why i support getting out of the war in iraq

[bflatminor24]

Of course there is. If you believe there is only one god then someone else always believes in a false god. Now if you are a polytheist any god is as good a god as any other. Now these people may, and have, killed each other regardless of this fact but it remains the case that a monotheist has only one truth. If you consider this, and just this, one can only concluse that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism.

Again, we wind up in an argument of semantics. Perhaps you define "intolerant" differently than I do. Here is where I will show you that believing in one God is no more intrinsically intolerant than believing in many Gods. Tolerance is "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." Allowing the existence of something is not the same as sharing the same belief. A Christian man may allow the existence of a Hindi without sharing his beliefs. Intolerance would be the Christian imposing his religious will upon the Hindi. But again, this shows my original point of how there are not intolerant ideas, but intolerant people. Nowhere in Christian scripture does it say "kill those who do not adhere to Christianity." (Christianity itself did not exist until the 4th century AD, during the fall of the Byzantine Empire.) A tolerant Christian allows the existence of other ideas, an intolerant Christian will impose his religious will.

I clearly delineated your circular reasoning in my previous post. You spun your opinion in every which way to avoid invective. You said that monotheism is intolerant, and that if one is monotheistic AND tolerant, he is a "weak believer," and that monotheism may be applied in a tolerant mannner, and that there may be monotheists who are tolerant. What does all of this verbiage even mean? You are either accusing the doctrines of intolerance, or the people, or both. If the doctrines are intrinsically intolerant (as you purport and as I refuted), then believers of doctrine who follow an intolerant belief are also intolerant. Don't you think this is a bit of a stretch?

If you're going to use your own knowledge as a reference instead of an expert's (and an expert doesn't have to be clergy, it could be an article, a religious scholar or major in college, or some kind of text), then you must be circumspect about it. Are you aware that NOWHERE in Jewish scripture does it endorse evangelism and slaying of infidels? Are you aware that Muslim scripture (Qu'ran) DOES endorse evangelism and slaying of infidels? Are you aware that these are both monotheistic religions, yet they deviate enormously in belief, despite sharing many of the same stories from the Old Testament? Ironic, isn't it?

Finally, you claim that religion is a "virus" of the mind. Let us put aside political-correctness and examine this principle. If it is a "virus" of the mind, and it's followers are "infected" with this "virus," does this not make you intolerant? Does this not make you a victim of your own crime? Saying that religion is, or is analogous to, a "virus," is perhaps the most intolerant perspective I have read regarding religion. I am not a religious person myself, but I have a fairly good understanding of my own book (Old Testament) and I resent your accusations. I think people themselves are the main manifestation of intolerance, not the doctrines to which they subscribe. People kill people in the name of religion, and the worst atrocities are committed in the name of God (Armenian Genocide, Darfur Genocide, Crusades, Holocaust and Eugenics movements, Islamic Jihad). These acts are not commands of God. They are perverse interpretations of God's will used for self-interest. They give religion a bad name. But let us examine these acts for what they are: atrocities committed by intolerant people. Nowhere in any religious scripture I have come to know does it endorse genocide and macabre sacrilege. The closest example I have seen is the Qu'ran, because Mohammed did believe in slaying infidels and did so himself. Other than that, I think your opinions and ideas about religion as a virus epitomize the vices of intolerance itself.

~Max~

[prometheus]

Here is where I will show you that believing in one God is no more intrinsically intolerant than believing in many Gods. Tolerance is "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." Allowing the existence of something is not the same as sharing the same belief. A Christian man may allow the existence of a Hindi without sharing his beliefs. Intolerance would be the Christian imposing his religious will upon the Hindi.

Why would a christian do this? Of course the reason will be that he is right and the other person is wrong. From this frame of mind he is in all means right by imposing his will because it is gods will. At least, that is what he believes.

A monotheist may accept the existence of a person of hindu belief. If he is a real monotheist then he also believes this Hindu is utterly wrong. And if he believes the bible is the world of god he also believes it is gods will to kill him. There is no reason to doubt this since is there is only one god and only one truth. There is only one right thing to do.

Some monotheists will force things upon others because they can only conclude that it would be in our interest as well. Surely if I go to hell if I am an unbeliever someone else trying to safe me from hell by imposing his doctrine on me is justified. If only he was right. But that is a matter of faith.

But again, this shows my original point of how there are not intolerant ideas, but intolerant people.

Again, I am not talking about people. You seem to justify ignoring this by calling it 'semantics'. It is not. Surely there are intolerant ideas and ideas that champion intolerance.

Nowhere in Christian scripture does it say "kill those who do not adhere to Christianity." (Christianity itself did not exist until the 4th century AD, during the fall of the Byzantine Empire.)

Uuh... The only way I can interpret this is that there are no christian scriptures. The bible is older than 4th cencury AD. So then we are left with pontifical statements and the like.
As for the bible, some parts of the bible have killing unbelievers as the main theme.

A tolerant Christian allows the existence of other ideas, an intolerant Christian will impose his religious will.

This is silly. No one, at least not many people, would support the existence of incorrect ideas.

