteristics. |
No - there is more to it than simply a 'state of mind'. A state of mind can be changed - sexuality cannot (in the main). There are physiological differences between (to take an example) gay men and straight men. This can be amply demonstrated by conducting MRI scans whilst exposing the subject to different types of pornography (gay or straight). There is a physical difference in the parts of the brain that 'light up' and a physical response (in the form of an erection) which is dependant on sexuality. To class it as a 'state of mind' is much too simplistic.
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | Nationalism has been a far greater contributor to violence than religion.
And religion denounces nationalism: |
Nationalism is often compounded or even combined with religion. Look around the world at the various conflicts - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan...in each you will find nationalism AND religion are the major 'banners' which define the opponents.
|
Firstly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars fought in the name of religion. Why have your deprived the arab/muslim world of nationalism and permitted it for everyone else? Why is it that whenever the arab/muslim world fights for freedom and against foreign occupation, religion should automatically be inserted in the sentence?
Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for independence - against their own American-inserted-selfproclaiming-Muslim-puppet-of-a govt and foreign occupation. Period.
In Palestine, it is for the Arab homeland - it doesn't matter if your Christian or Muslim - you are fighting for your land from Israeli illegal occupation. Their cause is one. Your bring religion into it, but it has nothing to do with it. It is everything about Mawtini. The head of the bombing of four planes in the 70s by the Palestinian group was Christian. In the words of Galloway: Victory to the intifada, long live the resistance.
Kashmir and Sudan I am not so sure. You also forgot others: Chechnya who are fighting for independance - because of nationalism. Same was the case for Kosovo and Bosnia. Are they Muslim by faith or by name? I think it is the latter for these European countries in whcih Muslims have lived there for hundreds of years.
I am sure the same in Europe is the case for Ireland and Northern Ireland - it was never catholic vs Protestants - but British vs Irish. It is same case for Scotland now (although this is peaceful). ETA wanted independance in Basque region (spain/france) out of nationalism - NOT RELIGION.
Hitler massacred millions of Romani and Jews, not becasue of their religion - but because of their RACE. Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people NEVER because of religion.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | And regarding your first statement on real scholars: the aim of a Christian theologist would be the study of God from a Christian perspective. Whether he wants to do it with scientific reason or not, is up to him. |
Theology is, I think, usefully defined as
"the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences, and of the nature of religious truth".
Now, no problem with the first two bits - but I think that is sociology/psychology/history/anthropology/archaeology etc, not theology. The last bit (the nature of religious truth) is, of course, entirely subjective depending on which 'type' of theology you are practising. The point I am making is that theology, as a discipline, is rather ill-defined (there are no 'universal' theological 'truths' which apply) and, I think, rather useless. Christian theology has, as I said, achieved nothing of value in the last millennium (arguably ever).
|
I am not so knowledgable about Christian theology, but Muslim theology has contributed much to the world. Men like alGhazali, ibn Rushd, ibn Hazem, Ibn Sina, Mududi, Ramadan etc.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Theological dispute quickly degenerates into silly discussions about angels on pin-heads, the nature of omniscience/omnipotence, the 'problem of evil' and the like - and theology offers nothing but semantic sophistry and circular reasoning. | Quote: | | loll... you are joking? |
No - quite serious. I genuinely believe that theology is a non-subject. As for not being supported by the state - I disagree. Theology is still a university subject in which you can obtain a degree, masters, or even doctorate. Theologians are frequently asked onto the public media when any issue of ethics or morality comes up. Why this should be I don't know.
I actually quite like the definition of theology coined in the wonderful TV series "Yes Minister" by Sir Humphrey Appleby:
"Theology is a device designed to enable agnostics to remain within the Church"
|
Your university argument is futile. You can degrees on anything these days, I can name you at least 20 useless degrees of which none are to do with religion. Plus univerisity's are not run by govts, and they are like businesses.
