Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

  1. #81

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Gnostic Christian Bishop,

    12 The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to David, he said,

    So, you simplified it to make a case for yourself yet when one reads the overall context it's quite a different story. Now, as for the flood, almost every culture on the planet has a record of the flood handed down throughout the centuries but as usual GCB says it's fantasy. Therefore once again it is GCB's word against the word of God. We all know Who is going to win that one too.
    Yes. I broke it down to it's main components as that is all I need do to show that it is immoral to torture and kill innocent babies.

    And yes, from a moral standpoint, I win against your genocidal God.

    Best to analyse this myth for its moral content as that is what God is judged on by intelligent people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Maybe you weren't listening hard enough.
    Plenty of people hear the voice of God commanding them to burn things and hunt homosexuals with crossbows and all sorts of wacky fun stuff. Who are you to invalidate their experiences of the will of God?
    True.

    Regards
    DL

  2. #82
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    8,266

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    Gnostic Christian Bishop,

    Well, if you really break it down to its main components you would know that it was the fall of Adam and Eve that brought in immorality. So, if you want to blame someone, blame them. But of course you won't, why? Because you too are of the same nature and since you cannot accept your need for a Saviour, you have to blame God.

  3. #83

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    GCB, I'm honestly curious which bible you're reading from. After lurking in a few of these threads, I'm starting to think you just have the wrong book altogether.
    For example: The text should say the child was struck with sickness and died after 6 days.

  4. #84
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,500

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    I think Kierkegaard hit the nail on the had when he split world views into three distinct parts: Ethical, Religious and Aesthetic (ie. pleasure).
    He even points out that to be religious one must engage in what he called the teleological suspension of the ethical, particularly when dealing with passages such as Abraham complying with the command to murder his son. For the ethical person there is no act more disgustingly evil than even considering the murder of one's own child, yet for the religious person, how can there be anything more important than a direct command from one's deity? An ethical person can never accept this proposition as being anything other than despicable and a religious person cannot do any other action other than obey.
    So there is a clear contradiction between the two world views. You must pick one at the expense of the others. Pretending otherwise is deeply hypocritical. This hypocrisy can be seen in most religious/non-religious people, Basics' ridiculous conviction level is obviously an exception.

    In today's world it is the third world view that is most common: the Aesthetic, which is a rejection of both the ethical and the religious. One might say: But utilitarianism is commonly accepted today. Well that is an aesthetic ethos, not ethics in the strictest sense. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm is not the same as proposing and answering difficult ethical questions, it is instead treating it like an equation.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  5. #85
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    819

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    The Binding of Isaac (Gen 22) could describe a kind of conflict between two contradictory rules, the one not to murder people and the request to break that rule. Was this intended? It wasn't maybe. Still, it could and if this was the case, then it seems reasonable that there is a preference. The higher rule could be the more basic or earlier one (Gen 6:6) in the flow of the texts. I think with a glimpse on the logic of the argument it seems somewhat obvious that to keep coherence (- if this was intended -) on any circumstances rule two is the hypothesis, the example tries to falsify. It would describe an absurdity and expose a collapse of the norm. However, this is not the usual interpretation, just an attempt to look beyond the lines of the text as if they formed a well-ordered argument about conflicting claims, something they do only to some extend because they serve practical purposes.
    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; May 05, 2017 at 10:20 PM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  6. #86
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    8,266

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    When one looks at the question it may appear simple enough even honest enough but where are those non-affiliated or secular peoples being killed? I think that history already proves that it is peoples in those categories who have killed more religionists, bad as religions can be. As far as religions are concerned there are three that stand out from among the others who fit into killing mould where their aim is world domination. The first was Roman Catholicism done in the name of Christianity but certainly not in the aspirations of that faith. The second is of course Islam which is butchering its way across the world under the pretence of being peaceful yet shallow when insulted. The third is Hinduism which is in no comparison to the other two but still it has its violent adherents who kill at the slightest provocation as they see it. I know of no Jews or Christians who choose to kill anyone or have ever chosen to kill anyone.

  7. #87
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    819

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?


    As regards benevolence the human being is good enough provided that no bad propensity to subtle deception dwells in him.
    Kant quoting de Luc, in: On the miscarriage of all philosophical trials in theodicy (8:271).



    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; May 07, 2017 at 07:35 AM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  8. #88
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    8,266

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    DaniCatBurger,

    The problem is of course that with the knowledge of both good and evil man will always choose that which will get him out of a sticky situation using the appearance of benevolence and being subtley deceptive at the same time. My personal feeling about that is every time I hear someone say, " Trust me." Perhaps that's with watching too many detective soaps on TV.

  9. #89
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    819

    Default Re: Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

    The problem is part of the argument, "the vindication of the moral wisdom ... against the experience".

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Now the outcome of this juridical process before the forum of philosophy is this: Every previous theodicy has not performed what it promised, namely the vindication of the moral wisdom of the world-government against the doubts raised against it on the basis of what the experience of this world teaches - although, to be sure, as objections, so far as our reason's inherent insight regarding them goes, neither can these doubts prove the contrary (Kant, On the miscarriage of all philosophical trials in theodicy (8:223).
    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; May 08, 2017 at 03:27 AM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •