Because my God is an awesome God and he reigns in heaven watching over our souls and wishing nothign but the best for us. He also wishes you one day come home and be by his side. He loves each and every one of us unconditionally, which is something we are incapable and undeserving of. If not for his mercy we would have been lost long ago.
You believe in it because without it you wouldn't feel watched over or have a soul and these things are very important to you? It sounds to me like you're quite afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god. Would that be fair to say? (Not being provocative, i'd just like to know)
I believe I am correct in that my God does exist. Am I afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god? No, I do not fear being wrong and there being no god. I only fear my God as everything else is under his control.
Some religions go to extremes, look at shamanism. Native American cultures that go on vision quests. Where they starve themselves, or deprive themselves of sensory data, or take Peyote to talk to spirits, which is essentially a hallucination in a waking dream.
Far better a guy goes on a peyote trip for a week than a guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think? Really poor example.
Can you talk them out of believing and having faith in the spirits when, in their eyes they have already had a wicked session with the spirits? Even though you explain to them about hallucinations and how dreams work? Nope. Their entire culture and way of life is based around the belief in spirits and nature.
They also don't have an education, like you said, their entire culture is based around the religion. In the western world (not including some indian reservations), we have secular education. We have choices to make every single day that involve our developed rational faculties. We learn to justify our opinions with ideas and how to communicate those ideas from an early age, reasonably.
Can you prove their spirits dont exist? Yes. Does someone who truly has faith care? Nope.
No, actually I cannot prove to you their spirits absolutely don't exist, unless they're describing them in such a way that can be disproven. I don't think they can be said to have faith at all if they are SEEING those spirits. That means they have evidence and that means no belief.
When you truly have faith in your religion, Evidence/Logic < Faith.
True, but I have only pressed to find out the opinions and ideas behind faith from this point. I haven't demanded anyone change that about themselves. I have made observations about evidence and once we ended that discussion and got around to belief, asked if people would share the motivations behind their beliefs. Since we know people CHOOSe what to believe in, there are clearly motivators that cause people to choose one over another. I want to know what those appeals are and how people make up their minds. So far the best I've gotten are a few sentences, which is a good start, but i'm hoping for more.
People who HAVE faith don't need to PROVE to you that God exists, because that's not how faith works.
Can they at least be honest about why they have their faith then?
That is counter-productive to them following their religious belief, so no, not really.
Some religions go to extremes, look at shamanism. Native American cultures that go on vision quests. Where they starve themselves, or deprive themselves of sensory data, or take Peyote to talk to spirits, which is essentially a hallucination in a waking dream.
Can you talk them out of believing and having faith in the spirits when, in their eyes they have already had a wicked session with the spirits? Even though you explain to them about hallucinations and how dreams work? Nope. Their entire culture and way of life is based around the belief in spirits and nature.
Can you prove their spirits dont exist? Yes. Does someone who truly has faith care? Nope.
When you truly have faith in your religion, Evidence/Logic < Faith.
Not that I believe in spirits but, simply because of the idea of hallucinations and waking dreams exist does nto mean that what they have experienced is what you are talking about. What you see as evidence is jsut evidence of something that is not related to their beliefs. There is no way to prove their spirits are fake, you just believe they are fake.
I believe I am correct in that my God does exist. Am I afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god? No, I do not fear being wrong and there being no god. I only fear my God as everything else is under his control.
Fair point, I think I had that one reversed. =P So you fear that your god is absolutely real and you think that is enough to choose it over the thousands of other potential gods you might choose. Is that more accurate?
I believe I am correct in that my God does exist. Am I afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god? No, I do not fear being wrong and there being no god. I only fear my God as everything else is under his control.
Fair point, I think I had that one reversed. =P So you fear that your god is absolutely real and you think that is enough to choose it over the thousands of other potential gods you might choose. Is that more accurate?
I do not fear that he is real. The only reason I fear him is that he has the power to do with me whatever he wishes. It is not a bad type of fear that makes me cower in the corner. Even though he has the power to smite me at will it si not something he would do without reason. Even if that reason is not for me but rather for other people.
I do not believe in the notion of other gods as it would oppose my own beliefs. I do not fear other gods or a lack of a god.
I have heard of God and I choose to believe in him.
I do not fear that he is real. The only reason I fear him is that he has the power to do with me whatever he wishes. It is not a bad type of fear that makes me cower in the corner. Even though he has the power to smite me at will it si not something he would do without reason. Even if that reason is not for me but rather for other people.
Right, I wasn't trying to insist that you were cowering in fear at your god. I realize the figurative "fear of god," that you were referring to means something more close to reverence. You told me we choose to believe in whichever god and you chose your god. What about that god made you choose it, to understand in detail how it is supposed to work, rather than another version?
I do not believe in the notion of other gods as it would oppose my own beliefs. I do not fear other gods or a lack of a god.
I respect the fact that other gods necessarily don't work if you believe in the one you do, but i'm curious to know what made the belief in that one god, as opposed to others or none, the more appealing? You clearly didn't start with the knowledge of this god, since you had to choose it. You clearly didn't know what this god demanded of you to begin with, because you had to learn of it.
What ideas about this god made you believe it was the best answer for you than the other possible answers that you do seem to be aware of? I'm not trying to bully you into admitting anything you don't want to, but like I said, i'm genuinely curious to get an idea of how you built up to this belief and how you came to make that choice.
I do not fear that he is real. The only reason I fear him is that he has the power to do with me whatever he wishes. It is not a bad type of fear that makes me cower in the corner. Even though he has the power to smite me at will it si not something he would do without reason. Even if that reason is not for me but rather for other people.
Right, I wasn't trying to insist that you were cowering in fear at your god. I realize the figurative "fear of god," that you were referring to means something more close to reverence. You told me we choose to believe in whichever god and you chose your god. What about that god made you choose it, to understand in detail how it is supposed to work, rather than another version?
I do not believe in the notion of other gods as it would oppose my own beliefs. I do not fear other gods or a lack of a god.
I respect the fact that other gods necessarily don't work if you believe in the one you do, but i'm curious to know what made the belief in that one god, as opposed to others or none, the more appealing? You clearly didn't start with the knowledge of this god, since you had to choose it. You clearly didn't know what this god demanded of you to begin with, because you had to learn of it.
What ideas about this god made you believe it was the best answer for you than the other possible answers that you do seem to be aware of? I'm not trying to bully you into admitting anything you don't want to, but like I said, i'm genuinely curious to get an idea of how you built up to this belief and how you came to make that choice.
I went to church as a child since there is little choice as to where you go when you are so young. I heard of God and learned of God. I did not like everything about christianity or God and there are still things that I do not agree with. I do not take the word in its literal sense all the time. I interpret it the way I see it to be. I chose this God because I feel he is a just God. I do nto choose other gods because I feel they are incorrect in their teachings.
Now this does nto mean that all otehr religions are completely and utterly wrong and they should be killed and burned blah blah blah. I have no animosity towards them. Also there are things that I can agree with in other religions as well. Just because their god is different does not mean that everything they believe is wrong.
Through my faith I have gained my own sense of right and wrong and that is how I live my life. This is what I feel and believe is right.
It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.
It boils down to the fact that if god uses/used science to govern/create the universe, you simply cannot prove that he exists without discovering indisputable metaphysical evidence. However, on the other side of the coin... being that science could very well have been created by god, athiests CANNOT disprove his/its existence either.
First of all, there is no such thing as religious evidence. There is evidence and that's it, unless you want to invent a whole new range of vocabulary just so you can make sense of what you obviously cannot (and failed to) explain.
Secondly, if you unable to engage in a mature discourse, please refrain from posting. From these cheap ad hominem attacks of quoting _salvation to insult Proletaria to comparing atheists to religious whack jobs, you've pledged your utter intolerance and ignorance.
Maintaining morality and ethics having a divine origin (as you have done) is similar to psychopathy on a leash. While I (and Proletaria) have taken the time to explain the rationale whereby morality and ethics are essential to the stability and prosperity of group irrespective of the possible influence a higher power, all you've given in return is hinting that you will use sociology (which you never did) to demonstrate where we are wrong and ended up in referencing Hitler in a confused proposition involving hell and sins.
You've been given every opportunity to state your case and numerous times dodged the challenge when it was refuted.
I don't think anybody has called you a religious whack despite you showing the tell tale signs of one. So I ask you in return that we discuss on valid points instead of the petty and snide insults that you have been letting out continuously and which I think should stop right about NOW.
@Prole- I'm sorry dude but this is all just far too predictable for me to hang around. Your nature, unfortunately is similar to any other atheist who wants to argue on the interwebs. There is literally nothing I could say that you wouldn't have an answer for despite the fact that we don't know anything. It's not a bad thing, it's just predictable. I know exactly how you'll respond every time I make a claim of any sort. I say something supporting the existence of an afterlife and you refute it by first showing me the flaws in my thought process and then tell me how science says otherwise. Or if I say something testifying to the brilliant logic of science and how it's all we have and we can know nothing else, then you greet it with praise and agreement. Then 10 other atheists join in on the conversation, agree, and repeat the same shit. Then a christian comes in and tries to tell you what he believes and then the arrogant atheist comes in and trolls and gets his post removed. And the cycle just goes on and on and on and on and on.
I'm not here to win the argument grand title belt. Which is an issue because this thread is structured for you to welcome in someone who believes something and then you proceed to tell them that nothing they believe makes any sense and they should listen to you instead. I've been involved in far too many of the SAME EXACT THREADS to want to argue about it anymore. At this point I'm just looking for decent conversation and different perspective. Not the same "I HAVE FAITH" "I HAVE EVIDENCE" thread.
In response to this I expect you to welcome me back in the conversation and tell me that I've got it all wrong and you're here to have a discussion the same way I am, Nekro to tell me I'm trolling, and Linkx to agree and say thats just how those idiots are. And then maybe Dae Dae will chime in to try and continue discussion and get it back on track before it gets closed 2 to 5 pages later.
EVERYONE read what Sabvre just wrote. We're right back to the very beginning of this discussion. Is this really what you want? If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same results. I am now going to use my better judgement to finally take myself out of this discussion because I already know the end to this story, and it's no fun when you know what's going to happen.
Are you serious? You've been asked on FIVE distinct occasions to state those assumptions and claims that you thought were baseless. You repeatedly avoided it and up to now have mentioned nothing of it.
You talk about arrogance? You say you literally know every response that atheists are going to give and that they are so predictable this discussion is not worth having. There have been nothing but different perspectives being given throughout this thread. Maybe if you had approached it with an open mind instead of being offended at each turn, it would have yielded different results?
Repeating the 'same shit'? You clearly have a double standard in terms of who should not be offended.
You are getting overly sentimental and can't be civil so I think it's best that it's for this reason you keep away from this thread instead of your claim of you-are-too-predictable.
And yes friend, you are trolling. Big time. Worst of all, you are supporting the trolling of one side.
I dont know how it was a poor example? Everything u stated after that made no sense...
"...guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think?"
None of those are extremes that a member of a religious culture goes through in the evolution of that individual through their religious culture. Show me the passage in the bible that says taking another mans life, grants you passage to heaven? Members of the Islamic community have already stated time and time again that those suicide bombers are not going 'paradise'. I don't study Islamic law, I did however browse through a paper on Islamic law and suicide bombing just now.
If a suicide bomber pretends to be a civilian or if a soldier feigns to surrender by
waving a white flag, he will not be targeted by the armed forces he is approaching
because he has non-combatant immunity. However, if that person then blows
himself up to kill members of the enemy’s armed forces, he commits treachery or
perfidy59 – an act which is strictly prohibited in Islamic law and in international
humanitarian law.60 He has violated the trust of the enemy, which in future may
not trust genuine civilians or surrendering soldiers. Suicide attacks on civilians are
likewise strictly prohibited, because of the immunity to which they are entitled in
both bodies of law. However, if such attacks are carried out by soldiers against
enemy soldiers without feigning civilian status, they are deemed to be a legitimate
battle tactic.
tl;dr suicide attacks done by SOLDIERS, dressed as SOLDIER, against SOLDIERS, is martyr status.
anything else is condemned by Islamic law.
Those are the actions of misguided individuals who are falsely betraying their own religion because they are extremists.
Individuals who do such acts of misguided fanaticism bring more harm to their religion than good.
In a religious debate, it's best to keep misguided acts of fanaticism out of it, because those acts only represent 1% of the population, and are often not supported, or acknowledged by those who follow the true canon of the religion.
We treat them the same way we treat serial killers, interesting case studies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
"...guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think?"
That is just dumb for anyone to do. What good does any of that serve? I think homosexuality is wrong and I think abortions are wrong. But there is no reason to attack either. Things of this nature are done by ignorant people that make the wrong choices in life.
I dont know how it was a poor example? Everything u stated after that made no sense...
"...guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think?"
None of those are extremes that a member of a religious culture goes through in the evolution of that individual through their religious culture. Show me the passage in the bible that says taking another mans life, grants you passage to heaven? Members of the Islamic community have already stated time and time again that those suicide bombers are not going 'paradise'. I don't study Islamic law, I did however browse through a paper on Islamic law and suicide bombing just now.
If a suicide bomber pretends to be a civilian or if a soldier feigns to surrender by
waving a white flag, he will not be targeted by the armed forces he is approaching
because he has non-combatant immunity. However, if that person then blows
himself up to kill members of the enemy’s armed forces, he commits treachery or
perfidy59 – an act which is strictly prohibited in Islamic law and in international
humanitarian law.60 He has violated the trust of the enemy, which in future may
not trust genuine civilians or surrendering soldiers. Suicide attacks on civilians are
likewise strictly prohibited, because of the immunity to which they are entitled in
both bodies of law. However, if such attacks are carried out by soldiers against
enemy soldiers without feigning civilian status, they are deemed to be a legitimate
battle tactic.
tl;dr suicide attacks done by SOLDIERS, dressed as SOLDIER, against SOLDIERS, is martyr status.
anything else is condemned by Islamic law.
Those are the actions of misguided individuals who are falsely betraying their own religion because they are extremists.
Individuals who do such acts of misguided fanaticism bring more harm to their religion than good.
In a religious debate, it's best to keep misguided acts of fanaticism out of it, because those acts only represent 1% of the population, and are often not supported, or acknowledged by those who follow the true canon of the religion.
We treat them the same way we treat serial killers, interesting case studies.
I think you may have misunderstood. You were just being pointed out the more common known extremes of religion.
Now as to the matter of religion being a platform for these actions, you need to examine events on a more global sense to derive a more accurate presentation of that supposition.
And from those events, it is quite clear they cannot be treated as lone isolated cases.
It doesn't matter how much objection or support they receive, for bound by political correctness within society and practical implications of associating oneself with an act of violence and intolerance, it is not even a choice to denounce them. It is required of you to do so.
Not to say that given the opportunity of blunt honesty, people won't repudiate those acts of extremism but since there is simply no way to assess such circumstances, I prefer to consider the cases we have and examine any pattern instead.
Flying aircrafts in buildings is only the tip of the iceberg. Suicide bombers, bombing embassies and violent protest against benign matters as cartoons and movies, ostracization or direct persecution of individuals who has a partner from a different religious (or non-religious) group make for a very poor showing of said religious people.
That interpretation of the Islamic law that you've quoted is but one. There are several dozens of them due to the fact that Arabic, albeit being a beautiful language, is a very complex one. This is not only supported by my Muslim friends but actual scholars around the world studying the Koran and having different interpretations.
The conclusion thus is quite clear. There are some translations out there that support those acts and the continued tragic events that mark our news every other week should be proof enough since the terrorists are claiming to be doing the work of god.
Those 'misguided acts of fanaticism' are actually those having a rational foundation if you believe in a holy book and this in turn clearly illustrate the danger of the latter.
I dont know how it was a poor example? Everything u stated after that made no sense...
It made enough sense that graphite agreed with me. Your example was someone who didn't have a belief, he actually saw spirits. He made them evident. He could tell you to take the drugs he did and show you how he found them himself. I don't think that is an example of belief.
Show me the passage in the bible that says taking another mans life, grants you passage to heaven?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) - I think that is fairly explicit. The bible commands literal believers to kill homosexuals (like me). I'm not insisting you or anyone here holds a literal belief (most of you said that is not the case), but you cannot tell me that there is nothing in the bible telling you to kill.
tl;dr suicide attacks done by SOLDIERS, dressed as SOLDIER, against SOLDIERS, is martyr status.
anything else is condemned by Islamic law.
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Quran (2:191-193)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (8:12)
"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." Quran (9:38-39)
They are justified by literal intrepretation, to violence and even suicidal violence.
Individuals who do such acts of misguided fanaticism bring more harm to their religion than good.
I agree it is harming their religion, but I don't think you have made a case that it is misguided, if they are using a literal interpretation of the book.
In a religious debate, it's best to keep misguided acts of fanaticism out of it, because those acts only represent 1% of the population, and are often not supported, or acknowledged by those who follow the true canon of the religion.
You offered that the shaman was "extreme," and I said that it was not nearly as extreme as the others that I listed. I didn't bring up the "extreme," but you most certainly did.
"...guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think?"
That is just dumb for anyone to do. What good does any of that serve? I think homosexuality is wrong and I think abortions are wrong. But there is no reason to attack either. Things of this nature are done by ignorant people that make the wrong choices in life.
I totally agree it's a dumb thing to do. I haven't the faintest idea what good it serves, but I can only assume that the good is what they (the perpetrators) tell me it is: because it is commanded of them by the literal word of god.
You think homosexuality is wrong because god says that it is wrong. God also says (again, literal) to kill homosexuals and I quoted that passage above. So really, who is making the claim that is wrong and how do you tell that person who wants to kill me they are wrong? Both of you think god condemns homosexuals, but the literalist follows the prescription to the letter and seeks to kill us. That may showcase the literalist's ignorance of what it means to be humane or have compassion, but the bible does explicitly tell him to ignore that and kill homosexuals anyway. There is really no theological grounds, that i'm aware of, on which you can tell that person he is wrong. He can always simply point to the scripture that I quoted and say "it says right here, I should kill them. That is the word of god." How do you go about disagreeing with that kind of assertion?
Show me the passage in the bible that says taking another mans life, grants you passage to heaven?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) - I think that is fairly explicit. The bible commands literal believers to kill homosexuals (like me). I'm not insisting you or anyone here holds a literal belief (most of you said that is not the case), but you cannot tell me that there is nothing in the bible telling you to kill.
Some people look at the bible as old testament God and new testament God. Due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the new testament the penalties of sins has changed. Jesus paid the price for our sins and allowed us to be forgiven through his blood.
Now there are some people that stick solely to the old testament writings and these are the ones you may be speaking of. As it is now I would say that murder is a sin no matter the reason behind it. Now it would be to help them (homosexuals and others that are noted in that chapter) repent and turn towards God and be saved by the blood of Jesus.
Again my intepretation and not the end all be all of Christian rule/law.
Some people look at the bible as old testament God and new testament God. Due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the new testament the penalties of sins has changed. Jesus paid the price for our sins and allowed us to be forgiven through his blood.
And if that were the case, wouldn't there be no reason to read the old testament at all? And would they not simply say that being gay is just fine, because all is forgiven? You said you don't condone the gays, I assume that has to do with god's opinion of them (which is in the old testament). So this isn't really a satisfactory answer. Christians still obey many of the old testament laws, even protestants who hold that view of vicarious redemption. How are you to assume that Jesus' death means that it isn't ok to kill gays, but it is still imperative that you condemn their lifestyle?
Now there are some people that stick solely to the old testament writings and these are the ones you may be speaking of. As it is now I would say that murder is a sin no matter the reason behind it. Now it would be to help them (homosexuals and others that are noted in that chapter) repent and turn towards God and be saved by the blood of Jesus.
As far as I know, most every christian denomination has some adherence to the old testament (barring very liberal Unitarians). Anyhow, if it is now a question of helping gays repent, isn't that redundant? Were they not saved too, by the death of Jesus?
Again my intepretation and not the end all be all of Christian rule/law.
It doesn't really matter if it is or not, i'm not looking to find out an absolute rule and there are too many denomination and opinions to have one in the first place. I just want to hear your opinions because you live in the same region I do and probably hold similar beliefs to many people in the community.
It seems to me the concept that Jesus died for "all our sins," flies in the face of advocating for any kind of old testament law, but popular churches in our region advocate those old testament laws every week from the pulpit. I just want to know how you, personally, square those two things and perhaps how you would argue with someone who told you they wanted to kill a gay person based on their reading of scripture.
Some people look at the bible as old testament God and new testament God. Due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the new testament the penalties of sins has changed. Jesus paid the price for our sins and allowed us to be forgiven through his blood.
And if that were the case, wouldn't there be no reason to read the old testament at all? And would they not simply say that being gay is just fine, because all is forgiven? You said you don't condone the gays, I assume that has to do with god's opinion of them (which is in the old testament). So this isn't really a satisfactory answer. Christians still obey many of the old testament laws, even protestants who hold that view of vicarious redemption. How are you to assume that Jesus' death means that it isn't ok to kill gays, but it is still imperative that you condemn their lifestyle?
Now there are some people that stick solely to the old testament writings and these are the ones you may be speaking of. As it is now I would say that murder is a sin no matter the reason behind it. Now it would be to help them (homosexuals and others that are noted in that chapter) repent and turn towards God and be saved by the blood of Jesus.
As far as I know, most every christian denomination has some adherence to the old testament (barring very liberal Unitarians). Anyhow, if it is now a question of helping gays repent, isn't that redundant? Were they not saved too, by the death of Jesus?
Again my intepretation and not the end all be all of Christian rule/law.
It doesn't really matter if it is or not, i'm not looking to find out an absolute rule and there are too many denomination and opinions to have one in the first place. I just want to hear your opinions because you live in the same region I do and probably hold similar beliefs to many people in the community.
It seems to me the concept that Jesus died for "all our sins," flies in the face of advocating for any kind of old testament law, but popular churches in our region advocate those old testament laws every week from the pulpit. I just want to know how you, personally, square those two things and perhaps how you would argue with someone who told you they wanted to kill a gay person based on their reading of scripture.
The dark ages have passed and we are no longer the same type of people as we were in those days. Do we just neglect that part of our history and skip over writings that no longer hold a place in society? We still read what is no longer relevant to today because of the history that we learn from it. Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
everyone was saved by the sacrafice of Jesus, but that does not mean that we can not fall again and need to repent. Also not all things changed form old testament to new. So you will find old testament use jsut as I agree with some things from other religions.
"I just want to know how you, personally, square those two things and perhaps how you would argue with someone who told you they wanted to kill a gay person based on their reading of scripture."
Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
I'm sorry to say but this is just pure and simple hypocrisy.
How many times do religious people have sex to create new life if that is the purpose of a relationship?
I don't see many of them with 30 (a woman can have on average more than that during her lifetime) kids and it's very much a fact that the average person will have sex way more times than that.
So it is pretty clear that we don't engage in sex primarily to procreate but mainly for...pleasure. Some regard it as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bond and closeness of a couple and others as just roll in the hay. Regardless of which one is chosen, trust and faithfulness is not determined by gender and gay persons can perfectly have a lasting and healthy relationship without having children.
Furthermore as a species, our continuation is pretty much guaranteed even if half the earth's population stopped procreating. I find it funny you mentioned the dark ages when you have not considered things like sperm bank, in-vitro fertilization and carrier mothers. So what sense were you referring to?
Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
I'm sorry to say but this is just pure and simple hypocrisy.
How many times do religious people have sex to create new life if that is the purpose of a relationship?
I don't see many of them with 30 (a woman can have on average more than that during her lifetime) kids and it's very much a fact that the average person will have sex way more times than that.
So it is pretty clear that we don't engage in sex to procreate but mainly for...pleasure. Some regard it as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bond and closeness of a couple and others as just roll in the hay. Regardless of which one is chosen, trust and faithfulness is not determined by gender and gay persons can perfectly have a lasting and healthy relationship without having children.
Furthermore as a species, our continuation is pretty much guaranteed even if half the earth's population stopped procreating. I find it funny you mentioned the dark ages when you have not considered things like sperm bank, in-vitro fertilization and carrier mothers. So what sense were you referring to?
If you are under the assumption that each time you have sex you are guaranteed a child then you are mistaken. Under normal circumstances also most women will only have one child per pregnancy. The times you have multiple children per pregnancy is usually due to invitro which is not the natural way to have children.