I clearly delineated your circular reasoning in my previous post. You spun your opinion in every which way to avoid invective. You said that monotheism is intolerant, and that if one is monotheistic AND tolerant, he is a "weak believer," and that monotheism may be applied in a tolerant mannner, and that there may be monotheists who are tolerant. What does all of this verbiage even mean?

It is rather simple. The old testament is supposed to be the word of god and because of that it is the basis for the three Abrahamic religions. The only way to be a tolerant monotheist is when you don't really believe in the old testament.

Liberal monotheists interpret the scripture selectively. They have a moral compass like I have and then they find and interpret the scripture to match it. Not the other way around. These people are just not true to the scripture itself. They aren't purists. Fundamentalists believers betray reason. But moderates betray reason and faith equally. How to know which part of the bible to understand literally and which not. Surely people do this. But on what basis do they select? Surely they must already have a morality and that means the bible is totally irrelevant. This is how one can be tolerant and this is just weak faith, bending faith, applying and selecting monotheism in a tolerant manner. I don't see how this is circular reasoning at all. You claim you clearly 'delineated' this but you have not. At least not to me.

I mean, lets take one basic example. Adam. The bible claims he existed. But most modern christians accept this story as symbolic. But people do not seem to realise the implications of that. The core of Christianity is God reincarnating himself as Jesus, having himself tortured and then executed. Why. To redeem the original sin, the sin caused by Adam and Eve. So if the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic then how does that work? If Adam didn't exist then the original sin also doesn't exist. And that means Jesus died for nothing. Isn't that strange?

The only way to be a tolerant believer is to bend your belief, to make consessions with reason.

You are either accusing the doctrines of intolerance, or the people, or both.

I am accusing the doctrine of intolerance and the people of lack of reason and thinking.

If the doctrines are intrinsically intolerant (as you purport and as I refuted), then believers of doctrine who follow an intolerant belief are also intolerant. Don't you think this is a bit of a stretch?

I already admitted this. I don't really understand how it is done. To me it is 'double think' How can one claim to live based on christianity, which is based on the bible, which is filled with intolerance while actually being tolerant. Yes is a bit of a stretch. But I am not in a position to explain it. What I am doing is observing this, well actually other people have pointed me in this direction, and I question it. This is also a reason why I think moderate religious people need to be really smart.

As for the refutation, really I have not seen it. You claim I am guilty of circular reasoning but instead of explaining why you think this is you claim you already 'delineated' it. Maybe you did but you failed. Now it may be my lack of intelligence or unwillingness to undestand your previous argument but that is no justification to abandon making arguments.

If you're going to use your own knowledge as a reference instead of an expert's, then you must be circumspect about it. Are you aware that NOWHERE in Jewish scripture does it endorse evangelism and slaying of infidels?

Uuh, I am just amazed by this statement. I almost get the urge to quote all those examples of the bible because I am so curious how you are going to make an argument claiming that it has nothing to do with 'slaying infidels' but I am very skeptic. So before you do this please assure me I will not be dissapointed. Even if you are utterly wrong I would be interested in how you are going to attempt this. And if you are right it will be even more amazing.

Are you aware that Muslim scripture (Qu'ran) DOES endorse evangelism and slaying of infidels? Are you aware that these are both monotheistic religions, yet they deviate enormously in belief, despite sharing many of the same stories from the Old Testament? Ironic, isn't it?

So what is this big deviation in belief? Or rather deviation in dogma?

Finally, you claim that religion is a "virus" of the mind. Let us put aside political-correctness and examine this principle. If it is a "virus" of the mind, and it's followers are "infected" with this "virus," does this not make you intolerant?

Well, that is a different discussion. A 'virus of the mind' would not naturally make one intolerant. It is only an idea, or meme, that goes from mind to mind like a virus does. What the content of this idea is is irrelevant. It could just as well be tolerant. I guess one problem will be that a virus infecting someone forces something upon the victim. So the virus itself is not very tolerant in regard to the mind it infects.

Does this not make you a victim of your own crime? Saying that religion is, or is analogous to, a "virus," is perhaps the most intolerant perspective I have read regarding religion.

Of course my views of religion are intolerant. But my intolerance is not based on faith. It is justified by reason. And it can be broken. I am willing to argue and change my mind. I was not taught by my parents to be intolerant because they told me to be. I have to be intolerant towards religion because I have reasoned it to be unethical.

I am not a religious person myself, but I have a fairly good understanding of my own book (Old Testament) and I resent your accusations. I think people themselves are the main manifestation of intolerance, not the doctrines to which they subscribe. People kill people in the name of religion, and the worst atrocities are committed in the name of God (Armenian Genocide, Darfur Genocide, Crusades, Holocaust and Eugenics movements, Islamic Jihad).  These acts are not commands of God. They are perverse interpretations of God's will used for self-interest.

I disagree. If you read the scriptures and you believe it is the word of god then it is very reasonable to start killing. I also don't believe it is all self-interest. Many of these people committing acts of 'evi' believe themselves that they are doing something good. Like I said before. If I believe I can save people from going to hell by killing people then this will be the rational and compassionate thing to do. Hell is not a pleasent place.

