First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Christianity
Posted 1/17/12

longfenglim wrote:



4&5. No, God made a convenant with Moses on Sanai,

Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

He certainly didn't bring Gentiles out of Egypt. This is meant that God gave 613 Mizvot, which are categorised within the Ten Commandment.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot identify the following ten categories of mitzvot. Other religions divide this passage differently. Please remember that these are categories of the 613 mitzvot, which according to Jewish tradition are binding only upon Jews. The only mitzvot binding upon gentiles are the seven Noahic commandments.

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."

2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.

4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.

5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."

6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.

9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).

10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."


They were never binding on gentiles, and, indeed, they aren't even commandments, they are categories of Commandments (Mizvot). If it were put on Gentiles, they would have violated number two (idols- that is what a cross is, after all), one (I am the L-rd, your G-d,..., which, if taken with the Shema Yisrael- hear Oh Israel, I am the Lord your God, the Lord is One. means that Christianity already violated it, not only by accepting Three Gods- the three in one thing, but also by saying that Satan is a powerful enough spirit to rule outre God, and to be able to create evil), 4 (When was the last time you kept Shabbos), 6 (Didn't stop the inquisition did it?), 9 (Basically saying that Jews plotted to Kill Jesus in their own holy book, when no other record can attest to it http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/04/did_the_jews_kill_jesus.html). So, basically, all of them. How does that feel, to want something that you would repeatedly violate anyways?
To be frank, it sounds kinda like this:

If that's not self-righteousness, then I don't know what is.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/17/12 , edited 1/17/12

alupihan45 wrote:

first, i didn't said that all of this are the same. I didn't said that voodoo is about praying to the dead. And I am not saying that feng shui requires a belief. So i guess you didn't freakin' understand or you just cherry picked my post.



I'm sorry, I quoted someone who said this:

before I became a Christian, i'm an believer or[sic] voodoo, witchcraft or sorcery and anything we call Black Art. I pray to dead spirits before for guidance and help. And with a strong Chinese culture with me, i believe in a lot of charms, feng shui and many stuff. ask me when something good happened to me when I did this?


Meaning, that this person believed that Voodoo, Witchcraft, and Sorcery's belief include praying to dead spirits- which is not true, as Witchcraft never existed, Sorcery just means any sort of Magic, which does not include ritual, and Voodoo, which, as I have shown, belief in the One God, manifested in the entity of several Lwas, who mediates between the One God and the People.


alupihan45 wrote:
very well, cite this Olympian God's wrath. I am not even convincing anyone here the existence of God. All i did in this thread is to explain the Christian side of faith. And those who triumph against us, let me ask you, where are they now? It is not my defense-machanism to comfort myself with such things. As a matter of fact, I would leave my religion but everytime I look in the current events, I see us, Christians everywhere. Where is the people who truimph against us?


Refer to Homer, Hesoid, Ovid, Virgil, et. al. You are proslyting. That is why you created this tread- you do not honestly think that you can show Christianity any more better than books written upon this subject by specialists, do you? Then why preach? Why dare me to 'try and show a part of the body that doesn't have a function?' if it weren't so? Then you say you see Christians everywhere- maybe because you live in a Christian community. And that there aren't anyone who have triumphed against you all- except maybe that you have triumphed against yourself- you have been murdering people amongst your own sect for the wrong way to believe that God loves us for over several centuries now, the Romish Martyrs in England and the Cathars can attest to that. Then, there is the spirit of Secularism, which has defeated Religion in most civilised nation, reigns almost universally, although American Churches may seem powerful, they are just a subset of Business, and their wealth simply buys their political power. But, you may say, how about the individual believers, who grow less day after day? I don't need to answer that, as education makes a man less religious, and, as more grow educated, less use faith as a clutch.


alupihan45 wrote:


and for crying out loud, by this nth time of repitition, you should have known that it is not about the watch. It is about a thing-created not by natural means and not about how sophisticated the watch it. MY GOSH!


My Gosh, you still don't get it. Evolution is the process by which a certain species adapt to its enviorment. Like these less sophisticated watches, it grows more sophisticated to match its need, some watch grow sophisticated enough to have a little dial for days of the week, the hours, the day, the month, etc, for those who want those sort of thing, while some are less sophisticated for the people who don't need that sort of thing. They adapt to taste, we, creatures of flesh, adapt to our enviorment's taste, through the Natural Process of Evolution, just as watches adapt due to the Process of Changing Taste, what was fashionable grow out of fashion and is abandoned, while what is good is kept, just as what is needful in one enviorment grows in fashion, while what isn't adapted to it grows out of it. Watches may not be created by natural means, but only because it is not something artificial, created for human convience, while We are Natural, We are creatures as well, doth the watch have life as we do? Of course not.



That is why to settle this, name me the parts with no use and i'll prove you wrong. You just keep on avoiding my challenge.

and for your information, I can remove one of my eye and still live. I can remove one of my finger and still function well.


The male nipple.



hah, you thought I was here to convert people?

only in arab countries where they practice state religion! Japan was defeated terribly by the USA and in the present they are still America's b***h. China was asking America to not help Philippines on their stuggle in the Spratly's (why is that? scared) Why is China's communism starting to collapse. They can't obliterate religion in your country. About France and Europe, again, all the nations in the world are already secular.


I don't know which is more lacking, you knowledge of World Politics or your Understanding of Religion and Reason. First, China is huge, it Communist Party, sadly, is in no danger, it has several hundred Nuclear Missiles, and that Struggle over Spratly is because America wants to extend its influance there, as does China, so, congratualations, you have your choice between two Empires, one Communist, and the Other Capitalist, one hugely indebted to the other, and another just waiting to recall its fund to drive the other to the Poor House, Nukes aimed at each other, ready to fire. They both want it, and they are both basically telling the other to back off, China uses their excuse to get America to go away, America uses her excuse to get China to Go away, and, in the end, you are stuck between choosing one Empire- the Americans, and another- the Chinese. Naturally, I'm in America, so I am not fucked, but you are. Then you say that Japan is America's Bitch, you have no idea about World Politics do you? Japan also has a large share in our debt, if they pull back, we would be hurting bad. And about the rest of the world being secular- my point exactly, there aren't any Christian Nations.
Canute 
30276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/18/12 , edited 1/18/12

longfenglim wrote:


Canute wrote:

In God, we live, move and have our being. We are separate from him as regards to that which He gave us and sustains: our mind, soul, will, and body. But at the same time, He completely permeates them so that each movement of our souls and bodies are known to Him. He also gives us permission to use them according to our will. If this were not so, we would neither be able to move nor to think because we are completely immersed in God. The fact that he gave us a soul and a body which we can use as we please does not mean that he is not present in them.


And there is a contradiction in this- he allows us will so that we may act as we please, yet, by doing that, it means that there exist a place that he does not exist, meaning, even if it is by his own volition, he is still not infinite. If he does not have absolute sovereignty over our will, there is then a limit to his infinite nature, but, if he does, we would be but mere puppets, thoughtless creatures. But let us continue with another line of thought, if he could contract himself, and allow us room to freely act on our will, this will, then, exist outside of God, not because he allows it, but because it must come from somewhere and still not be part of God. God may create it, but if he did create it, he must create either create it from himself, making it part of himself, and therefore, it is not truly free, but a part of God, or he must create it outré, meaning that there must exist something outside himself, making him already not infinite. You contend that it is free, but that can’t be the case if it is merely a part of God, so it must come outré God, and that would imply that there are things that exist outré God, which contradicts his infinite nature. Of course, you would have to say that God is part of our will, and there is no free will.