Regarding ethics: maybe people want to hear a spiritual aspect on the matter, rather simply focusing on scientific. For instance, To offer people a decent burial is what the church would advocate - science would say it is not cost effective and too much emphasis paid on those who are dead than alive. Science would side towards pure capitalism when it comes to a governing political system.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Abraham situation is quite different. As the verses above show, he did not kill his son. He also asked his son of his opinion. And most importantly, in some EU countries (amybe soon in UK), this form (had he killed his son) would be permitted (fall under euphanasia). |
a) It is very much a comparable case. In both cases a man falsely imprisoned his child. Abraham did so with the intention of killing the child. The only reason the child survived is that God was playing a sick little game - Abraham would certainly have killed him otherwise. Abraham therefore falsely imprisoned his son with the intent of murdering him. Fritzl falsely imprisoned his daughter, and her subsequent children, with the intent of raping her. Which is worse? Luckily for Abraham God let him off the hook - but he would, as I said, certainly be prosecuted and probably committed under the mental health act.
|
Is there a case in which God commanded to slaughter of a innocent person? In the whole Quran? No. It was always in retaliation to those who broke their treaty. The quran many many times states that if people continue in disbelief then "You are only sent as a warner", "your duty is only to convey the message", "to you belongs your way and to me mine". Not the kill em for apostasy you so hear in the news.
| Bikerman wrote: |
b) It would certainly NOT be permitted in ANY western country. It has nothing to do with euthanasia, it is religiously motivated murder.
Euthanasia is not permitted anyway - assisted suicide (which is currently being debated here) is something quite different.
| Quote: | | Fritzl did something different. He raped his children. He tortured them. He killed them. He did not feed them adequetly despite having the means to do so. And he deprived them from the rest of civilization. And all this against their children's will. |
Well, he didn't directly kill the baby (Michael, I believe) - manslaughter would be the charge. Abraham, on the other hand, fully intended to murder Isaac.
|
With the child's permission. And Ismail was of a mature age - so he could differentiate between rigth and wrong. He wanted to sacrifice his life for God, in the same way men and women are willing to sacrifice their lives for queen and country.
| Bikerman wrote: |
As I say - you can argue about the relative severity of the two 'crimes' but there is absolutely no doubt that, from a civil perspective, both WERE crimes of a pretty horrendous nature. The only real difference is that Abraham believed God was telling him to do the crime whilst Fritzl probably heard different voices in his head...
|
Is it a crime to die for queen and country then?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | God is not a person. That makes all your arguments invalid. Do you really want to blame Nature (Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding) for the mass killing of civilization? Surely that would make you extremely foolish. |
LOL - this is the normal religious cop-out, and the only real argument left for most religious disputants.
God is not nature - unless you are a Deist or a pantheist. God intervenes in the world - we call such interventions miracles - in a way which contravenes 'nature'.
Of course we don't 'blame' nature for volcanoes and such because there is no such entity as 'nature'. Nature is just a word for the physical laws of the universe and that includes human behaviour (which is why I always object to the word 'unnatural' since I don't actually know how you could define that, unless you mean 'miracle').
God, on the other hand, IS an entity (or three entities depending on whether you go for the notion of a 'trinity'). It is therefore sensible to attribute 'blame' (or at least causation) to that entity. You may wish to say that human moral/ethical judgements cannot apply to God - indeed that is normally the next argument made by the religious at this point. That is simply 'special pleading' however. The notion of 'supra-morality' which the religious define here (meaning that God is outside or beyond normal notions of morality) conflicts with huge swathes of Christian theology which tells us that we are made in God's image and that God is 'love', 'truth' etc.
Love, truth and the rest are notions which only make sense if you accept the underlying philosophical definitions. It makes no sense at all to talk about those concepts in the context of a 'supra-moral' God.
|
If God intervened for every single natural disaster, and prevented these things from happening - then we would surely live for eternity. That is not Gods plan. God wants to test us - and he tests us through different means.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Can't people be born evil just as easy they are born gay? |
Well, if we assume that they can, then can they be blamed for being evil? Surely it is unjust to blame or judge someone for something which they cannot influence?
| Quote: | | Homosexuality is not like height, gender or colour. These are physical characteristics. |
No - there is more to it than simply a 'state of mind'. A state of mind can be changed - sexuality cannot (in the main). There are physiological differences between (to take an example) gay men and straight men. This can be amply demonstrated by conducting MRI scans whilst exposing the subject to different types of pornography (gay or straight). There is a physical difference in the parts of the brain that 'light up' and a physical response (in the form of an erection) which is dependant on sexuality. To class it as a 'state of mind' is much too simplistic. |
[/quote]
ANd I am sure there are scans for a person who is evil. I am sure their brain would exhibit certain tendancies when images of war are shown, followed by images of peace (or vice versa). Just because they are not done, doesn't mean we cannot say you cannot be born evil. Are there scientific experiments done in this field?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Firstly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars fought in the name of religion. Why have your deprived the arab/muslim world of nationalism and permitted it for everyone else? Why is it that whenever the arab/muslim world fights for freedom and against foreign occupation, religion should automatically be inserted in the sentence?
Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for independence - against their own American-inserted-selfproclaiming-Muslim-puppet-of-a govt and foreign occupation. Period. |
He said nationalism and religion are the banners that most often define the opponents. The opponents in this would be the US and Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.
The extremists in the Middle East aren't fighting at all under a banner of religion? No doubt there are forces of nationalism at work as well, but how are groups like Al-Qaeda not fighting under the banner of their god/religion when their proclamation for every action they take is "For Allah"?*
*Whether you think they're following what Islam really teaches isn't relevant, just to put that out there
| liljp617 wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | Firstly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars fought in the name of religion. Why have your deprived the arab/muslim world of nationalism and permitted it for everyone else? Why is it that whenever the arab/muslim world fights for freedom and against foreign occupation, religion should automatically be inserted in the sentence?
Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for independence - against their own American-inserted-selfproclaiming-Muslim-puppet-of-a govt and foreign occupation. Period. |
He said nationalism and religion are the banners that most often define the opponents. The opponents in this would be the US and Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.
The extremists in the Middle East aren't fighting at all under a banner of religion? No doubt there are forces of nationalism at work as well, but how are groups like Al-Qaeda not fighting under the banner of their god/religion when their proclamation for every action they take is "For Allah"?*
*Whether you think they're following what Islam really teaches isn't relevant, just to put that out there |
I know what he said. But why are we always saying "nationalism AND religion"?
Bush (most American presidents) constantly say(s) "God bless America" - is it more of a norm over conviction?
And, Shakespeare wrote in Henry V "upon this charge we make, cry God for Harry, England, and St George" - did Shakespeare really mean to indicate that the English were fighting for Christianity against the French?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Firstly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars fought in the name of religion. |
Iraq and Aghanistan have a great deal to do with religion. Do you think that militant Catholics are recruiting in the Churches of England for people to train and fight in both 'wars'. Nope, but you find militant Islamists doing precisely that. Ask the British kids who went to train in Afghanistan, or fight in Iraq, what their motivation was and you will get a single answer - their faith.
Look at the internal problems in Iraq - entirely crystallised and defined by the division between Shia and Sunni.
Are you seriously trying to assert that the Taliban, in Afghanistan, are not a primarily Sunni Muslim religious grouping? Sure there are other factors - they are also mostly Pashtun - but to try to pretend that religion isn't one of the most important defining characteristics is disingenuous.
| Quote: | | Why have your deprived the arab/muslim world of nationalism and permitted it for everyone else? Why is it that whenever the arab/muslim world fights for freedom and against foreign occupation, religion should automatically be inserted in the sentence? |
I haven't said or done any such thing, and by putting words in my mouth you further cheapen yourself. I said that nationalism and religion are often compounded. I didn't specify that this was only in Muslim conflicts, and I have talked at length in other threads about the conflict in Northern Ireland, to give just one example.
I have also talked at length about the Iraq war and the injustice of the UK/US invasion. That doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely important factor in both conflicts. | Quote: | | Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for independence - against their own American-inserted-selfproclaiming-Muslim-puppet-of-a govt and foreign occupation. Period. |
Iraqis (and foreign nationals) are partly fighting to get rid of foreign occupation, and partly fighting amongst themselves for power. You have the Shia and Sunni Muslims trying to establish a power base in the parliament, and the Sufi/Shafi Kurds trying to redraw the national borders in order to establish independence. As I said - nationalism AND religion. | Quote: | | Kashmir and Sudan I am not so sure. |
Well let me educate you some more then.
Kashmir is disputed land between India and Pakistan. Those two countries were set up on (any guesses?) yes RELIGIOUS grounds. The united India set up, which Britain originally wanted, would not have worked (particularly after Jinnah threw his weight behind partition), and would have resulted in huge bloodshed between the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim population. The country was therefore partitioned and Pakistan was the result. Kashmir is territory claimed by both. A classic example of nationalism AND religion.