They give religion a bad name. But let us examine these acts for what they are: atrocities committed by intolerant people. Nowhere in any religious scripture I have come to know does it endorse genocide and macabre sacrilege.

You claim you know the scripture. But then how can you say the old testament is not filled with genocide? Because it is.

The closest example I have seen is the Qu'ran, because Mohammed did believe in slaying infidels and did so himself. Other than that, I think your opinions and ideas about religion as a virus epitomize the vices of intolerance itself.

Do you think it is justified to determine the belief of a child. This is what happens. Religion passes from generation through generation. Now because of reason some people are able to shake it off but many people are not. They have been taught to be religious or rather they have been brainwashed or infected and they cannot get rid of it.

Religion is not something you reach through examining evidence. It is a major meme. Because children depend on their parents they need to believe and accept anything their parents say without questioning them. Because of this children will be infected by religion. The concept of the meme exists and religion is an example of it. Ideas and information just spread as a epidemic through a population.


As for a difference between monotheist and polytheism. Let's inspect the religion of the greeks and romans. Any teacher teaching teenagers at a gymnasium or something similar that first introduces the concept of polytheism to western people alread grounded in monotheism will be the nature of these gods. The first thing that is strikingly different is that the greek gods are as flawed as any human. They may be divine but they aren't superiour to us in terms of morals. They are jealous, they have tempers, they make mistakes, they gety angry, they are cruel at one point and compassionate at another, the quarrel and fight among themselves. They are just as human as any one of us.
These gods actually learn us something. They learn us that even the gods can't be perfect. It learns us that live is a struggle to be right. A monotheist just has to have faith and everything will turn out right. This world is just an illusion or a test. You belief and thus accomplish it and get rewarded by eternal bliss.

Of course it can still go very wrong. But this is in the details. If people think one of these gods can drive the sun up and down the sky by using the blood of those that are sacrificed in its name then this can still cause a lot of victims. But there is a lot more room for reason since these people don't believe this god personifies right, truth, love and justice. Of course traditions as always will be hard to break. But there is no reason why they can't start believing this god of the sun tricked them into sacrificing. This god will not nessesary be a virtuous god. It will just be a very powerful human. This will be unthinkable in monotheism. No matter how cruel the god of the old testament, as long as she is omniscient and omnipotent it would be absurd to question her. Like Pianistimo says; only god knows what is truely good and evil. We just have to surrender to god.

Also, a polythesist believes in many gods. This means they will also believe that gods of other people exist eventhough they are not aware of these gods. They have no reason to claim that these people are wrong. And this is what you see in history. Polytheism is a lot more flexible. While monotheism is still the same today as it was 4000 years ago. It is just that people have stopped believing in it as absolutely as it seems to demand. People have started to specifically select and ignore parts of the bible in ways they prefer.

As for the old testament and other religious texts. They may all be as worthless in terms of understanding how nature works. But if you look at the stories of the greeks, hindu's, Sumerians or any other polytheistic religion in general they will have a higer quality from a literature perspective.
Like I have pointed out before the poem of Giglamesh is a very strong piece of proze while most of the stories of the old testament is utter ugly rubbish. Granted, the new testament is much better. But then it goes all wrong when Jesus has to be tortured to death for a very strange reason. If you present, for example, an asian with the bible more often than not they will be sincerely shocked. The god of the old testament is probably the most unpleasant character in all of literature.

[pianistimo]

unpleasant?  He was the deliverer of israel from all their foes.  He was unpleasant to His enemies (which happened to be very unbiased - whether israelite or gentile).  what i understand from the old testament - is that God helps us plan our lives and have some understanding of our history.  there is no history of evolution except guesswork and no plan of salvation (as we seemingly don't need it - if we do not believe in the ressurrection of the dead).  it is aptly called 'mythology' in greek and roman writings.

as far as children being indoctrinated - i would say the majority now are learning the 'theory' of evolution at school more than religion.  it is hard to fight the trend since tv and movies seem to always mock God and religion and religious people.  but, as many have said - that is intolerance much more than going to a church and proclaiming your doctrine as right.  people who attend church on the weekend - don't usually go out the following day and perform KKK rituals.  in fact, they are known to be friendly to neighbors of all faiths and generally keep to themselves about what they believe and try to live it out in their lives.

moral values come from God.  He created them.  what would good and evil be without Him telling us?  that's where the 'tree of good and evil' come in.  mankind has decided for himself what that is and substitutes evil for good.

[musik_man]

Prometheus, please point out the sections of the Bible that tell Christians that killing unbelievers is God's will.

Is this what you mean?

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour may be ashamed of their slander
1 Peter 3:15-16

Sounds pretty intolerant to me.

[prometheus]

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
(Exodus 22:20 NJV)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.  (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

The new and the old testament are two differerent stories. The problem is that the new testament requires the old testament to be true. Like I said before. If the old testament is wrong then the original sin is a lie and Jesus died for nothing.

unpleasant?  He was the deliverer of israel from all their foes.

