TheRiov wrote:
Sure.. And when modern Christianity stops quoting the Bible (OT) as justification for all sorts of religious laws they impose on others, particularly against homosexuality, but other stuff too, we'll talk. Until then, you are not going to convince me that the Bible has been left behind.
Fortunately, I don't need to convince you. The situation is what it is, and your refusal to confront the fact that all beliefs are not created equal won't make it any less true.
As for "leaving the Bible behind", you're in no position to complain about it seeing as how you're the one quoting Scripture - something I have never done here, except in response to someone else doing it. I could also quote things such as the Beatitudes which pretty much override all the OT stuff you're so worried about, or other words of Christ, but I don't need to since this is really not a theological discussion. The fact is that picking out bits and pieces of Scripture is simplistic, gotcha-attempt arguments and a sign of unsophisticated unwillingness to consider the issue beyond just pointing at words and shouting "nuh-uh" when fundamentalists and evangelicals do it - and it is equally suspect when you do it.
Quote:
2It's not just apostasy that is punished in the Bible. And Israel at the time was too small to be commanded to violence. Apart from a very brief time, Israel stopped existing as a nation, thus couldn't wield military power. During the time it DID wield military power, it used it under the auspices of God's will. And in the New Testament, even Jesus takes out the whip.
I'm well aware of what is and isn't punished in the Bible; I stated those passages; the ones you quoted. Don't move the goalposts. Nor is a lack of 100% pacifism evidence that Christianity is just as violent as Islam. No one ever claimed it was pacifist. The fact is that, in the modern world, Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Sikh have all shed the vast majority of any aggressive tendencies they had. Sikh is of particular note because of its warrior-tradition style aspects - yet it is not aggressive or terroristic.
Quote:
Quote:
3) Christianity is explicitly stated to be based on the inability of humans to follow its precepts. The existence of various phenomenon among Christians which you cite is evidence of precisely that inability. You are committing a stolen concept fallacy by ignoring a central precept of Christianity while accepting the existence of the religion itself.
The results pretty much nullify this argument.
This is a total non-sequiter. Are you seriously going to argue that the central precepts of Christianity aren't what they are because of the various failures of Christians to live up to them? If those precepts weren't the precepts, there wouldn't be a failure in the first place. You wouldn't be able to criticize Christianity because it literally would not exist.
Quote:
One could argue that most of the Kings of Israel were warlords.
And look unbelievably historically ignorant in doing so. Israel had little appetite for territorial expansion.
Quote:
But the fact of the matter is that Islam was always integral with the State. The religion of Judaism, and the Christ movement were separate from the power of the State for several hundred years. But when the power of the Church and the power of the State were in the same place, NONE of these religions have failed to use force.
This is attributable to the failings of those in power and the temptation to use religion for ends that religion doesn't support. The problem is that you just undercut your own argument - Islam is always integral to the State. Islam does not recognize the concept of separating the two - that is an attribute of only the most liberal Muslims. Countries where Christianity was in control, by contrast, are precisely where the whole concept of separation of church and state was originally developed as a superior alternative to fighting over doctrinal differences. This deeply undercuts your arguments, since it is evidently a trait of Christianity to (slowly and painfully) move away from political power, but is not such a trait of Islam.
Therefore, since you admit that integrating the church with the state results in the leaders exploiting religion for violent ends, Islam will necessarily lead to violence whenever it is allowed political power - according to your own logic. Congratulations, you've just refuted your own argument!
Of course, you'll counter that not every Islamic country has been aggressive or belligerent - but that only weakens your original point about religions using force.
Quote:
You're kidding right? All of these religions have had people killing in the name of their faith too. Take off the confirmation-bias-blinders. They ALL do this. Humans suck. They murder each other for all sorts of reasons and religions, and then claim they're right with God for doing so.
"All religions have had people kill in the name of their faith" does not mean "all religions do so to an equal degree at the present time" - which they clearly do not. You are strawmanning and moving the goalposts badly - and have absolutely no basis to accuse me of confirmation bias whatsoever. "Humans do this" does not mean "all humans do this to an equal degree all of the time" or "type of religion has no effect whatsoever on whether any human or group of humans does this to any particular degree". You are engaging in ridiculous leaps of logic and engaging in the worst sort of arrogant, pseudo-educated virtue signalling.
This is the kind of simplistic thinking that people with personal issues with religion engage in to justify themselves. I recall you insisting rather loudly that you attend a church of some sort yourself - but that doesn't preclude you taking issue with everyone else for personal reasons - even if that personal reason is just a desire to feel superior; a trait rather common to leftists it seems.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