Interesting line of argument. I believe that we both have free will and that God, being infinite, cannot create something outside of himself. In the beginning, nothing save God existed. Then He called everything into being with his Word. Now, a carpenter makes a table, and he can be sure that the table will remain intact and not disappear when he leaves it alone, because the table consists of a durable substance. However, creation is based in God's Word. Words only remain as long as the speaker says them. The reason matter doesn't disappear, the reason there is such a scientific law as the indestructibility of matter, is that God continually speaks the word of each thing in existence--to put it more simply, he sustains them.

Therefore, the will of each person is sustained by God, and if God were to leave off sustaining it, a person would cease to have a will. If God removes himself from the mind, that mind is no more. But, the fact that God sustains the will and even is present therein need not make free-will impossible. God can choose what kind of will a being has. Angels and human beings have free-will. Animals do not. The presence of God hopefully influences people to do good, but they still have the option of obeying evil influences. The will remains free because a person can choose between good and evil.

Basically, I don't see how the fact that everything is sustained through God's Word makes it impossible for creatures to have free-will.


Canute wrote:
Using mathematics to show how God orders the universe was a bad choice on alupihan45's part to illustrate how God orders the universe. Mathematical concepts are completely objective and non-contingent. As Longfenglim said, 1 + 1 always equals 2 as long as one signifies what we all mean to be one. One rather has to look at the structure of the universe. Let's use the example of Earth. It is perfectly positioned in our solar system for life to exist here. We have an ozone layer protecting us from harmful forms of radiation. (Isn't it a bit of a wonder that there is enough oxygen on this planet to support both an ozone layer and living things?) And we have planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus to absorb most of the meteors that come our way. Then, there is the presence of reason both in the structure of the world and in human beings. Here's a few questions for you to solve: if Reason did not act in the creation of the universe and its laws, how can there be reason in a creature, who is so much less than the universe? Reason is not necessary for other creatures to survive, why should any creature have it? Even more surprising, how can life come from a dead, material universe unless there is one ultimate, creative Source of life?




longfenglimIt is by mere cosmic accident that we are lucky to live upon this planet, and it is entirely possible that there exist another planet which can support life, and other planets that does support life. Such accident, which shall not mean as it commonly means, but shall mean ‘chance and random occurrence’ which we may take to result from the natural, objective, and scientific laws that governs the universe, may occur elsewhere, may occur in another galaxy beyond our reach, may result in an equally vile and odious race of disgusting creeping things and vermins, satisfied in that they live in somewhere inhabitable, and unsatisfied in that it is inhabitable, and doing all to rectify that. Such accident of placement, Scientist have found, exist commonly in our wide universe, and such happy accident may produce life, and, if we are lucky, life to match us in intellectual abilities. But such speculations are still speculations, and I am not qualified to make any speculations upon such things in which I am unlearned. But, then, you ask of reason’s existence. I think reason’s existence is obvious, it gives us the advantage in our hunting, we are more intelligent than the other beast, we are better able to organise and kill them and perpetuate our survival. Although the world seems mechanistic, Man need not be so, and why should he?


Yes, it can be argued that the perfect placement of our plant is a cosmic accident. Yet, the presence of reason and life are too difficult to explain, rationally, without reason and life already existing in addition to matter. For example, reason is not only used in survival and building, but in very abstruse fields like philosophy and theology, which, save in the realm of ethics, have nothing at all to do with survival. Pure mathematics is another field which tends to be unnecessary for survival. (Unless you look at these three things as a way for teachers to get jobs, anyway.) Nature does nothing uselessly. Either reason came from matter or matter from reason. If the world came from matter, there is certainly no purpose to the possession of a faculty capable of considering abstractions. The fact that humans beings have this faculty to understand the abstract points to a metaphysical reality.

Then, those who don't believe in a Prime Mover believe that life began out of a certain collection of elements, which under certain primordial conditions became single celled organisms—the start of evolution. This is rather like the spontaneous generation theory, which Louis Pasteur effectively disproved. It is an incredible leap to go from something non-living to something living. So, there must already be life present for material beings to possess life. This life must be eternal, because if it is not eternal, then something preceded it. If that was not eternal, then something was before it and so on. This would result in a chain of non-eternal living beings, but no explanation for the chain. Only God meets all the requirements to be the first cause of life.


Canute wrote:

As you say, the survival of Christianity during some of these periods of tribulation seems unremarkable compared to how other religions have survived. What is remarkable, however, is how it not only survived, but even grew while facing persecutions from the Jews and the Roman Empire. Is it not remarkable that what began on Pentecost with 12 people increased to hundreds of thousands under such conditions?



longfenglimI do not find it anymore remarkable than the fact that Socialism and Communism was able to spread despite Government suppression, and was able to become a might that make the world tremble. I do not find it any more remarkable than the Paris Commune was able to throw off the useless French Government and establish their own government, the most democratic heretofore. It spread, but it spread underground, and that does not make it more valid. In China, the government suppresses religion, yet, the more suppressed the religion is, the faster it grows, the Falun Gong- mad as they are- the Christians in the illiterate Country-side, Buddhism amongst everyone, that traditional Chinese blend of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and it shows right after the Communist Party reallows faith, that it grows rapidly. It is hardly unique nor amazing.


The Falun Gong's rise is comparable to Christianity's, except that the Chinese government did not persecute them from the very start, which allowed their numbers to increase a substantial amount before persecution hit. Similarly, Communists were originally an academic movement, persecution didn't begin until they initiated anti-government activities. Also, the level of persecution suffered by communists isn't comparable to that suffered by Christians until the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930's, unless you know a source documenting large scale executions of communists before October Revolution.

But the Falun Gong is very similar. The difference between the two would have to be that Christianity spread with miracles, i.e. signs that God was behind it. Without miracles, it would not have spread. Of course, one may argue that there was a spiritual vacuum in the ancient world caused by disbelief in the traditional pagan religions. But without miracles, pagans would have viewed Christianity as just another collection of fables; therefore, it would not have spread without these signs that God was supporting it. In the same way, the Catholic Church records tens of thousands of miracles and cures which science has no way of explaining up until the present day.


Canute wrote:
As for Islam, don't forget that its founder was the leader of a group of bandits, and they used the sword to a much greater extent than they used words.



longfenglimWhich is completely untrue, Muhammad was actually a merchant before he turned to founding a religion. And all his friends were more like business partners whom he convinced to go along with the ride.


Not completely untrue. Everyone knows Mohamed started out as a merchant but his latter career much more closely resembles that of a bandit (or warlord, if you want to give a more exalted title to him). But, what would you expect from someone who said: “The sword is the key to heaven and hell”? Just read Jihad in the West by Paul Fregosi or The Sword of the Prophet by Sergei Trifkovic. You will see that Muhammad used murder and terror in suppressing groups unfriendly to him, often held hostages, and raided caravans belonging to his opponents in Mecca. Then, his career culminated in sacking Mecca. The history of Christian religious wars is nothing compared to Islam's. Especially when you consider that a good portion of the Christian religious wars were internal affairs, rather than the people of one country trying to force their religion on another one.


Canute wrote:
Perhaps China was never in danger of being overrun by Mahometans, but Europe certainly was! Just look at their domination of Spain, the Balkans, and even half of Italy at one point! What would have happened had not Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732?


longfenglimSpain is the exact reason why the Mahometans would never have conquered Europe- not only did they settle down after the Battle of Tours, they spent most of that time splitting amongst themselves and killing each other over two inches of Spanish sand, they sometimes even allied themselves with Christian Spaniard Kings for the sake of killing enemy Mahometan lords. If they had settled down in Europe, I suspect that it would eventually come to that, splitting up amongst themselves and killing each other to add another pebble to their domain.


Canute wrote:
What it the Ottoman Empire had not been broken by the heroism of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland during the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683?


longfenglimWell, I have to agree with that, not on principles, but because I hate Turk, those savage Armenian murderers.




Nice expansion in just a little over one hundred years.



As you can see, Europe's in big trouble, especially from the Ottoman Empire, as we agree.


Canute wrote:

If the pope had not convinced Catholics to send aid to the Emperor of Constantinople during the Crusades, the Muslims would have marched into Europe at a much faster pace. For that reason, the Crusades were more of a defensive war than a war of conquest. Though the Fourth Crusade was a disgrace, one cannot say that religious authorities approved of the Sack of Constantinople, because the Pope excommunicated all those involved. They were supposed to help the Byzantines, not sack their capital!



longfenglimAt that time, the Mahometans were split fighting amongst themselves, and, while some have attempted to attack the Byzantine Empire, they were, on the whole, more busy trying to kill each other, the Sunnis killing the Shias, this Kingdom trying to conquer that Kingdom, if anything, the Crusade hasten the death of Byzantium, not only did they manage to unite the Mahometan in their hatred of the Latins, but they also managed to sake Constantinople, a regrettable affair, and weaken it by having it support the influx of Latin troops with food and other necessities.


Looking at the way Muslims expanded in the maps above, it's apparent that Muslims wished to spread the borders of Islam by conquest. As for the Crusades hastening the death of Byzantium, I'd like to respectfully disagree. The above mentioned disgraceful Fourth Crusade occurred during the years 1202 – 1204. The seventh and last crusade, led by St. Louis IX of France, occurred from 1248-1250. The capital city of Constantinople was effectively cut off from Europe around 1359 (109 years later) and fell in 1534 (284 years later). So, I think that they likely helped the corrupt Byzantine Empire survive a little bit longer. If they had been detrimental to Byzantium's existence, the empire would have fallen much sooner. At least, the Crusades certainly distracted the Seljuk Turks from the conquest of Byzantium, which they were in the process of assimilating into their empire before the First Crusade occurred.

As for the Crusades making Muslims hate Europeans more, that's true. But, even if Muslims didn't hate them, they still would have waged war against them.


Canute wrote:

Yes, Europe has had a history of Anti-Semitism ever since some Vikings responded at the end of Passion narrative that they should "destroy that people which had killed so great and honorable a man!" But, this is not the understanding of the Church. And the treatment of the Jews tended to vary by country. For example, England was always very just in its treatment of Jews save during the hysteria of the Black Plague.



longfenglimEngland also expelled the Jews during Edward the First, and only welcomed them back much latter, in Sixteen Fifty Six, about several Centuries, which is probably why they were ‘tolerant’, they had no Jews, at least no Public Jews, to persecute. They were chased about Germany, and eventually settled in Poland, which, for that time, was tolerant. Priest perpetuate the myth that all Jews were the murderers of Christ, and that his blood is ‘upon them’, which have been continually used to justify pogroms. Spain forced them to convert, or leave- failing in either of those two option, they would murder them. It wasn’t limited to the Northmen, France, for example, and Italy, German, and all these nations, while they have had a portion of their land inhabited by Northmen, Normandy comes to mind, most of their land were not conquered by the Vikings. It is not limited to Vikings, it is a European pandemic.


To tell the truth, I don't want to defend European anti-Semitism. But, I wouldn't blame priests for this. Even if you find sermons saying that the Jews killed Christ, strictly speaking about Good Friday and the machinations of the Sanhedrin, it's completely true. If the Jews did not hand Jesus over to Pilate and insist on His death, the Romans would not have executed Him. But, what a priest would prefer to emphasize to his congregation is how they—through their sins—caused Christ's death. Looking at the Passion in that manner produces repentance. Looking at it from the perspective of it only being the Jews' fault only produces prejudice, which is not only useless but detrimental to a person's soul. No good priest would give a sermon for the purpose of inspiring hatred for another group of people!


Canute wrote:

It was not the Jews who killed Christ, but I who killed Christ, and so has every man born under original sin. That is the understanding of the Church. As far as it knows, only St. Mary is exempt from this charge. Indeed, Christ could have redeemed us all with a word, but he chose instead to propitiate God's justice by the shedding of His blood. How much more valuable is it for us to see the very evil of sin by seeing what it cost the innocent, all-Holy Son of God! Don't forget that the fact that He would become a victim for our sins was foreshadowed in the Old Testament by all those spotless lambs offered up as holocausts. His Sacred Passion and Death was the most edifying way he could atone for our sins, because it showed us the greatness of His Love, actually cost Him something, and motivates us to avoid sin and follow His commandments.




He missed one form of repentance: capital punishment. People sometimes don't think of this as a way to atone, because one doesn't live afterwards, which makes it the greatest penance possible. St. Joseph Cafasso, who was famed for helping condemned men, would console these men with the thought that a shameful death was the greatest penance anyone could undertake (to assure the most distraught, he even gave them messages to bring to God, saying that they would be sure to enter heaven immediately), and they died so happily that some of the executioners said: “With Don Cafasso present, death is no longer death, but a comfort, a joy, and a pleasure.”

Jesus died for all sins, including the most horrible you can imagine. The only way to atone for such a crime is through capital punishment. Some people would even add being tortured to death. Wishing to suffer even in the place of the worst sinners, Jesus was beaten constantly, had His flesh torn up by scourges, had a painful crown piercing His head, was forced to carry the instrument of His own execution, had His limbs dislocated, was nailed to two wooden planks as if He were an inanimate object, and for His last three hours submitted to cruel mockery by the bystanders.

But, what makes this death have enough merit to cover all sins is the fact that Jesus is God and therefore infinite. So, his death can atone for an infinite number of sins. Of course, this would be impossible in the case of a someone who was only a man, but Jesus is both God and Man. The prohibition on human sacrifice does not apply to God.
46437 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 1/23/12
I'm an atheist but support the idea of capital punishment as penance for serious crimes that have caused undue suffering, death and misery to the innocent. My justification with it, despite being an atheist, aligns with the Biblical concept that the government, endowed by a creator, has the power to judge a human if correctly convicted that death is the most appropriate punishment. My reasoning for this since I lack belief in a creator is that the killing of another is a crime regardless of who does the killing. So how does this absolve the government of the exact same act? If killing is a crime then wouldn't the government also be guilty of that crime? Basically in the absence of an actual deity, the government itself basically takes the role of God in such matters. Just like God is by default absolved of any guilt, need for penance, restitution for any acts committed by him including the killing of innocents and mass killings. So are the authorities entrusted with preserving order, and the maximum amount of freedom and happiness to the people by necessary executions.
Posted 1/23/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

I'm an atheist but support the idea of capital punishment as penance for serious crimes that have caused undue suffering, death and misery to the innocent. My justification with it, despite being an atheist, aligns with the Biblical concept that the government, endowed by a creator, has the power to judge a human if correctly convicted that death is the most appropriate punishment. My reasoning for this since I lack belief in a creator is that the killing of another is a crime regardless of who does the killing. So how does this absolve the government of the exact same act? If killing is a crime then wouldn't the government also be guilty of that crime? Basically in the absence of an actual deity, the government itself basically takes the role of God in such matters. Just like God is by default absolved of any guilt, need for penance, restitution for any acts committed by him including the killing of innocents and mass killings. So are the authorities entrusted with preserving order, and the maximum amount of freedom and happiness to the people by necessary executions.
So can the German Nazi's "final solution", aka political genocide towards the Jews, be justified by your reasoning?