But in what kind of way?

He was unpleasant to His enemies.

Actually he was much harsher against the Jewish people breaking her rules.

what i understand from the old testament - is that God helps us plan our lives and have some understanding of our history.  there is no history of evolution except guesswork.

Utter lies and gliberish. The old testament is about a cruel god and her chosen people and the wars and genocides they have to fight. And about the barbaric morals they had.

As for evolution there is tons of evidence for that. I though the other topic was about evolution and this one was about theology. Why do you keep mixing them up?

as far as children being indoctrinated - i would say the majority now are learning the 'theory' of evolution at school more than religion.

I have explained many times to you personally what it means when something is a scientific theory. Apperently you still failed to understand and turn this word into a pun. Learning about the theory of evolution is pure education. Though I do not really like the school system because it does force information into children I don't see this as dangerous that dangerous.

it is hard to fight the trend since tv and movies seem to always mock God and religion and religious people.

To me religious people mock themselves. It is not so strange you are laughed upon, though I agree it is rude.

moral values come from God.  He created them.  what would good and evil be without Him telling us?  that's where the 'tree of good and evil' come in.  mankind has decided for himself what that is and substitutes evil for good.

You are right. This is monotheistic dogma. And this is why I claim it is inherently less tolerant.

[bflatminor24]

My God (no pun intended) Prometheus, I don't even know where to begin.

This debate could go on forever...I will say though, I disagree with your beliefs and the reasoning behind them. I don't think there is anything intolerant about religion. I do have a moral compass, and I do interpret things symbolically, and I do have a moderate perspective of religion. I believe there are a lot of strong virtues to learn from reading the Bible (Old and New Testaments). I think you're mistaken about intolerance. Most Christians and Jews are tolerant, peaceful, friendly people and don't impose their will nor exhibit pugnacity or hostility towards those of other faiths. I don't know many Muslims but the few whom I do know are the same way. I think your interpretation of the scripture is an incorrect interpretation and I think you make a sophistic argument - one that may sound reasonable and/or appealing but is unsound. You also make false conclusions, like "one God = one truth." That's not true. I believe in one God, yet I also understand and tolerate those who do not, or who may believe in many Gods. I fail to see how your logic shows otherwise.

Forgive me for not providing more examples, I'm exhausted and reading your post is more nervewracking than Christmas fishing with Scott Peterson. My God.

~Max~

[anekdote]

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
(Exodus 22:20 NJV)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.  (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

The new and the old testament are two differerent stories. The problem is that the new testament requires the old testament to be true. Like I said before. If the old testament is wrong then the original sin is a lie and Jesus died for nothing.

Your first verses are all from the Old Testament. The last verse, from the New Testament, rebukes sinful behavior but does not command killing.

In the last paragraph you say "the new testament requires the old testament to be true." Yes this is true. But also, you need to realize that the New Testament offers a new covenant which Jesus initiated (basically: OT covenant = blood and sacrifice; NT covenant = Jesus' blood and self-sacrifice). Jesus tells his followers that the laws laid forth in the Old Testament no longer have any justification and needn't be practiced.

Because Muslim's do not follow Jesus' teachings, they continue to sacrifice animals and abide by laws such as those found in the Old Testament. See? There is a definite difference between the fundamentalist dogmas of each.

Utter lies and gliberish. The old testament is about a cruel god and her chosen people and the wars and genocides they have to fight. And about the barbaric morals they had.

I do not disagree on this point. However, once again you are still assuming that monotheism is inherently more barbaric and intolerant than polytheism.

[prometheus]

I do have a moral compass, and I do interpret things symbolically, and I do have a moderate perspective of religion. I believe there are a lot of strong virtues to learn from reading the Bible (Old and New Testaments).

Yes, this is part of my point. You interpret things symbolically because of your moral compass.

You don't take the bible literally and follow its 'moral instructions'. Few people do this. You think for yourself, like most and rightly so. When one does interpret the bible literally then this turns out bad because the society from the old testament is very different from the society today. This is also the reason why at this point in history there is more religious violence from muslims because more of them take the bible more litterally than for example you do.

I think you're mistaken about intolerance. Most Christians and Jews are tolerant, peaceful, friendly people

Most people are.

I don't know many Muslims but the few whom I do know are the same way.

How many muslims friends do you have?

You also make false conclusions, like "one God = one truth." That's not true.

Pianistimo does believe this. It is my opinion than when you read the bible this is the most pure interpretation you can make. This is a stronger example of faith. That's why I say you betraying both reason and faith.

Forgive me for not providing more examples, I'm exhausted and reading your post is more nervewracking than Christmas fishing with Scott Peterson. My God.

Ok, sure. No hard feelings. I don't think you have to change to be a better person or anything like that. This is just a discussion on an intellectualand many even abstract level.

[prometheus]

Your first verses are all from the Old Testament. The last verse, from the New Testament, rebukes sinful behavior but does not command killing.

Yes they are. I am mainly talking about the OT. As for the second one. It may talk about what one could call sinful behavior. It also talks about gods death penalty. It is clear that in the eyes of god one who is sinful in the way describes should be put to death.

In the last paragraph you say "the new testament requires the old testament to be true." Yes this is true. But also, you need to realize that the New Testament offers a new covenant which Jesus initiated (basically: OT covenant = blood and sacrifice; NT covenant = Jesus' blood and self-sacrifice). Jesus tells his followers that the laws laid forth in the Old Testament no longer have any justification and needn't be practiced.

Yes, Jesus teaches you not to derive your ethics from ancient scriptures. That's a good lesson. But it the OT the word of god or not? If the laws of the old testament are useless when why not dump them? I get the impression that many christians still adhere to the ten commandments, for example. I have seen Pianistimo quote the OT many times. When I was on christian basic education I was told about the stories from the old testament.

But, does got regret his actions in the Old Testament? Or are they just not true? I mean, it isn't as easy as you claim it is. Furtermore, what is the ethical lesson to be learned from Jesus his sacrifice? Why couldn't God just forgive us? And why am I redeemed of my future sins if I accept Jesus? Why doesn't it matter if I commit sins or not while I am with Jesus? Is that an lesson of ethics?

Because Muslim's do not follow Jesus' teachings, they continue to sacrifice animals and abide by laws such as those found in the Old Testament. See? There is a definite difference between the fundamentalist dogmas of each.

Muslims do follow Jesus his teachings. They don't follow St.Paul's moral blackmail.

I do not disagree on this point. However, once again you are still assuming that monotheism is inherently more barbaric and intolerant than polytheism.

No, I should add a bit more nuance. I think polytheism has more potential for tolerance. If I had to invent a religion through which to teach people I would invent a polytheistic religion because I see more room for nuance and debate.

[pianistimo]

Jesus also said 'not one jot or title shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.'  so, as i see it, as long as there is this physical earth there is sin and death (and none can escape from it).  God pointed out in the OT what sin was.  if He didn't do that, He would be considered a negligent God.

as i see it - and this is my point of view - if you join the army - what happens?  you are subscribing to their 'doctrine.'  you have a court martial if you suddenly decide it's not for you and and you just want out.  well, israel was first agreeable to obedience to God and then saw other nations doing what they wanted and decided they might worship a few other gods.  this may seem ok at first to anyone who hasn't been in the army (i admit - i've only watched a few segments of military training on tv - but was fairly shocked at the treatment of those who are lazy and don't feel like doing what the sargent or lieutinent say).  God - in His great mercy (who can resurrect all people) allowed the ot people to be an example for us today.  He shows us what is actually possible for us to do.  He doesn't ask extremely hard things.  i mean - to ask someone to rest isn't exactly a horrific request.  or, to worship one God.  to love your neighbor as yourself.  not to kill or steal or take someone's wife or husband.  to not envy and lie.  these things are not terrible requests.

if God asked all of us to sacrifice our firstborn - we might complain a bit - but even abraham trusted God on that one.  it didn't make sense - but He knew that He was speaking to the true God - and that God was going to make a deliverance - because He had previously told him that through his seed - many nations would come.  Christians put two and two together - and although they 'fear' God they don't 'fear' his wrath - because we've passed from death into life by accepting Christ's own sacrifice for us - which was done out of great love.  If 'no greater love has a man than sacrificing his own life for another'... then Christ did the ultimate loving act.

it is possible to worship one God and derive great blessing from it.  if you worship the one TRUE God then all other gods are fairly useless anyways.  take elijah and the prophets of baal.  they cried all day - and flagullated themselves for nothing.  elijah speaks one prayer and zap -  the fire comes down.  now who's God is real?  who can actually argue with that one?

i realize that today - people are looking for the same type of miracles and don't see them  - but they are quietly all around us.  for believers, miracles happen every day.  we get guidance and answer to prayer.  we see God's mercy in dealing with our relationships and our children.  we see our shortcomings and ask God to help us and we always get help in one form or another.  it might be what someone says to us unexpectedly.  it might, on other occasions, actually be an angel who stops to help us or our children - or prevent catastrophe.  and, even if we slip and cause our own brands of catastrophe - they are never beyond what we can handle with Christ.  he shows us our limitations - but that He is limitless.  we have no limit on ourselves in Christ.  if He says 'i will show you all things...'  He will show us all things someday.  maybe not this exact instant - because we are 'in training.'

in basic training you get the basics.  that's what we're in right now.  the basic training.  that's my opinion as i read the bible.  i think we can't see much further than our world.  but, can u imagine another world where everyone is loved the same as one another - and even our close personal relationships are changed (not male/female anymore) to another dimension.

[prometheus]

as i see it - and this is my point of view - if you join the army - what happens?  you are subscribing to their 'doctrine.'  you have a court martial if you suddenly decide it's not for you and and you just want out.

