HTMKBusiness as usual. Link to a news story, followed by statement that draws people into long, semantic debates, hijacking the thread, etc., followed by much fingers-in-the-ears denial, and flaming on both sides.
But seriously, what the fuck does it matter whether or not they are mostly right wing or 100% right wing? By ignoring such a huge commonality among all these terrorists, you are helping to prevent the effective stopping of future violence. Fact: there is a rise in right wing extremist violence. Should we dawdle in the definitions of right wing or keep our eye on the groups whose members are becoming more violent (the right wing groups)?
All of the shenanigans are caused because politics are full of dirty shit. Has anyone seen a story about any plans to stop attacks on innocent people? Every story and statement I've seen has been about labeling the crazy dude and passing the blame. You guys are good at linking news articles to prove points so I'll leave that ball in your court.
I don't understand why Fox News and Limbaugh are spinning this so hard in the face of von Brunn's own statements.
Most people are very dumb and will believe that a crazy dude represents the whole. You don't need me to type this.
Matthew 10:34 -- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Jesus was an asshole.
To play devil's advocate, if you'll pardon the phrase, let's put that quote in some context.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a manÂ’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
Reading and understanding the Bible is all about interpretation, what with Jesus speaking in parables all the time. Not only that but you also have to understand the historical context, and the fact that it's been translated many times over, and the belief among informed Christians is that the book as written by men inspired by the divine. The moderate, non-literal interpretation of this particular passage is usually that "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" is a metaphor for the dividing power of faith. Since he was an upstart who was eventually crucified, worshiping him could cause division in the family unit. "You shall have no other gods before Me.", says God, so a requirement of the Christian faith is that you worship only the Christian God. He who favors his family's beliefs over Christianity cannot be worthy of Christ, hence "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me".
So, to translate to something easier to understand, "Just to warn you guys: worshiping me might piss people off, but it's totally worth it."
It bothers me when atheists take it upon themselves to become armchair Biblical scholars without actually learning about Biblical studies. Most of them have the philosophical arguments down, but they almost always make fools of themselves when they try to bash the Bible. I recommend reading The Good Book by Peter Gomes if you're interested in actually understanding modern Christianity.
It bothers me when atheists take it upon themselves to become armchair Biblical scholars without actually learning about Biblical studies.
No conclusions about the reality of the world which are made from interpretations of any biblical source are valid or noteworthy unless accompanied by independent evidence. It's no different than arguing over the interpretation of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Arguments deriving from Biblical interpretations have no relevance outside of their own mythological sphere, just as arguments deriving from the Dungeon Master's Guide have no relevance outside of the play of Dungeons and Dragons.
I recommend readingThe Good Bookby Peter Gomes if you're interested in actually understanding modern Christianity.
There are only two possible arguments that can be put forth.
1. The religion is correct. 2. The religion is not correct, but has a net benefit.
The former is ludicrous, and is discounted outright. The latter directly implies deceit at some level of the dialogue. Arguing any point within the frame of reference of the religion itself has no relevance. So, I'm curious what this book could possible offer, as understanding of the internal religious frame of reference can only be used to either directly refute it or to subvert it: it cannot alter the measure of the debate hitherto.
You don't have to be an expert to bash the Bible. There areplenty ofpeopleto do that for you. Your righteous indignation here, though, is puzzling... since when did it make you a fool to quote the Bible? Moreover, to suggest that because he interprets that passage differently he is foolish (certainly there are many who agree with him), and present yours as correct is even more foolish.
It bothers me when Christians get all righteous and indignant when atheists interpret the Bible. Most of them present legitimate interpretations themselves... but they almost always make fools of themselves when suggesting their interpretation is more correct than the atheist's. I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you're interested in actually understanding modern Christianity.
I'm not arguing Christianity's relative truth; I'm just presenting the mindset of a modern Christian. That interpretation is noteworthy because that is the interpretation of many people who believe in the Bible's teachings and act on those beliefs. Christianity may be false on a fundamental, logical level, but most Christians take it on faith, eschewing logic entirely when it comes to the spiritual and emotional. Since we will never convince these people otherwise, I think it's a good thing to understand where they are coming from and be able to work with what they believe. To bring it around to the thread topic, I think the only way to stop violence among religious extremists is to spread the idea of moderate, progressive religious belief.
As for my puzzling indignation, I see a lot of hate from atheists toward Christianity in general and having grown up in a very Christian area that kind of thing bothers me. I am an atheist, but having been immersed in Christian culture all my life I feel that I need to be tolerant of their point of view. Don't hate, appreciate.