I do not condemn other methods of having a child even though Catholics are very specific about the methods. I also know that you can have a gay women go to a sperm bank and get pregnant and you can have gay men acquire a child with the DNA of one of the men as well. I did not say it was impossible for children to be made but it is impossible for two men alone to create life as it is impossible for two women alone to create life.
Also the only stipulation to sex is that you always welcome the chance of having a child, not that you must have a child each time you have sex. Science has allowed other way for people to have children and pass on their genetic code but it(science) does not condone homosexual relationships in the process.
Nekro, regardless of the translations, attacking civilians is prohibited find me a passage that says otherwise, because every passage Ive read, or heard talked about by Islamic law experts, explicitly state that attacking civilians is prohibited under Islamic law.
For every 1 scholar you find that will say attacking civilians grants someone entrance to paradise, I can find 10+ that say otherwise.
Seems to me when the majority of your religion disagrees with what you're doing, and can cite canon which states not killing civilians, seems like your the outlier, the extremist, and that's the point.
You don't judge a religion based on what less than 10% of the religion believes they can interpret from their holy scripture.
And prol, a vision quest is part of a normal stage of shamanism, killing gays and flying planes into buildings is not a stage that even 0.000001% of those religions experience.
Shamanism is more extreme overall, because that's how the religion is, you're not condemned by your own religion by going on a vision quest. Ask 100 Christians if killing is allowed, 95 will cite 10 commandments, you will have 1-2 smart asses that will cite stoning people to death etc. or killing of gays and not believe it, then you have the 3-4 weirdos in the crowd that believe that shit. Trust, I went to a catholic school as an atheist, along with Jews and Muslims. This debate has already been had over and over and over.
It's only the 100% ignorant, the mass murderers, spree murderers or serial murderers that cite religions texts as a means to act out their evil.
Serial Murderers fall under 4 typologies
Visionary Type - such murderers kill in response to the commands of voices or visions usually emanating from the forces of good or evil. These offenders are often believe to be suffering from some sort of psychosis.
Mission Type- these offenders believe in it is their missions in life to rid the community or society of certain groups of people. Some killers may target the elderly, whereas others may seek out prostitutes, children, or a particular racial/ethnic group
Hedonistic Type - offenders in this category are usually stereotyped as "thrill seekers," those who derive some form of satisfaction from the murders. Also under this category are the subcategories of "creature comforts" or "pleasure of life"... or "lust murderers"...
Power/Control-Oriented Type - is this typology Holmes and DeBurger content that the primary source of pleasure is not sexual but the killer's ability to control and exert power over his helpless victim. Some offenders enjoy watching their victims cower, cringe and beg for mercy...
Serial Murderers and Their Victims
Hickey
Anyone who kills using any religious text and cares for their own life is classified as a serial killer (if 3+ victims) and would be visionary or mission typed. Serial killers are extreme outliers, we need not concern ourselves with them unless the discussion is solely about serial killers.
Suicide bombers would be considered Mass Murderers since they have no planes for living after the attack, no thought of mortal survival. They would be classified as either
..."Disciple-Type Killer- a person who commits murder at the behest of a charismatic leader such as Charles Manson
Ideological Mass Murderer - a person, especially a cult leader, who is able to persuade others to kill themselves or each other...
Institutional Mass Murderer- a person who commits mass murder as a crime of obedience when ordered to by his or her leader. This often is manifested in some form of genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and religious bigotry as occurred in the Kosovo region, the Stalim farm collectivization, Armenian and Nazi Holocausts, and the Crusades"
"... some mass murderers so deeply depressed, become schizophrenic or psychotic. Others suffer with severe anxiety and personality disorders. These are not rational people at the time of the murders, even when their behaviours are calculated and decisive. Many of them are not insane, but suffer from severe psychological dysfunctioning as a result of both chronic and acute stress."
"...mass murderers, in relation to other crimes-even other forms of homicide--are relatively rare, and they do appear to occur as randomly as serial killings do
By talking about murder using religion as the "why" It happened, you're talking about such a small, small percentage of people, I'd have a better chance getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery, then an act being committed by an individual that is under the typologies above.
Essentially all you do when you mention them is encourage fighting, it's not logical to bring them up, at all. These people commit these acts, they do so citing their religious texts, but they are also severely mentally unstable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
The dark ages have passed and we are no longer the same type of people as we were in those days. Do we just neglect that part of our history and skip over writings that no longer hold a place in society? We still read what is no longer relevant to today because of the history that we learn from it.
Assuming we did learn from the dark ages, why is it we still not just "read," those same scriptures, but interpret them in largely the same ways? I mean, yes, there are many levitican laws that are no longer popular, but we didn't just review history and arbitrarily select things that were bygone and without modern virtule. There was a metric for choosing the sane and insane things there. Just as I pour over a text that discusses the philosophies of the ancients and see where some of it just doesn't fit the modern world, I suspect that the religious do the same. What I want to know is, how are they ruling on those things?
Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
Clearly all of us are that way. Science now understands that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a genetic predisposition. So it really is not fair to say that science tells us that we are all structured specifically to procreate. That is not a reality that science presents us with. You may believe that the gay lifestyle doesn't make sense to you, sure, but you cannot justify that with science. That view is either personal or religiously based.
everyone was saved by the sacrafice of Jesus, but that does not mean that we can not fall again and need to repent. Also not all things changed form old testament to new. So you will find old testament use jsut as I agree with some things from other religions.
Everyone being saved by the death of Jesus does precisely mean that humaity cannot "fall," again. Unless Jesus was a liar and a charlatan, he said what he meant in no inexplicit terms: "God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him." So you can see why i'm wondering how this concept of repentance and old testament virtues is brought into play.
And why is that a more important rule than another literal rule? I realize it's a commandment and that somehow makes it more important, but I don't think that commandment would presuade someone who literally interprets the bible to kill. They cleraly know about that rule too and just simply understand the other passage is an exception to that rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe I am correct in that my God does exist. Am I afraid of the prospect that there might not be a god? No, I do not fear being wrong and there being no god. I only fear my God as everything else is under his control.
Really? Because a lot of christians here have taken it as an opportunity to examine their faith and think that cause is an admirable one.
Far better a guy goes on a peyote trip for a week than a guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think? Really poor example.
They also don't have an education, like you said, their entire culture is based around the religion. In the western world (not including some indian reservations), we have secular education. We have choices to make every single day that involve our developed rational faculties. We learn to justify our opinions with ideas and how to communicate those ideas from an early age, reasonably.
No, actually I cannot prove to you their spirits absolutely don't exist, unless they're describing them in such a way that can be disproven. I don't think they can be said to have faith at all if they are SEEING those spirits. That means they have evidence and that means no belief.
True, but I have only pressed to find out the opinions and ideas behind faith from this point. I haven't demanded anyone change that about themselves. I have made observations about evidence and once we ended that discussion and got around to belief, asked if people would share the motivations behind their beliefs. Since we know people CHOOSe what to believe in, there are clearly motivators that cause people to choose one over another. I want to know what those appeals are and how people make up their minds. So far the best I've gotten are a few sentences, which is a good start, but i'm hoping for more.
Not that I believe in spirits but, simply because of the idea of hallucinations and waking dreams exist does nto mean that what they have experienced is what you are talking about. What you see as evidence is jsut evidence of something that is not related to their beliefs. There is no way to prove their spirits are fake, you just believe they are fake.
Fair point, I think I had that one reversed. =P So you fear that your god is absolutely real and you think that is enough to choose it over the thousands of other potential gods you might choose. Is that more accurate?
I do not fear that he is real. The only reason I fear him is that he has the power to do with me whatever he wishes. It is not a bad type of fear that makes me cower in the corner. Even though he has the power to smite me at will it si not something he would do without reason. Even if that reason is not for me but rather for other people.
I do not believe in the notion of other gods as it would oppose my own beliefs. I do not fear other gods or a lack of a god.
I have heard of God and I choose to believe in him.
Right, I wasn't trying to insist that you were cowering in fear at your god. I realize the figurative "fear of god," that you were referring to means something more close to reverence. You told me we choose to believe in whichever god and you chose your god. What about that god made you choose it, to understand in detail how it is supposed to work, rather than another version?
I respect the fact that other gods necessarily don't work if you believe in the one you do, but i'm curious to know what made the belief in that one god, as opposed to others or none, the more appealing? You clearly didn't start with the knowledge of this god, since you had to choose it. You clearly didn't know what this god demanded of you to begin with, because you had to learn of it.
What ideas about this god made you believe it was the best answer for you than the other possible answers that you do seem to be aware of? I'm not trying to bully you into admitting anything you don't want to, but like I said, i'm genuinely curious to get an idea of how you built up to this belief and how you came to make that choice.
I went to church as a child since there is little choice as to where you go when you are so young. I heard of God and learned of God. I did not like everything about christianity or God and there are still things that I do not agree with. I do not take the word in its literal sense all the time. I interpret it the way I see it to be. I chose this God because I feel he is a just God. I do nto choose other gods because I feel they are incorrect in their teachings.
Now this does nto mean that all otehr religions are completely and utterly wrong and they should be killed and burned blah blah blah. I have no animosity towards them. Also there are things that I can agree with in other religions as well. Just because their god is different does not mean that everything they believe is wrong.
Through my faith I have gained my own sense of right and wrong and that is how I live my life. This is what I feel and believe is right.
Secondly, if you unable to engage in a mature discourse, please refrain from posting. From these cheap ad hominem attacks of quoting _salvation to insult Proletaria to comparing atheists to religious whack jobs, you've pledged your utter intolerance and ignorance.
Maintaining morality and ethics having a divine origin (as you have done) is similar to psychopathy on a leash. While I (and Proletaria) have taken the time to explain the rationale whereby morality and ethics are essential to the stability and prosperity of group irrespective of the possible influence a higher power, all you've given in return is hinting that you will use sociology (which you never did) to demonstrate where we are wrong and ended up in referencing Hitler in a confused proposition involving hell and sins.
You've been given every opportunity to state your case and numerous times dodged the challenge when it was refuted.
I don't think anybody has called you a religious whack despite you showing the tell tale signs of one. So I ask you in return that we discuss on valid points instead of the petty and snide insults that you have been letting out continuously and which I think should stop right about NOW.
Are you serious? You've been asked on FIVE distinct occasions to state those assumptions and claims that you thought were baseless. You repeatedly avoided it and up to now have mentioned nothing of it.
You talk about arrogance? You say you literally know every response that atheists are going to give and that they are so predictable this discussion is not worth having. There have been nothing but different perspectives being given throughout this thread. Maybe if you had approached it with an open mind instead of being offended at each turn, it would have yielded different results?
Repeating the 'same shit'? You clearly have a double standard in terms of who should not be offended.
You are getting overly sentimental and can't be civil so I think it's best that it's for this reason you keep away from this thread instead of your claim of you-are-too-predictable.
And yes friend, you are trolling. Big time. Worst of all, you are supporting the trolling of one side.
"...guy who shoots gays in the street, bombs abortion clinics, or flys jet aircraft into buildings, don't you think?"
None of those are extremes that a member of a religious culture goes through in the evolution of that individual through their religious culture. Show me the passage in the bible that says taking another mans life, grants you passage to heaven? Members of the Islamic community have already stated time and time again that those suicide bombers are not going 'paradise'. I don't study Islamic law, I did however browse through a paper on Islamic law and suicide bombing just now.
If a suicide bomber pretends to be a civilian or if a soldier feigns to surrender by
waving a white flag, he will not be targeted by the armed forces he is approaching
because he has non-combatant immunity. However, if that person then blows
himself up to kill members of the enemy’s armed forces, he commits treachery or
perfidy59 – an act which is strictly prohibited in Islamic law and in international
humanitarian law.60 He has violated the trust of the enemy, which in future may
not trust genuine civilians or surrendering soldiers. Suicide attacks on civilians are
likewise strictly prohibited, because of the immunity to which they are entitled in
both bodies of law. However, if such attacks are carried out by soldiers against
enemy soldiers without feigning civilian status, they are deemed to be a legitimate
battle tactic.
tl;dr suicide attacks done by SOLDIERS, dressed as SOLDIER, against SOLDIERS, is martyr status.
anything else is condemned by Islamic law.