Soldiers 'just follow orders'. Though in theory they have the obligation to ignore orders when they are clearly wrong. But in general they have no room not to follow orders. They are not allowed to think for themselves, at least not when it comes to considering the orders they get.
So soldiers have no responsiblity in any normal case. The responsibility is carried by the superiors. Do you mean that a follower of god also do not have any responsibility for their actions? And bflatminor24, if you are reading this, don't you think this is an example of intolerance of monotheism? Followers are not responsible for their actions as long as they are following gods orders. If you disagree with a believer then you have to argue against god, which is impossible since he is a monotheistic god.

well, israel was first agreeable to obedience to God and then saw other nations doing what they wanted and decided they might worship a few other gods.  this may seem ok at first to anyone who hasn't been in the army.

I don't understand this. Also, do you think tha the power structure in the army is a template for ethical behavior? Bflatminor24, if you are reading this, I actually didn't bring up this point before but monotheism has a particular type or hierarchy which is in nature unethical.
It should be clear to everyone that the power struture used in a military organisation is one selected for its efficiency. Ethical considerations play no role. But then in your mind the most ethical hierarchy of power and the most efficient hierarchy of power are one and the same. This can be one of the results of monotheism. Some historians argue that monotheism favors dictatorship. If there is one ruler in the heavens there should also be one ruler on the earth.

God - in His great mercy (who can resurrect all people)

I am not a compassionate person when it is within my power to be compassionate. I am compassionate when I show acts of compassion. God is only merciful when he shows mercy. And in the bible there are tons of examples of punishments that would be harsh by modern standards.

Allowed the OT people to be an example for us today.

What kind of example is that? I mean, the strongest way to teach ethics is to teach by example. This idea seems to be quite universal. But the morality the OT tries to teach us through example are despicable. Sure, Jesus was a nice guy but people of the ethical quality of Jesus are not found in the OT. It is kind of strange that one of the most immoral personalities of the OT, JHWH, and Jesus are actually the same 'person' because clearly they have very different ideas about what is just and right.

He shows us what is actually possible for us to do.

Killing not only all the woman and children of the enemy but their animals as well?

  He doesn't ask extremely hard things.  i mean - to ask someone to rest isn't exactly a horrific request.

All modern christians break this rule since gods sabbath is on Saturday. But you are right, this would be easy. But this isn't all he asks. He also asks you to kill people that 'work' on sabbath. And work isn't just executing your profession but even the acts of lighting a fire is forbidden on sabbath.

or, to worship one God.

This is absolutely impossible to me. For many many reasons. First of, I can't acknowledge something which is no more than pure fiction. I can't suspend my disbelief. And even if I could I cannot worship an entity as cruel as the OT god. I mean, I can respect Jesus and if he did actually exist he was a unusual great teacher for his time, unlike Muhammed as far as I can tell but many not as great as Gautama Siddharta, but worshipping anyone will be a major leap. Even if there is a venerable and just god who created the whole world I don't really see why I should worship that entity. You also don't worship your best friend.

  to love your neighbor as yourself.

Uuh, do you really love your neighbor as much as yourself? Doesn't this statement actually mean you should love your neightbor, ie be compassionate and caring? How can you love your neighbor more than yourself? You spend 100% of your time on yourself. How much time do you spend on/with your neightbor.

  not to kill or steal or take someone's wife or husband.

Yes, this is the first request God makes I have no problem with. I would argue for this as well. But I actually have a reason as to why to follow this 'rule'.
Plus, you are listing all gods reasonable requests. God makes many brutal requests, or rather demands, on his people. If they don't comply they face cruel punishment. The OT god is clearly very Jealous and proud of it.

to not envy and lie.  these things are not terrible requests.

These are not.

if God asked all of us to sacrifice our firstborn - we might complain a bit - but even abraham trusted God on that one.  it didn't make sense

So is this a terrible request or not? Do you agree with god here? Would you kill your children if god would ask you to? Without any reason given?

but He knew that He was speaking to the true God - and that God was going to make a deliverance - because He had previously told him that through his seed - many nations would come.

I don't understand this.

Christians put two and two together - and although they 'fear' God they don't 'fear' his wrath

Then what aspect of god do they fear? What do their fear and why?

because we've passed from death into life by accepting Christ's own sacrifice for us - which was done out of great love.  If 'no greater love has a man than sacrificing his own life for another'... then Christ did the ultimate loving act.

Christ didn't sacrifice his live since he is immortal. He also did not sacrifice himself for 'a man'. He sacrificed himself for all mankind. Surely there are many many many people that have made greater sacrifices than Jesus.

If you worship the one TRUE God then all other gods are fairly useless anyways.

Bflatminor24, are you reading this? If you have the 'TRUE God' then everything else is useless. You have the 'one truth' and there is no reason to doubt anything.

take elijah and the prophets of baal.  they cried all day - and flagullated themselves for nothing.  elijah speaks one prayer and zap -  the fire comes down.  now who's God is real?  who can actually argue with that one?