Then you're never going to help someone who abandons logic in a particular area of their life. I would prefer that we all see the world in a perfectly logical mindset, but because there are people who don't and never will I take it upon myself to understand, appreciate, and inform others of the most positive of their beliefs. In this I hope that those who will always be religious will at least be good and peaceful about it, and that discussions about the fundamental aspects of religion become easier for everyone.
Then you're never going to help someone who abandons logic in a particular area of their life.
If someone has abandoned logic, then nothing I say could ever sway them. Now, I'm perfectly fine with them being unswayed and living their lives as such, but there should be no deference of any kind by government or society beyond simple acceptance.
I do not "hate" Christians. I do not disrespect people of faith simply based on the fact that they have faith (though I do disrespect followers that believe certain ideologies/dogmas that go against my basic moral guidelines). However, many people of faith see any questioning of their faith as an attack and openly "hate" or disrespect anyone that does not ascribe to their particular faith and direct their greatest ire at atheists. To criticize atheists for referencing and interpreting the Bible wholesale is preposterous when so many that self-identify as Christian do not even read the Bible, let alone inform themselves of various interpretations, the history of the Bible's construction, the religion before the Bible, or the historical context of the various interpretations/editions. Moreover, many of these self-identified Christians take little-to-no time in understanding or appreciating other religions, their factions, their practitioners and atheists. Perhaps it is they that should appreciate others. If you want to call people out on poor interpretations of particular quotes, feel free to do so. Keep in mind that Christians also use carefully selected quotes out of context to reinforce their own arguments.
Also, adding context to the quote still portrays a vengeful and petty God that would prefer blind faith to peace.
I would say a great percent of tradition and culture is to some extent illogical.
Not to mention a large part of individual human interaction and decision making. No one is logical at every point in their lives. We can at most strive to be as logical and as sympathetic as our nature allows us.
Not to mention a large part of individual human interaction and decision making. No one is logical at every point in their lives.
*snort* Yeah no kidding. Especially women. ... *flee!*
Honeybabycuteyloveydarlingcuddlebuttbear, when there comes a moment in which you look at me with wide-eyed surprise and horror, and gasp out a feeble "Why?" I will remind you of this moment. This little moment when you sealed your fate and initiated your own doom.
I'm perfectly fine with respecting a person's right to believe whatever they wish. I am free, however, to hold the beliefs themselves in contempt. If a person holds a large number of beliefs that I myself hold in contempt, I will necessarily hold that person in contempt as well. It's pretty simple.
I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, respect a belief that holds that killing another person is alright so long as an invisible sky wizard told you to do so. We locked up David Berkowitz because he said a dog told him to kill people. If you're telling me that the death of another person is the manifestation of an invisible being's will, you need serious psychological help. Anyone who believes that is not a person who is worthy of respect.
I probably shouldn't post here, for fear of more anger-creating, but I feel I must. I agree with Günter, and what he says about respecting other religions. I feel the same way about treatment towards Atheists. There are a lot of Christians who have a "shun the non-believers attitude." That's a stupid idea, as even if we disagree, the Bible says to show kindness to everyone. Also, on the subject of Biblical interpretations, I believe that anyone can interpret it any way they want. I do however, agree with Günter's interpretation of the text referenced, and for one main reason: It makes sense with the rest of what's in the Bible. Jesus makes a lot of statements like that, things that sound extreme and harsh. But, He also makes very not-so-extreme statements, claiming that we should love and respect everyone. So, one can either interpret that, due to these seemingly conflicting ideas, 1. Jesus was crazy or 2. Jesus was using metaphors on one side of his statements. Most people here will choose number 1, but if you want to look at it from a religious perspective, we obviously choose number 2. Those who choose to say that Jesus was being literal clearly didn't read the other parts of the Bible that talk about love, respect, and kindness, etc.
Also, as to completely ignoring those of us who are illogical fools...Okay, fine by us. But don't expect us to sit by idly. Just as you believe it is your duty to excel in science, and explain every aspect of the world, we believe that we must spread Jesus' love to anyone who wishes to receive it. Both sides of this argument are always going to exist, and you are being very hateful by excluding us from your scope, so to speak. But, you have made your choice, and nothing I say will alter it.
Both sides of this argument are always going to exist, and you are being very hateful by excluding us from your scope
You're being equally hateful in excluding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin worshipers, and Scientologists from the scope of your acceptance and belief.
Both sides of this argument are always going to exist, and you are being very hateful by excluding us from your scope
You're being equally hateful in excluding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin worshipers, and Scientologists from the scope of your acceptance and belief.