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution

AUSCHWITZ: THE CORRUPTION

At the Auschwitz camp, a large amount of wealth was stolen from the Jews. The Goldjuden or Jews of gold were in charge of handling the money, gold, stocks, and jewelry. They subjected the prisoners to an intimate search just before the gas chambers. Jewish women had relationships with SS guards to save their life.

So called camp doctors, especially the notorious Josef Mengele, would torture and inflict incredible suffering on Jewish children, Gypsy children and many others. Patients were put into pressure chambers, tested with drugs, castrated, frozen to death and exposed to various other traumas.

Josef Mengele, did a number of twin studies, and these twins were usually murdered after the experiment was over and their bodies dissected. In the case of the twins, he drew sketches of each twin, for comparison. Mengele was almost fanatical about drawing blood from twins, mostly identical twins. Only a few survived....
Canute 
30276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/12 , edited 1/24/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

I'm an atheist but support the idea of capital punishment as penance for serious crimes that have caused undue suffering, death and misery to the innocent. My justification with it, despite being an atheist, aligns with the Biblical concept that the government, endowed by a creator, has the power to judge a human if correctly convicted that death is the most appropriate punishment. My reasoning for this since I lack belief in a creator is that the killing of another is a crime regardless of who does the killing. So how does this absolve the government of the exact same act? If killing is a crime then wouldn't the government also be guilty of that crime? Basically in the absence of an actual deity, the government itself basically takes the role of God in such matters. Just like God is by default absolved of any guilt, need for penance, restitution for any acts committed by him including the killing of innocents and mass killings. So are the authorities entrusted with preserving order, and the maximum amount of freedom and happiness to the people by necessary executions.


Not every killing is a crime. In the cases of self-defense, killing enemy combatants, and executing condemned men, there is no guilt for the one who does such a thing. In the first case, one has a right to protect his own person; so, if one is attacked with a deadly weapon and kills his assailant, there's no guilt for the one who defended himself. In the other two cases, the one who kills is given this right by a lawful authority, the government. The government, representing the people of a nation, has the right to wage just wars either in self-defense or the defense of its allies. Soldiers are the instruments which the government uses for this purpose and do not receive any guilt unless they deliberately kill non-combatants or kill combatants who are incapacitated or surrender. As for men condemned after a court trial, they are deserving of death because of the gravity of their crime and, because they may commit a similar crime later on, they ought to be killed in order to defend law abiding citizens. So, self-defense may be said to be the basis for all lawful killings.

God does not need to be absolved when he kills! God does not do evil. God, being the author of life, has certain rights which no body of men can claim. When He either actively takes a life or permits someone to die by another's hand, he rewards the just and the innocent in heaven, while he punishes the unrepentant with hell. Heaven is the true homeland of all men. Death is the means by which God brings them there. On the other hand, when a person kills, he does not give that person anything other than death--he takes away everything that person has on this earth. So, there had better be a just cause for the killing.

Governments, on the other hand, are bound to follow the laws of morality which are universal. The ones which do not are worthy of being destroyed. I think that you'd agree. If a government kills people who are just and innocent, they are not automatically absolved of this. Instead, the people of that nation should rise up and bring these murderers to justice, because killing the just and the innocent is never right unless God is the one taking the earthly life of a person so that He can bestow a heavenly one.
Posted 1/25/12 , edited 1/25/12

Canute wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:



Not every killing is a crime. In the cases of self-defense, killing enemy combatants, and executing condemned men, there is no guilt for the one who does such a thing. In the first case, one has a right to protect his own person; so, if one is attacked with a deadly weapon and kills his assailant, there's no guilt for the one who defended himself. In the other two cases, the one who kills is given this right by a lawful authority, the government. The government, representing the people of a nation, has the right to wage just wars either in self-defense or the defense of its allies. Soldiers are the instruments which the government uses for this purpose and do not receive any guilt unless they deliberately kill non-combatants or kill combatants who are incapacitated or surrender. As for men condemned after a court trial, they are deserving of death because of the gravity of their crime and, because they may commit a similar crime later on, they ought to be killed in order to defend law abiding citizens. So, self-defense may be said to be the basis for all lawful killings.

God does not need to be absolved when he kills! God does not do evil. God, being the author of life, has certain rights which no body of men can claim. When He either actively takes a life or permits someone to die by another's hand, he rewards the just and the innocent in heaven, while he punishes the unrepentant with hell. Heaven is the true homeland of all men. Death is the means by which God brings them there. On the other hand, when a person kills, he does not give that person anything other than death--he takes away everything that person has on this earth. So, there had better be a just cause for the killing.


Governments, on the other hand, are bound to follow the laws of morality which are universal. The ones which do not are worthy of being destroyed. I think that you'd agree. If a government kills people who are just and innocent, they are not automatically absolved of this. Instead, the people of that nation should rise up and bring these murderers to justice, because killing the just and the innocent is never right unless God is the one taking the earthly life of a person so that He can bestow a heavenly one.
Year right, when the fact is all modern self-defense class don't teach the use of lethal force(even I only teach counterstrike, take-down, submission hold, and trapping that won't cause death). You're just full of self-righteous BS, much like your biblical God of warfare from the old testament, Yahweh

The Ten Commandments- the basis of our laws and morals
Are the biblical Ten Commandments REALLY responsible for our laws and morality, as many Christians claim? Do we owe anything to them at all? Should they be considered significant? Displayed in public buildings such as schools and courts?

Yahweh, the old testament god, looked into the future and discovered that the mighty western civilization was getting by without paying all that much attention to his commandments, so he thought about changing them a bit in order for them to be reflective of the actual laws and values we hold to.
Canute 
30276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/12

DomFortress wrote:


Canute wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:



Not every killing is a crime. In the cases of self-defense, killing enemy combatants, and executing condemned men, there is no guilt for the one who does such a thing. In the first case, one has a right to protect his own person; so, if one is attacked with a deadly weapon and kills his assailant, there's no guilt for the one who defended himself. In the other two cases, the one who kills is given this right by a lawful authority, the government. The government, representing the people of a nation, has the right to wage just wars either in self-defense or the defense of its allies. Soldiers are the instruments which the government uses for this purpose and do not receive any guilt unless they deliberately kill non-combatants or kill combatants who are incapacitated or surrender. As for men condemned after a court trial, they are deserving of death because of the gravity of their crime and, because they may commit a similar crime later on, they ought to be killed in order to defend law abiding citizens. So, self-defense may be said to be the basis for all lawful killings.

God does not need to be absolved when he kills! God does not do evil. God, being the author of life, has certain rights which no body of men can claim. When He either actively takes a life or permits someone to die by another's hand, he rewards the just and the innocent in heaven, while he punishes the unrepentant with hell. Heaven is the true homeland of all men. Death is the means by which God brings them there. On the other hand, when a person kills, he does not give that person anything other than death--he takes away everything that person has on this earth. So, there had better be a just cause for the killing.


Governments, on the other hand, are bound to follow the laws of morality which are universal. The ones which do not are worthy of being destroyed. I think that you'd agree. If a government kills people who are just and innocent, they are not automatically absolved of this. Instead, the people of that nation should rise up and bring these murderers to justice, because killing the just and the innocent is never right unless God is the one taking the earthly life of a person so that He can bestow a heavenly one.
Year right, when the fact is all modern self-defense class don't teach the use of lethal force(even I only teach counterstrike, take-down, submission hold, and trapping that won't cause death). You're just full of self-righteous BS, much like your biblical God of warfare from the old testament, Yahweh

The Ten Commandments- the basis of our laws and morals
Are the biblical Ten Commandments REALLY responsible for our laws and morality, as many Christians claim? Do we owe anything to them at all? Should they be considered significant? Displayed in public buildings such as schools and courts?