If this story is really true then surely Elijah's god is real. But we know for certain that several statements made in the bible are clearly false. Because of this there is no reason to assume the story is true because it is in the bible. The bible is not an authoritative text. This story needs to prove itself. Even if this story if inspired by god it can still be allegorical. And if it is then the events never happened.
Furtermore, this story makes amazing claims. Things that happen in that story do not happen in our world. Never has a person be zapped to death by god. So there is no reason to believe this story is true. Therefore it proves nothing. As for the moral teaching. It clearly teachest hat unbelievers and heretics deserve to die.

I realize that today - people are looking for the same type of miracles and don't see them

If you look for miracles you will find them. You must not look for miracles because then you will deceive yourself. You must observe an event without having any preconception about what you want to find. Only then you will realise what is actually happens.

but that He is limitless.

So can he create a stone he cannot lift? Something can never be limitless or onmipotent. It is a contradiction in terms.

[bflatminor24]

Prometheus, you clearly missed the point of all of the biblical teachings. For example, "love your neighbor as you would love yourself" doesn't literally mean you have to spend every waking second with everyone else. It means that when you interact with other people, show them the kind of care and consideration you would want for yourself. This is a simple and virtuous lesson. How can you argue with that?

And if a Christian believes there is only one God, that doesn't mean he has to slaughter or evangelise other people of different faiths. That is a sick and twisted interpretation of the religious doctrine.

You epitomize poor interpretation - you take every virtue taught in Christianity and you try to apply it to something of depravity. You obviously have poor reading comprehension - you missed every point of the Bible itself. It doesn't even matter how much you read, you obviously didn't get it.

And get this out of your head - disagreement isn't intolerance. Imposing one's will, either by means of violence or intimidation is considered intolerance. One may not agree with abortion, but that doesn't mean he has to shoot doctors who perform the operation. Do you see the difference?

~Max~

[bernhard]

For example, "love your neighbor as you would love yourself" doesn't literally mean you have to spend every waking second with everyone else. It means that when you interact with other people, show them the kind of care and consideration you would want for yourself. This is a simple and virtuous lesson. How can you argue with that?

Actually, I can.

For instance, I would certainly not enjoy a sadist or a masochist loving me the same way they would love themselves.

A much better precept should be: “Love your neighbour as s/he would like to be loved.”

In fact, “Leave your neighbour alone and mind your own business” also suits me fine.

 
Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[thalbergmad]

In fact, “Leave your neighbour alone and mind your own business” also suits me fine.

 

If this had been adhered to, there would not have been a war in the first place.

Thal

[pianistimo]

bernhard always has some good common sense. and, thal! and i appreciate the responses of bflatminor24, too.  it is nice to see that people can disagree and still get along.  i especially appreciated what he said about people not agreeing with abortion - but never thinking or dreaming let alone shooting or bombing abortion clinics.  this would be along the lines that i personally believe.  i know there are people out there that mean well - but if they are using violent means to achieve an end - i don't consider it very christian (or christian at all).  these people are few and far between.  usually, even within their own church they are on the 'fringe.'  some look for others faults instead of looking at themselves first.

prometheus, i respect ur viewpoints as well and find some arguments quite compelling and others not so much to me - because of what i believe biblically.  it is the area of faith that u are truly struggling with and not necessarily reason alone.  u seem to want to understand how God is out of our realm of judgement.  He just is.  how can u judge the one who made u (if u believe it).  He is beyond us.  beyond our understanding.  that's my take.  but, He does show great mercy in taking the pain of death and punishment upon Himself FOR us.  if He had not done this - sin would rule.  this way righteousness rules.  without penalties, crimes mean nothing.

well, gotta catch the fireworks.  more later.

[pianistimo]

ok.  as i see it - and this may be totally off the track (and u might ask other christians on the forum what they think) - God IS a benevolent dictator.  i mean, there's really no difference between the laws that all have some sort of penalty when broken - and the freedom in the new testament to live in Christ.  free from the law of sin and death.  matt 25:34 says '...come you who are blessed by My Father; take ur inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  for i was hungry and you gave me something to eat, thirsty and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger and you invited me in, needed clothes and u clothed me, i was sick and u looked after me, i was in prison and u came to visit me...'

when u become a Christian, you no longer focus on the penalty side - but on the freedom side.  there is no more 'curse' upon u for sin.  it is already forgiven.  but, in thankfulness - we live 'in Christ' and not for ourselves (or are supposed to, anyway).  every morning that u get up - you pray to God to bless ur day - and He does.  it is not a life of the kind of fear of God that is shaky - but 'fear' because you love and respect Him.   as with military commanders - it seems that those who are willing to go out on a limb for those that are under their command - they have absolute love and faithfulness.  those that are not trusting their commander - might look for a time and place to revolt. 

as for soldiers that seemingly 'mindlessly obey orders' - i think it is a concept that only applies if they are being asked to something that they are not thrilled about.  but, if they are fully convinced of the concept or strategy then they are behind the operation 100%.  with God - he starts off very simply.  with teaching israel first (as one nation) and not all the nations.  he uses israel as an example of how the world could be under one God.  but, they wanted a king like all the other nations.  so, He gave them a king (Saul, David, Solomon...) but he also warned them that as soon as they chose man as a king - they would be taxed - their sons would be conscripted - etc. etc.  the authority that we answer to today is not of God.  if they had been satisfied to keep God as their authority - they wouldn't have had so many problems because God would fight their battles for them.  he still did through righteous kings - but the unrighteous ones caused a lot of pain and sufferring for the people that were under them.  so it is today with many rulers. 