I accept them. I don't shun them. I disagree with them, as you disagree with me, but I don't shun them. I have a problem when people use religion to do harmful things, and that goes for any religion, including my own. Those who use Christianity to justify their prejudices are bad people, and they are a shame to people who truly believe in the Bible.
Did anyone mention shunning people except for those that practice beliefs that go against our personal morals? I did not notice anyone mentioning anything about hating or shunning any particular groups beyond those that are violent, oppressive, or hateful themselves.
Did anyone mention shunning people except for those that practice beliefs that go against our personal morals? I did not notice anyone mentioning anything about hating or shunning any particular groups beyond those that are violent, oppressive, or hateful themselves.
And I quote, "I have a problem when people use religion to do harmful things." Yes, I shun Satanists. Because Satanism practices an acceptance and love of evil, and of doing evil things to appease Satan. Among other religions, of course. But I can't think of any other blatantly violent/evil religions off the top of my head.
If someone has abandoned logic, then nothing I say could ever sway them. Now, I'm perfectly fine with them being unswayed and living their lives as such, but there should be no deference of any kind by government or society beyond simple acceptance.
In government, certainly, but if we want to improve society we need to change the minds of the people who have harmful religious beliefs. This is the point I'm getting at: The only way to stop violence among religious extremists is to engage them on their own terms. Not to sound condescending towards religious folks, but we are never going to convert everyone to atheism; at most we can promote tolerance within their own belief system.
If someone has abandoned logic, then nothing I say could ever sway them. Now, I'm perfectly fine with them being unswayed and living their lives as such, but there should be no deference of any kind by government or society beyond simple acceptance.
In government, certainly, but if we want to improve society we need to change the minds of the people who have harmful religious beliefs. This is the point I'm getting at: The only way to stop violence among religious extremists is to engage them on their own terms. Not to sound condescending towards religious folks, but we are never going to convert everyone to atheism; at most we can promote tolerance within their own belief system.
Yes, this is the truth. Especially for religions like Christianity that already have things written in their religious texts about peace and tolerance. There are plenty of religions like this, including Islam and other extremist-associated religions, so explaining this to people is very necessary. Also, just as government should protect gay rights, government should protect religion. Although not endorse it. We should have our right to be Christians and/or other religions protected, and our various needs. But they should be citizen-based, not religion-based.
Also, just as government should protect gay rights, government should protect religion. Although not endorse it. We should have our right to be Christians and/or other religions protected, and our various needs. But they should be citizen-based, not religion-based.
Nobody here is saying that the right to believe in something should be taken away.
Also, just as government should protect gay rights, government should protect religion. Although not endorse it. We should have our right to be Christians and/or other religions protected, and our various needs. But they should be citizen-based, not religion-based.
Nobody here is saying that the right to believe in something should be taken away.
Okay, but Rym said the government should have no deference for religion. I just want to assure that decisions involving religion should still aim to protect religion, but not unfairly.
Also, just as government should protect gay rights, government should protect religion. Although not endorse it. We should have our right to be Christians and/or other religions protected, and our various needs. But they should be citizen-based, not religion-based.
Nobody here is saying that the right to believe in something should be taken away.
Okay, but Rym said the government should have no deference for religion. I just want to assure that decisions involving religion should still aim to protect religion, but not unfairly.
The only way to protect an individual's right to believe whatever they want is to keep religious reasoning of any sort out of government. Think about it. How can you guarantee someone's right to be a Buddhist as much as a Christian if laws are all based in Christian reasoning?
Comments
But seriously, what the fuck does it matter whether or not they are mostly right wing or 100% right wing? By ignoring such a huge commonality among all these terrorists, you are helping to prevent the effective stopping of future violence. Fact: there is a rise in right wing extremist violence. Should we dawdle in the definitions of right wing or keep our eye on the groups whose members are becoming more violent (the right wing groups)?
Link
Reverend Wiley Drake is praying for the death of Obama, and celebrated Tiller's death. Also said he is just saying 'what god is saying'.
Asshole.
Seriously, I've only got so much rage to dole out. These assholes need to be more considerate of my rage quota.
Jesus was an asshole.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a manÂ’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
Reading and understanding the Bible is all about interpretation, what with Jesus speaking in parables all the time. Not only that but you also have to understand the historical context, and the fact that it's been translated many times over, and the belief among informed Christians is that the book as written by men inspired by the divine. The moderate, non-literal interpretation of this particular passage is usually that "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" is a metaphor for the dividing power of faith. Since he was an upstart who was eventually crucified, worshiping him could cause division in the family unit. "You shall have no other gods before Me.", says God, so a requirement of the Christian faith is that you worship only the Christian God. He who favors his family's beliefs over Christianity cannot be worthy of Christ, hence "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me".