Yahweh, the old testament god, looked into the future and discovered that the mighty western civilization was getting by without paying all that much attention to his commandments, so he thought about changing them a bit in order for them to be reflective of the actual laws and values we hold to.


So, do the elderly and the untrained have to resort to hand to hand combat when faced with a deadly threat? If someone starts firing at me with a gun, is it wrong for me to shoot to kill? There are times when one must choose between killing or being killed. In my country, firearms owned by law abiding citizens are used over two million times a year to prevent a crime. Sure, most felons either surrender or run away when their intended victim produces a gun. However, certain others are either crazy or don't believe you'll really use it, leaving the person no choice but to kill. You won't find a single court in this country which will convict someone for killing in self-defense. You apparently have more pity for rapists, murders, and violent thugs than their intended victims. Perhaps you prefer all societies to be more like Great Britain's: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf.

And yes, the Ten Commandments are indeed the basis for laws in the Western world. Over time, many laws deriving from the precepts of secular humanism were added onto it, such as gay marriage and abortion rights (both of which we'd be better off without), but the source of our most basic laws is still the Ten Commandments.
Posted 1/25/12 , edited 1/26/12

Canute wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



So, do the elderly and the untrained have to resort to hand to hand combat when faced with a deadly threat? If someone starts firing at me with a gun, is it wrong for me to shoot to kill? There are times when one must choose between killing or being killed. In my country, firearms owned by law abiding citizens are used over two million times a year to prevent a crime. Sure, most felons either surrender or run away when their intended victim produces a gun. However, certain others are either crazy or don't believe you'll really use it, leaving the person no choice but to kill. You won't find a single court in this country which will convict someone for killing in self-defense. You apparently have more pity for rapists, murders, and violent thugs than their intended victims. Perhaps you prefer all societies to be more like Great Britain's: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf.

And yes, the Ten Commandments are indeed the basis for laws in the Western world. Over time, many laws deriving from the precepts of secular humanism were added onto it, such as gay marriage and abortion rights (both of which we'd be better off without), but the source of our most basic laws is still the Ten Commandments.
Do you know what's the number one killer within the western developed societies? Not murder, not crime, but rather preventable lifestyle diseases due to sheer ignorance.

Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food
Sharing powerful stories from his anti-obesity project in Huntington, W. Va., TED Prize winner Jamie Oliver makes the case for an all-out assault on our ignorance of food.
So why there aren't "thou shall exercise", "thou shall eat healthy", "thou shall meditate"?

And in your country of guns and violence, crime rate fell mainly due to legalize abortion. Not more guns.

Abortions and Crime: Freakonomics Movie
Levitt takes you through his research on the relationship between dropping crime and the legalization of abortion.

Clip from the 2010 documentary "Freakonomics: The Movie". A dream team of directors explore the hidden side of everything.
So where's the "thou shall have better family planning"? How's your "pro-life" opinion and homophobia preventing the stonewalling of clergy child-molesters within the faith?

Prairie Bible Institute abuse survivors speak out
Prairie Bible Institute now known as Prairie Bible College is the oldest Canadian Bible school and renowned around the world for its missionary training program. In its eighty-nine years, Prairie has sent missionaries to over 114 different countries. This ultra-conservative school was founded by L.E. Maxwell and operated under the motto of “training disciplined soldiers for Jesus Christ”. Sadly there were many who were deeply wounded in the process of making these soldiers.

Over eighty sexual abuse victims from Prairie Bible Institute have come forward. Many of them were staff kids who have horrific stories of abuse to tell: stories of extreme physical, emotional, spiritual and sexual abuse. We have contacted the administration of the school and asked them to bring in G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in Christian Environments) to help us facilitate the process of making sure that all the victims are acknowledged and their stories heard.

We have been met with much opposition, stonewalling and hostility from the school and its supporters.
Not to mention the cowardly and cold-blooded Christians murdering abortion doctors with legally owned high-power sniper rifles. Not some cheap Saturday-night special.

Abortion "hit list" slammed in court
Antiabortion activists were found guilty today of inciting violence by posting on the Net a list of physicians names that reads like a "wanted" poster.

I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court
Judge in Kansas rules born-again Christian who killed George Tiller with .22-calibre gun must stand trial for murder
Your arrogance and self-righteousness had once again blinded you from reality.

Finally, while your "straw man" fallacy towards my person is moot, your anecdote reporting was mere entitlement claims without factual evidence. Because if I had pity over criminals, I wouldn't issued rehabilitation, instead I would've said they had done nothing wrong. You OTOH would simply lie for killing. Furthermore, when 7 out of 10 biblical commandments are outdated draconian superstitions, that doesn't make them all relevant.
46437 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 1/26/12
Sorry I don't post here very often, so slow replies are inevitable. Dom Fortress do you ever agree with anyone?
Anyway to answer your question, you're talking about a government that went down the dark path of being led by a sociopathic lunatic. But if you really think about it what I said about the government of many current civilized nations is true of Nazi Germany as well. My point doesn't change, you just took it way out of context.

I undesrstand if you dispute capital punishment as an inappropriate form of punishment for serious crimes, that's fine. I would be interested in hearing your support reasoning for alternatives to capital punishment.

Canute thanks for your reply, yeah I glossed over the fact that killing, even innocents sometimes, is not a crime, like you mentioned in the case of soldiers. There's also different categories that one can be charged with if their actions lead to the death of another (ie manslaughter, murder, voluntary, involuntary, etc). So it is a rather shades of grey kind of thing, instead of what you may have assumed I was saying all killing is the same.

I recognize it's not, and I think wars and military action fall under the category of government sanctioned killing like capital punishment does because of that "higher power" reasoning that our military is granted the responsibility to uphold peace through superior firepower against foes that threaten the wellbeing of ourselves and our allies. This is another anomaly of mine for being an athiest, while I label myself as anti-war and anti-military, I recognize the significance of a comprehensive defense strategy and the cold-hard-truth that there are lots of militarized groups out there who want to destroy America and her allies.
13721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 1/27/12 , edited 1/27/12
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg

2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/28/12

longfenglim wrote:


1. Bullshit. First off, you analogy does not hold, because there are more than one Math professors and English Professors, and if they are both at PhD level, and they argue over a point, you would choose the one that made the most sense, not the oldest one, because of his senoirity. Even if this older professor was taught by an eminent Professor of English, but the Younger professor read his work throughly as well, without being taught by him, it still wouldn't matter, so long as his logic makes less sense than the younger one, he shouldn't be regarded as right. Now, the younger professor in this analogy is a Protestant, say, a Calvinist, and this older professor, say, is one of you Apostolic Church. When the protestant shows, by the Word of the Bible itself, that Romish teaching is false, should we not accept that it is false? We depend upon them to tell us all this, that they have the mandate, that they are taught by Christ and his apostles, and they are preserved, but that rest on an initial belief in them, which is illogical no matter how you cut it.


How does the number of the Math teacher and English professor relevant to this? If we will talk about grammar, who would you believe? the math teacher or the English professor? that is all what I am saying. You over analyze too much. I ain't talking about seniority or the number of teacher. I'm talking about someone who is more authoritative when it comes to certain subjects.


longfenglim
3. The Romanisation of the Church forced the early Church Leaders to make changes to the text so that it fits much better with Roman sentiment, and change their belief and all that. Take circumcision, the Romans are exempt from that, as said by Paul. The Text you cite (latter, I know, but it is relevent now), made Jews the killer of Christ, and they specifically ask for his blood upon them while Pontius Pilate killed Christ reluctantly, could we not say this is a Gentile Interpolation to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews? After all, it would be hard to convert someone to a religion if it basically said, 'You killed our God, you evil bastards, but join us anyways.'


this one, i cannot do anything more for you. You are already convinced on what you already believed. I don't know if you are an anti-semitic or what....I have shown you the present church today and it is evident that the romans has no power over the church. If so, all the christian nations would have been colonies of Italy and their would be no protestant as it would be not tolerated (for countries with state religion, tolerance to other religion is prohibited).

longfenglim
4&5. No, God made a convenant with Moses on Sanai,

Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

He certainly didn't bring Gentiles out of Egypt. This is meant that God gave 613 Mizvot, which are categorised within the Ten Commandment.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot identify the following ten categories of mitzvot. Other religions divide this passage differently. Please remember that these are categories of the 613 mitzvot, which according to Jewish tradition are binding only upon Jews. The only mitzvot binding upon gentiles are the seven Noahic commandments.