i happen to think that there IS such a thing as manifest destiny, though...and whether we understand or agree with the war and everything that is leading up to possibly a world war - that it is a sort of destiny for God to be able to show His glory to all the nations.  that He is an able God and able to defend the weak and those who struggle from day to day - after all - he said that 'the meek will inherit the earth.'  i don't think he means weak minded - or doormat weaklings - but those who put their strength in God and not in weapons.  i think president bush (either knowingly or unknowingly) is an instrument for God's purpose and because He trusts in God - cannot help be blessed by Him despite the hardships now and possibly bad results of some bad choices (or that seem bad to us - despite being a tit for tat when you look at all the highjackings, abductions, beheadings, bombings, etc).  tit for tat never really works, though.  i'm glad that the guantanamo thing is getting behind us and that they release prisoners that had been there for a while and not worrying about trying them for crimes.  they already did the time and it wasn't fun.  being merciless has no purpose other than to make the enemy hate us more.  i admire bush though because they certainly know that he isn't a pushover.

[thracozaag]

In fact, “Leave your neighbour alone and mind your own business” also suits me fine.

 
Best wishes,
Bernhard.

  I certainly agree with this precept; unfortunately, it's hasn't really been adhered to by a certain religious sect, sadly.

koji

[ahinton]

  I certainly agree with this precept; unfortunately, it's hasn't really been adhered to by a certain religious sect, sadly.

No, indeed it hasn't - although, to be fair, those non-adherents are for the most part the noisiest and most dangerously threatening members of that sect rather than that sect in its absolute entirety. The kind of belligerence in which some of these people that we call "terrorists" indulge is indeed reprehensible in the extreme, but it is equally sadly not exclusive to them; I live in UK and have very little time for what the UK government has done in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

  I certainly agree with this precept; unfortunately, it's hasn't really been adhered to by a certain religious sect, sadly.

koji

Are you calling the Bush-regime a religious sect

[ahinton]

Are you calling the Bush-regime a religious sect

I don't think either that he is doing do or that you believe that he is doing so - but I daresay there really are some people out there who might do so...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

using the word 'crusade' implies a religious reason to be there.  this was a poor choice of words.  i think that President Bush meant that he wanted to help them set up a democracy.  but, even that is not a word they are friendly to.  they neither want christianity or democracy as we have it.  and, they have the freedom to set up the government that most fits them.  i don't think we can do anything more except to help them avoid extreme tyranny (as saddam's regime was) - unfortunately picking an arbitrary country and helping them makes others seem less important.  darfur, north korea...all these places have extremists and people who commit atrocities right and left.  we are becoming a sort of babysitter with 'kids gone wild.'  we can't possibly babysit right now because as i see it - we have a national need going on right now to secure our borders.  and, we need to give full citizenship to the people who have been living and working here and contributing to society.  i do hope that President Bush offers amnesty to anyone who has survived the flight to freedom.  (i don't think their relatives are going to go on a mass march to keep them from being citizens because they didn't do it exactly the same way.  but, i do think that there is a procedure and that once they are here - they need to know what procedures to follow and not have it drag out endlessly). 

i watched a show about some teenagers in arizona that were being held in a detention facility. they were here ALONE and were afraid of being shipped back to mexico.  they had no family here whatsoever and noone to speak for them or be their lawyer.  for these kind of situations - i think we should show the world that it is possible to live in peace and to be kind.  to allow people who want a chance - and who are already learning english and doing excellently at their training - not to be shipped back if they do not want to be.  but, we need a deadline as to when all this is changed.  when the borders are secure then we will not be able to take people illegally as before - because it won't be possible for them to cross the border illegally.

to me, this is sort of like the relationship we have with canada.  we are brothers and always have been.  we never really fought that much or had a reason to fight. we're all on the same continent and we fight for the same types of freedoms.  to live and work, and thrive in an environment that allows families to grow and be able to be educated without undue burdens of economic hardship.  anwya, sorry for the long winded post - but that's why i feel our troops should come back.

[Kassaa]

https://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/18464/Eyewitness_Testimony_Of_US_Rape_Murder_Of_Iraqi_Family

[pianistimo]

this may be another reason to get out.  extended stays of military make people crazy.  this is uncalled for - and i think i heard about it on the news.  i have no facts about it to confirm or deny - but it sounded like they might be tried in iraq? 

i think all soldiers face a very tough job.  they are given a responsibility to carry out their orders.  i don't think this was an order, was it?  a gross mistake and representation of the military as a whole.  there are others who are very concerned about the iraqi people.  otherwise, why would they be over there risking their lives for iraqi freedom and for them to have a stable government?

ps this is another reason i feel that God is the only one to solve the world's problems.  when he says he'll 'wipe away every tear' - he doesn't mean the tears of only one people's.