So, to translate to something easier to understand, "Just to warn you guys: worshiping me might piss people off, but it's totally worth it."
It bothers me when atheists take it upon themselves to become armchair Biblical scholars without actually learning about Biblical studies. Most of them have the philosophical arguments down, but they almost always make fools of themselves when they try to bash the Bible. I recommend reading The Good Book by Peter Gomes if you're interested in actually understanding modern Christianity.
1. The religion is correct.
2. The religion is not correct, but has a net benefit.
The former is ludicrous, and is discounted outright. The latter directly implies deceit at some level of the dialogue. Arguing any point within the frame of reference of the religion itself has no relevance. So, I'm curious what this book could possible offer, as understanding of the internal religious frame of reference can only be used to either directly refute it or to subvert it: it cannot alter the measure of the debate hitherto.
It bothers me when Christians get all righteous and indignant when atheists interpret the Bible. Most of them present legitimate interpretations themselves... but they almost always make fools of themselves when suggesting their interpretation is more correct than the atheist's. I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you're interested in actually understanding modern Christianity.
As for my puzzling indignation, I see a lot of hate from atheists toward Christianity in general and having grown up in a very Christian area that kind of thing bothers me. I am an atheist, but having been immersed in Christian culture all my life I feel that I need to be tolerant of their point of view. Don't hate, appreciate.
To criticize atheists for referencing and interpreting the Bible wholesale is preposterous when so many that self-identify as Christian do not even read the Bible, let alone inform themselves of various interpretations, the history of the Bible's construction, the religion before the Bible, or the historical context of the various interpretations/editions. Moreover, many of these self-identified Christians take little-to-no time in understanding or appreciating other religions, their factions, their practitioners and atheists. Perhaps it is they that should appreciate others.
If you want to call people out on poor interpretations of particular quotes, feel free to do so. Keep in mind that Christians also use carefully selected quotes out of context to reinforce their own arguments.
Also, adding context to the quote still portrays a vengeful and petty God that would prefer blind faith to peace. Not to mention a large part of individual human interaction and decision making. No one is logical at every point in their lives. We can at most strive to be as logical and as sympathetic as our nature allows us.
...
*flee!*
I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, respect a belief that holds that killing another person is alright so long as an invisible sky wizard told you to do so. We locked up David Berkowitz because he said a dog told him to kill people. If you're telling me that the death of another person is the manifestation of an invisible being's will, you need serious psychological help. Anyone who believes that is not a person who is worthy of respect.
I agree with Günter, and what he says about respecting other religions. I feel the same way about treatment towards Atheists. There are a lot of Christians who have a "shun the non-believers attitude." That's a stupid idea, as even if we disagree, the Bible says to show kindness to everyone.
Also, on the subject of Biblical interpretations, I believe that anyone can interpret it any way they want. I do however, agree with Günter's interpretation of the text referenced, and for one main reason: It makes sense with the rest of what's in the Bible. Jesus makes a lot of statements like that, things that sound extreme and harsh. But, He also makes very not-so-extreme statements, claiming that we should love and respect everyone. So, one can either interpret that, due to these seemingly conflicting ideas,
1. Jesus was crazy
or
2. Jesus was using metaphors on one side of his statements.
Most people here will choose number 1, but if you want to look at it from a religious perspective, we obviously choose number 2. Those who choose to say that Jesus was being literal clearly didn't read the other parts of the Bible that talk about love, respect, and kindness, etc.
Also, as to completely ignoring those of us who are illogical fools...Okay, fine by us. But don't expect us to sit by idly. Just as you believe it is your duty to excel in science, and explain every aspect of the world, we believe that we must spread Jesus' love to anyone who wishes to receive it. Both sides of this argument are always going to exist, and you are being very hateful by excluding us from your scope, so to speak. But, you have made your choice, and nothing I say will alter it.
I have a problem when people use religion to do harmful things, and that goes for any religion, including my own. Those who use Christianity to justify their prejudices are bad people, and they are a shame to people who truly believe in the Bible.
Yes, I shun Satanists. Because Satanism practices an acceptance and love of evil, and of doing evil things to appease Satan.
Among other religions, of course. But I can't think of any other blatantly violent/evil religions off the top of my head.
Also, just as government should protect gay rights, government should protect religion. Although not endorse it. We should have our right to be Christians and/or other religions protected, and our various needs. But they should be citizen-based, not religion-based.
Hence, no religion in government institutions.