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."

2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.

4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.

5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."

6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.

9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).

10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."


They were never binding on gentiles, and, indeed, they aren't even commandments, they are categories of Commandments (Mizvot). If it were put on Gentiles, they would have violated number two (idols- that is what a cross is, after all), one (I am the L-rd, your G-d,..., which, if taken with the Shema Yisrael- hear Oh Israel, I am the Lord your God, the Lord is One. means that Christianity already violated it, not only by accepting Three Gods- the three in one thing, but also by saying that Satan is a powerful enough spirit to rule outre God, and to be able to create evil), 4 (When was the last time you kept Shabbos), 6 (Didn't stop the inquisition did it?), 9 (Basically saying that Jews plotted to Kill Jesus in their own holy book, when no other record can attest to it http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/04/did_the_jews_kill_jesus.html). So, basically, all of them. How does that feel, to want something that you would repeatedly violate anyways?


Didn't i told you already that when the Jews refused Jesus Christ, the covenant was offered to all? To have a clear picture and this is quoted directly from Jesus Christ.



Canute 
30276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/28/12

DomFotressAnd in your country of guns and violence, crime rate fell mainly due to legalize abortion. Not more guns.Abortions and Crime: Freakonomics Movie
Levitt takes you through his research on the relationship between dropping crime and the legalization of abortion.

Clip from the 2010 documentary "Freakonomics: The Movie". A dream team of directors explore the hidden side of everything. So where's the "thou shall have better family planning"?


This sounds great! To think you can weed out undesirables before they're born! I'm sure that in the future we'll be able to scientifically understand the relation of genes to producing criminal minds and determine which strata of society should be barred from having children altogether. You're a woman who's poor or unwed? Sorry, the government requires that you destroy your child. It's for the good of society. You say that you'll raise him well? Sorry, the statistical data shows that people of your sort generally don't. He's better off dead. Or take this case: Sorry, ma'am. Our tests indicate that your baby has a particular genetic sequence that makes it very likely he'll commit a violent crime. You say that you'll raise him to be a good, virtuous citizen? Sorry, no amount of education can change the fact that he's hardwired for violent crime. Our scientific data proves it. I'm sure you'll understand in time that it's for the greater good.

That study you refer to has been scrutinized several times, most importantly by Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz: http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf. When Donohue and Levitt made the corrections which were shown to be necessary by this paper, the results were much less significant: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/ResponseToFooteGoetz2006.pdf.

Also, if it was abortion which was causing the decrease in crime, why does this decrease continue into the 21st century? It ought to have leveled off if that were the case. Instead, the crime rate keeps declining. The study also ignores the fact that there are many more factors which affect the crime rate, such as effective policing and the ability of the citizenry to protect themselves. Concerning the latter, I posted an article on how Great Britain, by making it a criminal offense to harm one's assailant and taking away British citizens' tools for self defense, had their crime rate increase over the years. Here are a few showing the negative effects such a policy has had: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html, http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm, and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm. England also has clinics which provide abortion, but their crime did not decrease until last year. In contrast, the United States' crime rate has continually fallen as gun ownership has increased and more states allow concealed carry: http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=126 and http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp. Then, there is also the fact that in the 80's and 90's conviction rates and sentence periods increased: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging. So, we have many reasons for the decrease in crime. The fact that certain mothers abort their children is hardly the most compelling reason for it.


DomFortressHow's your "pro-life" opinion and homophobia preventing the stonewalling of clergy child-molesters within the faith?Prairie Bible Institute abuse survivors speak out
Prairie Bible Institute now known as Prairie Bible College is the oldest Canadian Bible school and renowned around the world for its missionary training program. In its eighty-nine years, Prairie has sent missionaries to over 114 different countries. This ultra-conservative school was founded by L.E. Maxwell and operated under the motto of “training disciplined soldiers for Jesus Christ”. Sadly there were many who were deeply wounded in the process of making these soldiers.

Over eighty sexual abuse victims from Prairie Bible Institute have come forward. Many of them were staff kids who have horrific stories of abuse to tell: stories of extreme physical, emotional, spiritual and sexual abuse. We have contacted the administration of the school and asked them to bring in G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in Christian Environments) to help us facilitate the process of making sure that all the victims are acknowledged and their stories heard.
We have been met with much opposition, stonewalling and hostility from the school and its supporters.


Well, I'm not going to defend them. They deserve to be punished for these offenses. I would like to note, however, that these sexual abuse problems started during the sexual revolution of the 1960's: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/cause-of-catholic-abuse-scandal_n_863266.html. As the report notes, cases of sexual abuse fell off during the 1980's.


Not to mention the cowardly and cold-blooded Christians murdering abortion doctors with legally owned high-power sniper rifles. Not some cheap Saturday-night special.Abortion "hit list" slammed in court

Antiabortion activists were found guilty today of inciting violence by posting on the Net a list of physicians names that reads like a "wanted" poster.I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court
Judge in Kansas rules born-again Christian who killed George Tiller with .22-calibre gun must stand trial for murder


Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe. In the same way, you find supporters of “partial birth abortion” in the pro-choice faction. Surely, the label lunatic applies to someone who advocates the death of a viable, fully formed baby. Not to mention that they are killed by being torn to pieces. Until President Bush banned the procedure, in many cases the baby sometimes came fully out, and the doctors finished it off on the table.

But, assassinations of these doctors cannot be supported. Change must be effected lawfully. At the same time, I find it difficult to pity them.


Your arrogance and self-righteousness had once again blinded you from reality.

Finally, while your "straw man" fallacy towards my person is moot, your anecdote reporting was mere entitlement claims without factual evidence. Because if I had pity over criminals, I wouldn't issued rehabilitation, instead I would've said they had done nothing wrong. You OTOH would simply lie for killing. Furthermore, when 7 out of 10 biblical commandments are outdated draconian superstitions, that doesn't make them all relevant.


I'm afraid that I'll be arrogant and self-righteousness until I believe the same thing that you do. In which case, it doesn't bother me. As for anecdote reporting, it's a fact that crime skyrocketed after Britain's nationwide ban on guns, worsening a trend which had been going on since 1954. It's also a fact that British citizens are being prosecuted for acts which would be considered self-defense in this country.

I do understand that you believe in incarceration. My impression that you have too much pity for criminals lies in that you seem against giving citizens the right to use deadly force if faced with a threat to their life, person, or property. And you have not given a clear answer in regard to your position on how far a person or country is allowed to go in defending themselves. (Which, incidentally, was all my original post was about.) So, what is your position on self-defense? In particular, is a person culpable for killing someone who is attempting to kill, severely injure, or violate them? Might as well tell me what you think about the government's right to wage war and inflict capital punishment while you're at it.