Those are the actions of misguided individuals who are falsely betraying their own religion because they are extremists.
Individuals who do such acts of misguided fanaticism bring more harm to their religion than good.
In a religious debate, it's best to keep misguided acts of fanaticism out of it, because those acts only represent 1% of the population, and are often not supported, or acknowledged by those who follow the true canon of the religion.
We treat them the same way we treat serial killers, interesting case studies.
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
That is just dumb for anyone to do. What good does any of that serve? I think homosexuality is wrong and I think abortions are wrong. But there is no reason to attack either. Things of this nature are done by ignorant people that make the wrong choices in life.
I think you may have misunderstood. You were just being pointed out the more common known extremes of religion.
Now as to the matter of religion being a platform for these actions, you need to examine events on a more global sense to derive a more accurate presentation of that supposition.
And from those events, it is quite clear they cannot be treated as lone isolated cases.
It doesn't matter how much objection or support they receive, for bound by political correctness within society and practical implications of associating oneself with an act of violence and intolerance, it is not even a choice to denounce them. It is required of you to do so.
Not to say that given the opportunity of blunt honesty, people won't repudiate those acts of extremism but since there is simply no way to assess such circumstances, I prefer to consider the cases we have and examine any pattern instead.
Flying aircrafts in buildings is only the tip of the iceberg. Suicide bombers, bombing embassies and violent protest against benign matters as cartoons and movies, ostracization or direct persecution of individuals who has a partner from a different religious (or non-religious) group make for a very poor showing of said religious people.
That interpretation of the Islamic law that you've quoted is but one. There are several dozens of them due to the fact that Arabic, albeit being a beautiful language, is a very complex one. This is not only supported by my Muslim friends but actual scholars around the world studying the Koran and having different interpretations.
The conclusion thus is quite clear. There are some translations out there that support those acts and the continued tragic events that mark our news every other week should be proof enough since the terrorists are claiming to be doing the work of god.
Those 'misguided acts of fanaticism' are actually those having a rational foundation if you believe in a holy book and this in turn clearly illustrate the danger of the latter.
It made enough sense that graphite agreed with me. Your example was someone who didn't have a belief, he actually saw spirits. He made them evident. He could tell you to take the drugs he did and show you how he found them himself. I don't think that is an example of belief.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) - I think that is fairly explicit. The bible commands literal believers to kill homosexuals (like me). I'm not insisting you or anyone here holds a literal belief (most of you said that is not the case), but you cannot tell me that there is nothing in the bible telling you to kill.
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Quran (2:191-193)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (8:12)
"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." Quran (9:38-39)
They are justified by literal intrepretation, to violence and even suicidal violence.
Yes, they are extremeists. Extremely LITERAL translations of their text condones violence.
I agree it is harming their religion, but I don't think you have made a case that it is misguided, if they are using a literal interpretation of the book.
You offered that the shaman was "extreme," and I said that it was not nearly as extreme as the others that I listed. I didn't bring up the "extreme," but you most certainly did.
Except I have never seen a serial killer referred to as a martyr.
I totally agree it's a dumb thing to do. I haven't the faintest idea what good it serves, but I can only assume that the good is what they (the perpetrators) tell me it is: because it is commanded of them by the literal word of god.
You think homosexuality is wrong because god says that it is wrong. God also says (again, literal) to kill homosexuals and I quoted that passage above. So really, who is making the claim that is wrong and how do you tell that person who wants to kill me they are wrong? Both of you think god condemns homosexuals, but the literalist follows the prescription to the letter and seeks to kill us. That may showcase the literalist's ignorance of what it means to be humane or have compassion, but the bible does explicitly tell him to ignore that and kill homosexuals anyway. There is really no theological grounds, that i'm aware of, on which you can tell that person he is wrong. He can always simply point to the scripture that I quoted and say "it says right here, I should kill them. That is the word of god." How do you go about disagreeing with that kind of assertion?
Some people look at the bible as old testament God and new testament God. Due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the new testament the penalties of sins has changed. Jesus paid the price for our sins and allowed us to be forgiven through his blood.
Now there are some people that stick solely to the old testament writings and these are the ones you may be speaking of. As it is now I would say that murder is a sin no matter the reason behind it. Now it would be to help them (homosexuals and others that are noted in that chapter) repent and turn towards God and be saved by the blood of Jesus.
Again my intepretation and not the end all be all of Christian rule/law.
And if that were the case, wouldn't there be no reason to read the old testament at all? And would they not simply say that being gay is just fine, because all is forgiven? You said you don't condone the gays, I assume that has to do with god's opinion of them (which is in the old testament). So this isn't really a satisfactory answer. Christians still obey many of the old testament laws, even protestants who hold that view of vicarious redemption. How are you to assume that Jesus' death means that it isn't ok to kill gays, but it is still imperative that you condemn their lifestyle?
As far as I know, most every christian denomination has some adherence to the old testament (barring very liberal Unitarians). Anyhow, if it is now a question of helping gays repent, isn't that redundant? Were they not saved too, by the death of Jesus?
It doesn't really matter if it is or not, i'm not looking to find out an absolute rule and there are too many denomination and opinions to have one in the first place. I just want to hear your opinions because you live in the same region I do and probably hold similar beliefs to many people in the community.
It seems to me the concept that Jesus died for "all our sins," flies in the face of advocating for any kind of old testament law, but popular churches in our region advocate those old testament laws every week from the pulpit. I just want to know how you, personally, square those two things and perhaps how you would argue with someone who told you they wanted to kill a gay person based on their reading of scripture.
The dark ages have passed and we are no longer the same type of people as we were in those days. Do we just neglect that part of our history and skip over writings that no longer hold a place in society? We still read what is no longer relevant to today because of the history that we learn from it. Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
everyone was saved by the sacrafice of Jesus, but that does not mean that we can not fall again and need to repent. Also not all things changed form old testament to new. So you will find old testament use jsut as I agree with some things from other religions.
"I just want to know how you, personally, square those two things and perhaps how you would argue with someone who told you they wanted to kill a gay person based on their reading of scripture."
Thou Shalt not Kill. Simple enough.
I'm sorry to say but this is just pure and simple hypocrisy.
How many times do religious people have sex to create new life if that is the purpose of a relationship?