The current conflict in Sudan has its roots in 2 civil wars this century - both between the largely non-Arab, non-Muslim South and the largely Arab/Muslim North. The second civil war was triggered when President Nimeiry declared that he was making Sudan a Muslim state and introducing Sharia courts (back in 1983 from memory). It has 'simmered' ever since. The current war in Darfor is much more messy and largely between different ethnic groups rather than between Muslim/Non Muslim.
| Quote: | | Your university argument is futile. You can degrees on anything these days, I can name you at least 20 useless degrees of which none are to do with religion. Plus univerisity's are not run by govts, and they are like businesses. |
a) Go on then - name 20 useless degrees (that is, degrees where you cannot find any use in the subject). I'll bet you can't even name 1 (apart from theology that is).
b) Universities are certainly partially 'run' by Governments here in the UK. Do you understand how university funding works? The Higher Education Funding Council fund our universities to the tune of about £4.5 billion per year - I don't think you will find that happening with many businesses (outside defence, anyway).
The simple fact is that theology degrees generally offer a largely 'Christian' syllabus which is largely parasitic (ie it isn't so much a 'discipline' itself, it merely steals bits from anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and other genuine disciplines).
Why should the Tax payer support such degrees. It is not as if the Christian establishment is short of a few bob. The Catholic church is, I think, the largest landowner in the world with fabulous wealth. The Church of England has billions in assets. Both already enjoy substantial financial support from the tax payer in the form of tax breaks. Let them fund their own propaganda.
| Quote: | | Is there a case in which God commanded to slaughter of a innocent person? In the whole Quran? ....etc |
I have gently reminded you on several occasions that this thread is not about the Quran. If you continue to ignore these polite and gentle reminders then I will put my mod hat on, and I won't be so polite. You are free to start any thread you like on the Quran, but this thread is not for that discussion.
| Bikerman wrote: | Iraq and Aghanistan have a great deal to do with religion. Do you think that militant Catholics are recruiting in the Churches of England for people to train and fight in both 'wars'. Nope, but you find militant Islamists doing precisely that. Ask the British kids who went to train in Afghanistan, or fight in Iraq, what their motivation was and you will get a single answer - their faith.
Look at the internal problems in Iraq - entirely crystallised and defined by the division between Shia and Sunni.
|
It is a different case when you are defensive.
What about the people who weren't Muslims who want to Iraq as human shields? It is not all about religion.
Regarding internal problems: I consider Shia and Sunni should be attributed better as a race of people over a particular religion (see my ocmments later on).
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Why have your deprived the arab/muslim world of nationalism and permitted it for everyone else? Why is it that whenever the arab/muslim world fights for freedom and against foreign occupation, religion should automatically be inserted in the sentence? |
I haven't said or done any such thing, and by putting words in my mouth you further cheapen yourself. I said that nationalism and religion are often compounded. I didn't specify that this was only in Muslim conflicts, and I have talked at length in other threads about the conflict in Northern Ireland, to give just one example.
|
You certainly intended so. You said "Religion AND nationalism" and gave ONLY Muslim examples when you cited "Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan...in each you will find nationalism AND religion are the major 'banners' which define the opponents."
I did not put any words into your mouth.
| Bikerman wrote: | Iraqis (and foreign nationals) are partly fighting to get rid of foreign occupation, and partly fighting amongst themselves for power. You have the Shia and Sunni Muslims trying to establish a power base in the parliament, and the Sufi/Shafi Kurds trying to redraw the national borders in order to establish independence. As I said - nationalism AND religion.
|
You perceive Sunni and Shia to be of religion (which they are), but in fact it is more to do with ethniticity. Similarly, with the kurds it is the same thing. Whilst it is true that Islam does not belong to a single ethnicity of people (like the case for Jews or Sikhs), it is also true that Sunni and Shia (in particular SHia which is more homogenous) as well as Kurds have distinct ethniticies with each other (3 groups), and that creates seperation more so than religion. For instance, Sunnis are to be found almost everywhere in the world, but Shia's are centralised in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain(former Iranian colonies) etc, and very rare of being anywhere else.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Kashmir and Sudan I am not so sure. |
Well let me educate you some more then.
Kashmir is disputed land between India and Pakistan. Those two countries were set up on (any guesses?) yes RELIGIOUS grounds. The united India set up, which Britain originally wanted, would not have worked (particularly after Jinnah threw his weight behind partition), and would have resulted in huge bloodshed between the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim population. The country was therefore partitioned and Pakistan was the result. Kashmir is territory claimed by both. A classic example of nationalism AND religion.
|
I think it was more of a case, that the Muslims had been ruling India before so that they felt it was only fair that they would rule after the British left. The Indians/Hindus(India is usually refered to as Hindustan) felt they were in the majority (which they were), and therefore wanted India to be theirs. Then the Muslims argued that the Hindus were a majority when the Muslims ruled them so that argument is flawed. The British just wanted to get out, and so drew a partition, however the Kashmir issue was not clear, and then left. Ever since, these two countries have been arguing over the issue.
Now I said, I wasen't so sure if it was a case of religion or nationalism of the fighting in kashmir. Considering that the people living in Kashmir have a culture/ethniticity most belonging to Pakistan they generally side with Pakistan. However, this is not always the case. If religion AND nationalism both played in it, how do you explain the growing desire of Kashmiris, now more so than ever, to form an independant state?
I admit that there are "Islamists" that fight for the independance of Kashmir coming from the other side of the border. But is it for Islam? Or is it because they have the same ethniticity and culture?
| Bikerman wrote: |
The current conflict in Sudan has its roots in 2 civil wars this century - both between the largely non-Arab, non-Muslim South and the largely Arab/Muslim North. The second civil war was triggered when President Nimeiry declared that he was making Sudan a Muslim state and introducing Sharia courts (back in 1983 from memory). It has 'simmered' ever since. The current war in Darfor is much more messy and largely between different ethnic groups rather than between Muslim/Non Muslim.
|
I don't know the situation here to add anything useful. But you mention the situation in Darfur is do to with nationalism?
| Bikerman wrote: |
a) Go on then - name 20 useless degrees (that is, degrees where you cannot find any use in the subject). I'll bet you can't even name 1 (apart from theology that is).
|
OKay, looking on the UCAS site - I have focused on bachelors only :
1. BA in Buying - 9 unis offer it
2. BSc and BEng in Knowledge Management - at least 2 unis offer it
3. BA in Golf Management
4. BSc in Management and MArketing of Textiles
5. BA in Football Studies
The above 5 are on BSc and BA only. There are many other useless degrees.
Do you really think you need a BA on buying - 3 Year course? or do you think that you need a BA in football studies?
| Bikerman wrote: |
b) Universities are certainly partially 'run' by Governments here in the UK. Do you understand how university funding works? The Higher Education Funding Council fund our universities to the tune of about £4.5 billion per year - I don't think you will find that happening with many businesses (outside defence, anyway).
|
"Run by" and "Financed by" are two seperate issues. Yes, universities are financed by the govts, but they certainly are not run by them. The voices of lecturers/educational system is independant of govt and more inclined towards providing graduates that fulfil local industry needs and provide their own views (irresepective of govts) on certain matters.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The simple fact is that theology degrees generally offer a largely 'Christian' syllabus which is largely parasitic (ie it isn't so much a 'discipline' itself, it merely steals bits from anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and other genuine disciplines).
|
If that is what the people want, then is there harm in teaching them?
| Bikerman wrote: |
Why should the Tax payer support such degrees. It is not as if the Christian establishment is short of a few bob. The Catholic church is, I think, the largest landowner in the world with fabulous wealth. The Church of England has billions in assets. Both already enjoy substantial financial support from the tax payer in the form of tax breaks. Let them fund their own propaganda.
|
The taxpayer supports the degrees by studying there. If the demand for such degrees was so low, universities would not offer it. And plus, theology are quite cheap in terms of providing resources unlike Medicine/Dentistry or even Architecture which could see the cost of > £100,000/£200,000 to train a doctor/dentist.
Tax breaks are different. They are generally for a good cause. Doesn't religion help the community in some way? Doesn't the Church of England provide money to the homeless and other charitable work?
Regarding landowners: considering that they were part of govt and head of state, it wouldn't suprise me if they were tha largest landowners in the world. In the past, society was largely driven by religion and a lot of land was given to them. Now is not the case.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Is there a case in which God commanded to slaughter of a innocent person? In the whole Quran? ....etc |
I have gently reminded you on several occasions that this thread is not about the Quran. If you continue to ignore these polite and gentle reminders then I will put my mod hat on, and I won't be so polite. You are free to start any thread you like on the Quran, but this thread is not for that discussion. |
[/quote]
Okay I would say in the Bible, but you did give me examples in earlier posts (i.e. killing of homosexuals, those who work on sabbath etc etc). However, until I read the Bible in full and in context (probably never happen), I can't make a comment on this.