As for the Judeo-Christian roots of out laws, consider this:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams, February 22, 1756 (Federer, William J., America's God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations , FAME Publishing, Coppell, Texas, 1994, p.5)
"These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil .... This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures ... [and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. - William Blackstone” (Federer, p.52)

And William Blackstone's Commentaries were particularly well known to the Founding Fathers and used by the early Supreme Court in their decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone#Legacy. As, one can see by the quote above, Blackstone believed that human law found its basis in the Bible. As he was the most influential authority around the time that we created our laws, it's safe to say that our laws have a biblical basis.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/28/12

alupihan45 wrote:

How does the number of the Math teacher and English professor relevant to this? If we will talk about grammar, who would you believe? the math teacher or the English professor? that is all what I am saying. You over analyze too much. I ain't talking about seniority or the number of teacher. I'm talking about someone who is more authoritative when it comes to certain subjects.


How is the number of Math teachers and English professors relevant to this? You analogy is false, in that there are more than one person with claimant to authority, that is, the Calvinist Divines, the Romish Priests, the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, who, by analogy, can be represented as several English Professors, and even a layman with enough knowledge of Christain Doctrine, say a Mathematician learned in English, without the authority. The Positions of the debators does not matter so long as their argument makes sense, is stronger than their opponet's argument, and founded upon data and research. A Mathematician may prove an English Professor wrong, just as the other English professors may prove each other wrong, senority, that is your Papist and your Othrodox, has nothing to do with the strenght of argument. Assume for a moment that we were to English professors and you are inferior in age, were I to argue that it is wrong to strand prepositions, and you argued for the contrary, am I automatically right because I am older? This is why your argument is rubbish. It is not over analysing your analogy, it is simply showing by application that it is completely wrong.


alupihan45 wrote:
this one, i cannot do anything more for you. You are already convinced on what you already believed. I don't know if you are an anti-semitic or what....I have shown you the present church today and it is evident that the romans has no power over the church. If so, all the christian nations would have been colonies of Italy and their would be no protestant as it would be not tolerated (for countries with state religion, tolerance to other religion is prohibited).


If I were to impose a habit upon a babe since infancy, and I were to pass away while the child was in his early teen years, though I do not live, yet, if he continue this habit, is it not still my influence? Just as the Roman Empire cease to exist, though it no longer is, yet, does its influence not continue, as with the habit of that child I have raised? The Romish Church have been corrupted in its infancy with Roman vices to suit Roman taste, yet, though it is gone, does not its Roman aspect remain? You cease to make sense after that, accusing me of Antisemitism for your own Holy Writ's open and brazen hatred of Jews, and degenerate into some nonsense murmuring of 'Christian Nations' (very little of those exist) lacking in Religious Tolerance (those that do exist tend to exhibit this), and that they are all colonies of Italy- how you deduced that is beyond my and any logician in this world.


alupihan45 wrote:


Didn't i told you already that when the Jews refused Jesus Christ, the covenant was offered to all? To have a clear picture and this is quoted directly from Jesus Christ.

Matthew 22: 1-14
New International Version (NIV)


The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”


You said that without proof. The Bible clearly states that the 613 Mitzvot, categorised under the 10 Commandment, was given solely for the Jews, and the Talmud clearly states that the only laws binding upon Gentiles are the Seven Laws of Noah. You offer the Parable of the Wedding Guest as proof that the covenant was given to all at that point, yet it shows nothing but that some shall enter heaven and some shan't, though many were invited to come in. It doesn't show anything to prove your point at all. Beside that, even if you were to take on the Commandments, would that include the 613 Mitzvot given to Israel, or just the 10 Commandment, and, failing that, just those convient with your current lifestyle.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/28/12

Canute wrote:

Interesting line of argument. I believe that we both have free will and that God, being infinite, cannot create something outside of himself. In the beginning, nothing save God existed. Then He called everything into being with his Word. Now, a carpenter makes a table, and he can be sure that the table will remain intact and not disappear when he leaves it alone, because the table consists of a durable substance. However, creation is based in God's Word. Words only remain as long as the speaker says them. The reason matter doesn't disappear, the reason there is such a scientific law as the indestructibility of matter, is that God continually speaks the word of each thing in existence--to put it more simply, he sustains them.

Therefore, the will of each person is sustained by God, and if God were to leave off sustaining it, a person would cease to have a will. If God removes himself from the mind, that mind is no more. But, the fact that God sustains the will and even is present therein need not make free-will impossible. God can choose what kind of will a being has. Angels and human beings have free-will. Animals do not. The presence of God hopefully influences people to do good, but they still have the option of obeying evil influences. The will remains free because a person can choose between good and evil.

Basically, I don't see how the fact that everything is sustained through God's Word makes it impossible for creatures to have free-will.


Words are composed of two parts, the word, and the idea associated with that word. When I write something like 'Elephant', it is simply a series of straight and curve lines arranged in such way, but a speaker of English would immediately associate it with the idea of that large, grey creature with a long nose and two tusk protruding from the sides of its head. Now, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that God gives his idea form through his own speaking of that word, thus, when he says something like 'Let there be light', he gives form to the idea of lumination, and when he says 'Let there be will', he gives form to the idea of will. Therefore, God creates will through continually giving form to that thought- yet, to create it, it must exist as it is in his thought, therefore, it cannot be free, because if it is God's thought given form, it must conceptualised in its entirety in God's thought before his speaking of it, so, if he creates a man, he must concieve of a creature with all the property of man, and then speak that word to create him, otherwise, if it does not exist in his thought and he speaks it, it is then not an idea associated with the word he has spoken, and therefore not given form. So, if he concieve of a me, that I am not writing this response, therefore the me that is writing this response cannot exist, because it does not exist in the concept of the word of 'Longfenglim', who he continually sustains through giving his thought form. If he can concieve of two 'me' whereby one is writing this responce, and the other isn't, then the thought of one 'longfenglim' who is writing this responce is an entirely different 'longfenglim' who isn't, and so, either he must create one longfenglim, or he must create a longfenglim who has two possible route, but a predestined route, for he creates both present and future as well, and if the thought associated with 'present' or 'future' does not contain a 'me' who isn't writing this responce, then obviously the 'longfenglim' writing this response cannot exist without being inharmonous to the larger idea of 'future' that God created. You may argue that God may create a future that contains the idea of both me not responding and me responding, in which case, as God creates form for his thought through speech, both must exist, because, then, the thought of both are contained in the idea of future, and, if one does not materialise, then one idea is not given form, and, therefore, the word is not a representation of the idea that contain both ideas.



Canutewrote:
Yes, it can be argued that the perfect placement of our plant is a cosmic accident. Yet, the presence of reason and life are too difficult to explain, rationally, without reason and life already existing in addition to matter. For example, reason is not only used in survival and building, but in very abstruse fields like philosophy and theology, which, save in the realm of ethics, have nothing at all to do with survival. Pure mathematics is another field which tends to be unnecessary for survival. (Unless you look at these three things as a way for teachers to get jobs, anyway.) Nature does nothing uselessly. Either reason came from matter or matter from reason. If the world came from matter, there is certainly no purpose to the possession of a faculty capable of considering abstractions. The fact that humans beings have this faculty to understand the abstract points to a metaphysical reality.

Then, those who don't believe in a Prime Mover believe that life began out of a certain collection of elements, which under certain primordial conditions became single celled organisms—the start of evolution. This is rather like the spontaneous generation theory, which Louis Pasteur effectively disproved. It is an incredible leap to go from something non-living to something living. So, there must already be life present for material beings to possess life. This life must be eternal, because if it is not eternal, then something preceded it. If that was not eternal, then something was before it and so on. This would result in a chain of non-eternal living beings, but no explanation for the chain. Only God meets all the requirements to be the first cause of life.