I don't see many of them with 30 (a woman can have on average more than that during her lifetime) kids and it's very much a fact that the average person will have sex way more times than that.
So it is pretty clear that we don't engage in sex primarily to procreate but mainly for...pleasure. Some regard it as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bond and closeness of a couple and others as just roll in the hay. Regardless of which one is chosen, trust and faithfulness is not determined by gender and gay persons can perfectly have a lasting and healthy relationship without having children.
Furthermore as a species, our continuation is pretty much guaranteed even if half the earth's population stopped procreating. I find it funny you mentioned the dark ages when you have not considered things like sperm bank, in-vitro fertilization and carrier mothers. So what sense were you referring to?
If you are under the assumption that each time you have sex you are guaranteed a child then you are mistaken. Under normal circumstances also most women will only have one child per pregnancy. The times you have multiple children per pregnancy is usually due to invitro which is not the natural way to have children.
I do not condemn other methods of having a child even though Catholics are very specific about the methods. I also know that you can have a gay women go to a sperm bank and get pregnant and you can have gay men acquire a child with the DNA of one of the men as well. I did not say it was impossible for children to be made but it is impossible for two men alone to create life as it is impossible for two women alone to create life.
Also the only stipulation to sex is that you always welcome the chance of having a child, not that you must have a child each time you have sex. Science has allowed other way for people to have children and pass on their genetic code but it(science) does not condone homosexual relationships in the process.
For every 1 scholar you find that will say attacking civilians grants someone entrance to paradise, I can find 10+ that say otherwise.
Seems to me when the majority of your religion disagrees with what you're doing, and can cite canon which states not killing civilians, seems like your the outlier, the extremist, and that's the point.
You don't judge a religion based on what less than 10% of the religion believes they can interpret from their holy scripture.
And prol, a vision quest is part of a normal stage of shamanism, killing gays and flying planes into buildings is not a stage that even 0.000001% of those religions experience.
Shamanism is more extreme overall, because that's how the religion is, you're not condemned by your own religion by going on a vision quest. Ask 100 Christians if killing is allowed, 95 will cite 10 commandments, you will have 1-2 smart asses that will cite stoning people to death etc. or killing of gays and not believe it, then you have the 3-4 weirdos in the crowd that believe that shit. Trust, I went to a catholic school as an atheist, along with Jews and Muslims. This debate has already been had over and over and over.
It's only the 100% ignorant, the mass murderers, spree murderers or serial murderers that cite religions texts as a means to act out their evil.
Serial Murderers fall under 4 typologies
Visionary Type - such murderers kill in response to the commands of voices or visions usually emanating from the forces of good or evil. These offenders are often believe to be suffering from some sort of psychosis.
Mission Type- these offenders believe in it is their missions in life to rid the community or society of certain groups of people. Some killers may target the elderly, whereas others may seek out prostitutes, children, or a particular racial/ethnic group
Hedonistic Type - offenders in this category are usually stereotyped as "thrill seekers," those who derive some form of satisfaction from the murders. Also under this category are the subcategories of "creature comforts" or "pleasure of life"... or "lust murderers"...
Power/Control-Oriented Type - is this typology Holmes and DeBurger content that the primary source of pleasure is not sexual but the killer's ability to control and exert power over his helpless victim. Some offenders enjoy watching their victims cower, cringe and beg for mercy...
Serial Murderers and Their Victims
Hickey
Anyone who kills using any religious text and cares for their own life is classified as a serial killer (if 3+ victims) and would be visionary or mission typed. Serial killers are extreme outliers, we need not concern ourselves with them unless the discussion is solely about serial killers.
Suicide bombers would be considered Mass Murderers since they have no planes for living after the attack, no thought of mortal survival. They would be classified as either
..."Disciple-Type Killer- a person who commits murder at the behest of a charismatic leader such as Charles Manson
Ideological Mass Murderer - a person, especially a cult leader, who is able to persuade others to kill themselves or each other...
Institutional Mass Murderer- a person who commits mass murder as a crime of obedience when ordered to by his or her leader. This often is manifested in some form of genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and religious bigotry as occurred in the Kosovo region, the Stalim farm collectivization, Armenian and Nazi Holocausts, and the Crusades"
"... some mass murderers so deeply depressed, become schizophrenic or psychotic. Others suffer with severe anxiety and personality disorders. These are not rational people at the time of the murders, even when their behaviours are calculated and decisive. Many of them are not insane, but suffer from severe psychological dysfunctioning as a result of both chronic and acute stress."
"...mass murderers, in relation to other crimes-even other forms of homicide--are relatively rare, and they do appear to occur as randomly as serial killings do
By talking about murder using religion as the "why" It happened, you're talking about such a small, small percentage of people, I'd have a better chance getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery, then an act being committed by an individual that is under the typologies above.
Essentially all you do when you mention them is encourage fighting, it's not logical to bring them up, at all. These people commit these acts, they do so citing their religious texts, but they are also severely mentally unstable.
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
Assuming we did learn from the dark ages, why is it we still not just "read," those same scriptures, but interpret them in largely the same ways? I mean, yes, there are many levitican laws that are no longer popular, but we didn't just review history and arbitrarily select things that were bygone and without modern virtule. There was a metric for choosing the sane and insane things there. Just as I pour over a text that discusses the philosophies of the ancients and see where some of it just doesn't fit the modern world, I suspect that the religious do the same. What I want to know is, how are they ruling on those things?
Clearly all of us are that way. Science now understands that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a genetic predisposition. So it really is not fair to say that science tells us that we are all structured specifically to procreate. That is not a reality that science presents us with. You may believe that the gay lifestyle doesn't make sense to you, sure, but you cannot justify that with science. That view is either personal or religiously based.
Everyone being saved by the death of Jesus does precisely mean that humaity cannot "fall," again. Unless Jesus was a liar and a charlatan, he said what he meant in no inexplicit terms: "God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him." So you can see why i'm wondering how this concept of repentance and old testament virtues is brought into play.
And why is that a more important rule than another literal rule? I realize it's a commandment and that somehow makes it more important, but I don't think that commandment would presuade someone who literally interprets the bible to kill. They cleraly know about that rule too and just simply understand the other passage is an exception to that rule.