AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-07-26, 12:08   Link #1081
Eclipze
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Well, you might like to know there are Singaporean Christians who sincerely feel that they have a "purer" interpretation of Scripture than the "decadent" West. Because, you know, Westerners have started on the road to damnation by condoning such "sins" as homosexuality and paedophilia and God knows what other evils of the flesh. These folks will probably be more than happy to divorce the religion from the West.
I'm pretty sure that most closed-minded Christians (from any country, even in the US) have the same sentiments in regards to those "sins", so its not really exclusive to Singaporean Christians.
Eclipze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 12:11   Link #1082
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
No, more of the fact that the invasion of Canaan was divinely ordered, as many here have already stated.
Let me get this straight: By your words, the continued killing of Palestine people is also divinely ordered?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 12:26   Link #1083
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Blues View Post
If you read the Law of the Hebrews, one of the chief commandments is to treat aliens with respect and love, specifically because "you were once aliens in Egypt." (That's paraphrased, mind you) My point is that, as a religion, Judaism (which eventually offshot into Christianity) was a religion whose commandments taught kindness to those unlike yourself, not to slaughter them like animals.

As I said, war is war. People die in war for whatever the reason, but Judaism never taught to go on random raiding sprees to kill off non-believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstert View Post
That may be the point that Vexx was making. But citing Old Testament battles as examples to make his point would be the same thing that those people who twist the religion are doing. Because, first of all, the Bible never say that all others are animals to be killed. Otherwise, the Israelites would've started by eliminating the Egyptians. Second of all, saying that only non-humans could be freely hunted and killed denies the authority of God over His creations. God did not gave those people to be killed by the Israelites because they were to be treated as non-humans. But as humans, they were still part of His creation, and thus, subject to His plans.

Of course, having said that, only God alone has authority over human lives. So other than those specific Old Testament exceptions, the rest of us who are believers of the Bible have no basis to kill others only over a difference in faith. That would in fact contradict at least the New Testament, if not the whole Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelter View Post
@Ledgem-
Conflict for the sake of religion, or conflict using religion as a front for belligerence, has been going on for thousands of years. I would argue against your definition of "Christian Crusade" or "Islamic Jihad". How are these terms defined? Why are we witnessing an "Islamic Jihad" today? I'm not attempting to provoke anything here. But I would just like to point out that, to a Muslim, political rhetoric against a nation that practices Shari'a Law has been long interpreted as "Christian Crusade". The converse is also true.

Terms - and therefore the decisions to wage spiritual warfare (I will make a note here that I dislike that term) is possibly the consequence of misinterpretation of a religion's tenets & laws.
Most these replies seem to agree with what I was intending to say, but come off as a disagreement. As I said before, all religions have the same overall goal: peace and happiness among mankind. Any belief set that isn't conducive to that is generally identified as a cult. People can take certain quotes out of context and make them seem war-like, but that is not the goal of the religion, nor does the religion really condone that sort of behavior.

I thus find it quite strange that such atrocities can occur, as instigated by the religious. You would think that the highly religious are those who are even more devoted to making the ultimate goal of religion a reality. You would think that, after spending so much time studying the messages of religion and thinking about it, they would even know what the ultimate goal of religion really was. However, I think that the vast majority of people regularly going to church, synagogue, or mosque are probably doing so more out of habit or obligation than because they care for the message of their religion. As a result, these people treat their distinct religion as little more than a sports team. All acts against other humans go counter to the goals of religion. I understand that it is not the religion itself that dictates these acts, but rather that people manipulate the highly religious into doing these horrible things. My complaint is not with religion, but with the fact that the people being manipulated, the so-called religious, are the last people I'd expect to be doing things like that. If they're truly dedicated to their religion, they should recognize that they're violating the very core teachings and working against the goal of harmony. This is my frustration: people who fool themselves into thinking that they're religious, that they're good people, that they're morally and ethically superior to anyone who doesn't go through the motions as they do. These people are the prime candidates for being manipulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
I'm not disagreeing with you, it definitely has been and still is being used as a system of control over the masses of sheep.