To the idea that life must beget life, it should be noted that Abiogenesis may occur under certain condition already known, and certain condition to be discovered. Spotaneous generation is simply that life came from nothing, but that is entirely different from Abiogenesis, which is that life does originate from what is not living, but still from a condition that something exist to create something, hence the various componets of the word a- as in not, bio- as in life, and genesis, as in creation, thus, there is a wide gulf between these two ideas, like the sea between civilised logic, and primitive and savage superstition. There is very little alike, and it has been proven that a form of life can be created from non-Living material. It may be a leap, but a leap shown possible. You cite reason and the many arts that have no bearing on survival, yet, consider that these schools, the school of Philosophy, Higher Mathematics, Theology, etc. were created after our survival was assured, and we have settled down, our large brains, which, formerly employed in hunting and tool building, may wander elsewhere, and be applied beyond the dull, mechanistic necessity of survival. We are only able to understand the abstract points of metaphysical reality when our mind are at rest from predicting the migration, movement, and psychology of the herd, and unemployed in the careful consideration of the best way to slay these beast, and to make the greatest use of its skin, its flesh, etc.



Canutewrote:
The Falun Gong's rise is comparable to Christianity's, except that the Chinese government did not persecute them from the very start, which allowed their numbers to increase a substantial amount before persecution hit. Similarly, Communists were originally an academic movement, persecution didn't begin until they initiated anti-government activities. Also, the level of persecution suffered by communists isn't comparable to that suffered by Christians until the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930's, unless you know a source documenting large scale executions of communists before October Revolution.

But the Falun Gong is very similar. The difference between the two would have to be that Christianity spread with miracles, i.e. signs that God was behind it. Without miracles, it would not have spread. Of course, one may argue that there was a spiritual vacuum in the ancient world caused by disbelief in the traditional pagan religions. But without miracles, pagans would have viewed Christianity as just another collection of fables; therefore, it would not have spread without these signs that God was supporting it. In the same way, the Catholic Church records tens of thousands of miracles and cures which science has no way of explaining up until the present day.


You may be right concerning the Falun Gong, but the fact remains, it spread despite presecution, just as many other religion, but you claim that Christianity spread with Miracles, yet Falun Gong members also spread stories of Miracles, spiritual healing, and what not. Christianity, and Catholicism, is not very remarkable in this respect, when a religion wants to spread, it finds miracles in everything, and accidents and chance of fate are taken for divine intervention by devotees. Certain Fanatics in my own city, Los Angeles, build av altar to the Virgin Mary, in the form of a piss stain, and claim that, because it is shaped similiarly to Our Lady of Guadalupe, it must be a sign from God, with many other claim healing from visitation and pilgrimage to this most holy of piss stains.

In addition, you make mention that Socialism was a 'Academic' thing, only suppressed when they finally rose up in arms against the government, which is not true at all. Marx was chased from nation to nation because he wrote in a radical newspaper, and finally settled in Britain. The Paris Commune, likewise, saw many of its Socialist leaders and many of its participants persecuted by the government of France. Parallels exist in all fields, that it grows in spite of government, and in persecution's spite.




Canute wrote:
Not completely untrue. Everyone knows Mohamed started out as a merchant but his latter career much more closely resembles that of a bandit (or warlord, if you want to give a more exalted title to him). But, what would you expect from someone who said: “The sword is the key to heaven and hell”? Just read Jihad in the West by Paul Fregosi or The Sword of the Prophet by Sergei Trifkovic. You will see that Muhammad used murder and terror in suppressing groups unfriendly to him, often held hostages, and raided caravans belonging to his opponents in Mecca. Then, his career culminated in sacking Mecca. The history of Christian religious wars is nothing compared to Islam's. Especially when you consider that a good portion of the Christian religious wars were internal affairs, rather than the people of one country trying to force their religion on another one.


You cite partisan works, written by partisan pens, rather than Academic works.



Canute wrote:
hat it the Ottoman Empire had not been broken by the heroism of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland during the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683?




Nice expansion in just a little over one hundred years.



As you can see, Europe's in big trouble, especially from the Ottoman Empire, as we agree.

You act as though Islam is a monolithic force of evil bearded men waving their swords around, ready to conquer Europe, when the truth is more than that, the Moslem community began splintering and fighting amongst themselves. While Europe may be in danger from the largest united Moslem force, the Ottoman, they were never in danger from Islam as a whole. Not all Moslems were Ottomans, and, indeed, some wanted to preserve their own powers against the Turks.


Canute wrote:

Looking at the way Muslims expanded in the maps above, it's apparent that Muslims wished to spread the borders of Islam by conquest. As for the Crusades hastening the death of Byzantium, I'd like to respectfully disagree. The above mentioned disgraceful Fourth Crusade occurred during the years 1202 – 1204. The seventh and last crusade, led by St. Louis IX of France, occurred from 1248-1250. The capital city of Constantinople was effectively cut off from Europe around 1359 (109 years later) and fell in 1534 (284 years later). So, I think that they likely helped the corrupt Byzantine Empire survive a little bit longer. If they had been detrimental to Byzantium's existence, the empire would have fallen much sooner. At least, the Crusades certainly distracted the Seljuk Turks from the conquest of Byzantium, which they were in the process of assimilating into their empire before the First Crusade occurred.

As for the Crusades making Muslims hate Europeans more, that's true. But, even if Muslims didn't hate them, they still would have waged war against them.


The Moslems are not a single entity. You forget that. The map is deceptive as it protray Islam, and not the individual kingdoms warring against each other.


Canute wrote:

He missed one form of repentance: capital punishment. People sometimes don't think of this as a way to atone, because one doesn't live afterwards, which makes it the greatest penance possible. St. Joseph Cafasso, who was famed for helping condemned men, would console these men with the thought that a shameful death was the greatest penance anyone could undertake (to assure the most distraught, he even gave them messages to bring to God, saying that they would be sure to enter heaven immediately), and they died so happily that some of the executioners said: “With Don Cafasso present, death is no longer death, but a comfort, a joy, and a pleasure.”

Jesus died for all sins, including the most horrible you can imagine. The only way to atone for such a crime is through capital punishment. Some people would even add being tortured to death. Wishing to suffer even in the place of the worst sinners, Jesus was beaten constantly, had His flesh torn up by scourges, had a painful crown piercing His head, was forced to carry the instrument of His own execution, had His limbs dislocated, was nailed to two wooden planks as if He were an inanimate object, and for His last three hours submitted to cruel mockery by the bystanders.

But, what makes this death have enough merit to cover all sins is the fact that Jesus is God and therefore infinite. So, his death can atone for an infinite number of sins. Of course, this would be impossible in the case of a someone who was only a man, but Jesus is both God and Man. The prohibition on human sacrifice does not apply to God.



If Jesus was executed by God's decree, rather than a sacrifice, but as punishment, pray, what is he punished for? If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, Jesus was sinless, as was his mother, yet, if God delievered his own son to die for a sin he did not commit, than it would indicate that God is an unjust God. Now, you may say that he is sacrifice, and he is not man, but God, so he can serve as a sacrifice for all sin, because he is infinite. The Atheist cliche would be to ask, 'Why should he sacrifice himself if he could just redeem them himself being infinite and God?' You may answer theatrics, but, wouldn't the theatrics be more powerful if God personally told everyone of his new laws and their forgiveness, without having to violate his own laws, that is, the prohibition against human sacrifice (for, even if Christ was divine, he came in mortal body to reveal the scriptures) and mentioned nowhere in the Laws, where certain animals were required for certain unintentional sins, the lowest in the order of sin. The Rabbi also mention that man does not need sacrifice to atone for sin, but repetance, sincere repetance, if that were enough, why would it be necessary to sacrifice himself for the sin of other, when personal repetance with God should be enough?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.