But you haven't replied on the difference between a person willing to sacrifice his OWN life for his Queen and Country over a person willing to sacrifice his OWN life for God (as in case of Ismail)?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | What about the people who weren't Muslims who want to Iraq as human shields? It is not all about religion. |
Again you put words in my mouth - I never said it was ALL about religion, did I?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Regarding internal problems: I consider Shia and Sunni should be attributed better as a race of people over a particular religion (see my ocmments later on). |
LOL...so you don't like the answer and choose instead to redefine the terms? That is a tactic typical of a theologian, not an honest debater. | ThePolemistis wrote: | You certainly intended so. You said "Religion AND nationalism" and gave ONLY Muslim examples when you cited "Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan...in each you will find nationalism AND religion are the major 'banners' which define the opponents."
I did not put any words into your mouth. |
I think you are being offensively presumptuous.
Please don't tell me what I intended, because, to the best of my knowledge you are not psychic, and you certainly don't know me well enough to assume that my words don't mean exactly what they say, let alone assume some hidden agenda.
The reason I picked those examples is because they appear, in that order, on several lists of current 'wars' in the world. If I wanted to skew my list to include only Muslim conflicts then why would I have included Palestine? It just so happens that most of the 'major' conflicts around the world currently involve Islam in one way or another. That's not my fault - that is the way it is.
By all means check my source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts
You will find the same list. I didn't include number 6 on the list - The Mexican Drug Wars - because I think it is fairly self-evident what the causes are in that particular conflict.
If you have evidence of other conflicts with more loss of life and that I deliberately excluded, then provide it - otherwise please don't speculate about my 'intentions'.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | You perceive Sunni and Shia to be of religion (which they are), but in fact it is more to do with ethniticity. Similarly, with the kurds it is the same thing. Whilst it is true that Islam does not belong to a single ethnicity of people (like the case for Jews or Sikhs), it is also true that Sunni and Shia (in particular SHia which is more homogenous) as well as Kurds have distinct ethniticies with each other (3 groups), and that creates seperation more so than religion. For instance, Sunnis are to be found almost everywhere in the world, but Shia's are centralised in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain(former Iranian colonies) etc, and very rare of being anywhere else. |
Again you are trying, disingenuously, to redefine terms to suit your argument. The main groupings in Iraq are Sunni, Shia and Sufi/Shafi. That is the clear dividing line, and it is religious, as well as 'tribal'/ethnic. That is not 'my perception', that is a simple statement of fact.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Now I said, I wasen't so sure if it was a case of religion or nationalism of the fighting in kashmir. Considering that the people living in Kashmir have a culture/ethniticity most belonging to Pakistan they generally side with Pakistan. However, this is not always the case. If religion AND nationalism both played in it, how do you explain the growing desire of Kashmiris, now more so than ever, to form an independant state? |
Quite easily. I said that nationalism AND religion were important factors in such conflicts. They are - self evidently.
Why not look at the actual polling evidence:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDEL29179620070813
Notice: | Quote: | Only 3 percent of the mainly Muslim inhabitants of the city think Kashmir should become part of Pakistan, and 7 percent prefer Indian rule, the poll said.
But down in Jammu, the state's mainly Hindu winter capital in the plains to the south, 95 percent think Kashmir should be part of India. |
Now, tell me religion isn't a huge factor?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I admit that there are "Islamists" that fight for the independance of Kashmir coming from the other side of the border. But is it for Islam? Or is it because they have the same ethniticity and culture |
Well since they say it is for Islam then who are you to say they are wrong?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I don't know the situation here to add anything useful. But you mention the situation in Darfur is do to with nationalism? |
Nationalism AND religion - I thought what I wrote was quite clear and unambiguous. Darfur is more to do with ethnic groups/local power struggles, but the context is that of the Sudanese civil wars.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | OKay, looking on the UCAS site - I have focused on bachelors only :
1. BA in Buying - 9 unis offer it
2. BSc and BEng in Knowledge Management - at least 2 unis offer it
3. BA in Golf Management
4. BSc in Management and MArketing of Textiles
5. BA in Football Studies |
All of those are extremely useful areas of study.
| Quote: | The above 5 are on BSc and BA only. There are many other useless degrees.
Do you really think you need a BA on buying - 3 Year course? or do you think that you need a BA in football studies? |
Yes, quite probably. 'Buying' is a very complex business. You would want to look at economic theory, geography and demographics, contract law, and probably several other fairly meaty areas of study. Buyers for large corporations are serious professional people.
Football is, likewise, a very complex area of study. The amount of money in the game means that demands for professionalism are quite high. Just look at medical treatments, for example, that have been developed for footballers and then rolled-out. I would imagine that managing a football team is an extremely complex job requiring skills in many areas.
Now, with many of these examples, I might be tempted to agree that the appropriate qualifications might not be degrees, but rather technical/vocational qualifications such as BTEC, but none of those degrees can be said to be useless.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | "Run by" and "Financed by" are two seperate issues. Yes, universities are financed by the govts, but they certainly are not run by them. The voices of lecturers/educational system is independant of govt and more inclined towards providing graduates that fulfil local industry needs and provide their own views (irresepective of govts) on certain matters. |
Oh and you know this do you? You have been involved in the University sector have you?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. The HEFCE have huge influence on university courses - they base their grant allocations on: | Quote: | | formulae which take account of certain factors within each institution, including the number and type of students, the subjects taught and the amount and quality of research undertaken there. |
Yes, academics like to believe they are independent and apart from the state, but that is only partly true. If the government removed theology from the list of 'approved' degrees (ie those which we, the tax payer, contribute to directly) then we would see how many courses were offered. Oxford and Cambridge would no doubt continue to offer theology, but I doubt many other universities would.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | The taxpayer supports the degrees by studying there. |
No, the taxpayer supports the degrees by providing (via HEFCE) large block grants to Universities. Actually studying a degree is very largely subsidised since 'tuition fees' are capped at a fairly low level. | ThePolemistis wrote: | | If the demand for such degrees was so low, universities would not offer it. And plus, theology are quite cheap in terms of providing resources unlike Medicine/Dentistry or even Architecture which could see the cost of > £100,000/£200,000 to train a doctor/dentist. |
Which is exactly why they can offer theology degrees - because it is cheap and the taxpayer picks up the bill. That doesn't make it right. You can cram lots of theology students into a lecture room and that makes it viable, when the taxpayer is 'donating' a block amount for each student.
| Quote: | | Tax breaks are different. They are generally for a good cause. Doesn't religion help the community in some way? Doesn't the Church of England provide money to the homeless and other charitable work? |
Tax breaks offered to religions are not dependant on the money being used for good causes. Religions in the UK qualify for tax relief as 'charities'. The larger religions (Catholicism, CofE etc) routinely perform complex financial transactions on the stock and money markets to maximise their assets. The church spends huge amounts of money simply 'maintaining prestige'. Palaces and palatial diocese buildings don't come cheap. Why should Christians expect to receive financial reward for good works? Doesn't that defeat the whole point?
| Quote: | | Regarding landowners: considering that they were part of govt and head of state, it wouldn't suprise me if they were tha largest landowners in the world. In the past, society was largely driven by religion and a lot of land was given to them. Now is not the case. |
But I am not talking about the past - I am talking about the present. The Catholic Church owns huge landholdings globally. I think it is the largest landowner in the world, but I haven't checked that so I can't be sure.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | But you haven't replied on the difference between a person willing to sacrifice his OWN life for his Queen and Country over a person willing to sacrifice his OWN life for God (as in case of Ismail)? |
That account relies on later interpretations of the passage and no actual evidence (ie pure theology at its best). Of course 'they would say that'. It is very inconvenient to have a biblical story which portrays God as a sadistic, narcissistic monster. The thing to do, therefore, is to set a bunch of theologians to show that the passage actually means something completely different, that Isaac was a grown man, and that he volunteered. Where, in the actual scriptures, does it say any of that?
PS - have you got an English spell-checker for your browser? I'm not trying to score cheap points, and I know that we all make typos and general spelling mistakes. I'm simply suggesting that it might be a good option. I, for example, use Firefox and I find the UK/English dictionary add-on to be extremely valuable when composing posts. It doesn't make my English perfect, but it certainly helps
The Bible contains the central religious texts of Judaism and Christianity.[1] Modern Judaism generally recognizes a single set of canonical books known as the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, as it is written almost entirely in the Hebrew language, with some small portions in Aramaic.[2][3] It is traditionally divided into three parts: the Torah ("teaching" or "law"), the Nevi'im ("prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("writings"). Christianity recognises as canonical the books of the Tanakh, in a different order, as the Old Testament. In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, additional books, called the Deuterocanonical, are included, which Protestantism regards as apocryphal. All Christians also recognise the New Testament, a collection of early Christian writings that consists of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. There exist New Testament apocrypha which have not been generally recognised
|