What I would like to add though is that it is not solely because of religion that things are like that, it is something more complex and just has to do with typical human nature.
Correct. I wasn't intending to say that religion is at fault. Humans will always create divisions among themselves, and perceived divisions are generally a source of conflict. My frustration was that religion is meant to be a grand unifier among people (skeptics will disagree), and yet more often than not it seems to be yet another aspect that people use to create division amongst each other. The religious beliefs and teachings do not create these divisions and if one studies enough they'll find critical similarities behind many, perhaps all religions. The created divisions are purely superficial in nature.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 12:40   Link #1084
Backwards Blues
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Let me get this straight: By your words, the continued killing of Palestine people is also divinely ordered?
You know, I was going to post a long rant about mankind's magical ability to infer so many thoughts and ideas out of completely illegitimate bases, but I decided to just answer you plainly.

No.
__________________
Backwards Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 12:44   Link #1085
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post

Correct. I wasn't intending to say that religion is at fault.
I misread your post a little bit, I should not be posting too late at night.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 14:05   Link #1086
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
You know, I was going to post a long rant about mankind's magical ability to infer so many thoughts and ideas out of completely illegitimate bases, but I decided to just answer you plainly.

No.
Okay, let's just straighten this out.

You allege that the invasion of Canaan by Israelite Semite tribes and the forceful slaughtering and displacement of their inhabitants (also Semite) is justified because it was a "divine order"? So all those men who died, all those women who were raped, all those children who were savagely killed were just unfortunate consequences of a necessary war?

No war is necessary. Every killing, every act of violence is ultimately avoidable. I thought your religion taught that.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 14:14   Link #1087
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I'm pretty sure there's an "unless God says so" clause in that religion.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 16:21   Link #1088
monster
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
My complaint is not with religion, but with the fact that the people being manipulated, the so-called religious, are the last people I'd expect to be doing things like that. If they're truly dedicated to their religion, they should recognize that they're violating the very core teachings and working against the goal of harmony. This is my frustration: people who fool themselves into thinking that they're religious, that they're good people, that they're morally and ethically superior to anyone who doesn't go through the motions as they do. These people are the prime candidates for being manipulated.
Would I be right then in assuming that you're now just talking about post-Biblical people? (Now I know you're talking about religion in general. But being a Christian, that's the only religion I can talk about.) If that is the case, then I would agree with you regarding people who are committing violent acts. My original point was to make a distinction between people who take it upon themselves to kill other people in the name of God and Biblical people who were truly commanded by God to kill (for a purpose other than the mere end of all non-believers).
Quote:
Correct. I wasn't intending to say that religion is at fault. Humans will always create divisions among themselves, and perceived divisions are generally a source of conflict. My frustration was that religion is meant to be a grand unifier among people (skeptics will disagree), and yet more often than not it seems to be yet another aspect that people use to create division amongst each other. The religious beliefs and teachings do not create these divisions and if one studies enough they'll find critical similarities behind many, perhaps all religions. The created divisions are purely superficial in nature.
Again I can't speak for other religions, but I would say Christianity, at its core, does promote division. Now I'm not saying that Christianity teaches people to discriminate, segregate, enslave, or kill non-Christians. That's not the type of division I'm talking about. But Jesus does teach people to behave and believe in a certain way. To be a bit more clear, when the main lesson of the New Testament is to accept Jesus as one's Lord and personal Savior, that is no longer a superficial division. But while division is there, it is not meant as an excuse to start treating other people badly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'm pretty sure there's an "unless God says so" clause in that religion.
I believe that's true. But I also believe God says so only for those specific people in the Old Testament, and not to all believers. And I don't think rape was one of the commands given.
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 16:29   Link #1089
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Most these replies seem to agree with what I was intending to say, but come off as a disagreement. As I said before, all religions have the same overall goal: peace and happiness among mankind. Any belief set that isn't conducive to that is generally identified as a cult. People can take certain quotes out of context and make them seem war-like, but that is not the goal of the religion, nor does the religion really condone that sort of behavior.
Come to think of it, wasn't there a famous story in the OT where the protagonists slaughtered a whole tribe because of the actions of one rapist? (After exploiting their willingness to make amends, too).

Religions may promote peace and harmony, but that doesn't mean the means they precognize are peaceful.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 18:24   Link #1090
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstert View Post
Would I be right then in assuming that you're now just talking about post-Biblical people? (Now I know you're talking about religion in general. But being a Christian, that's the only religion I can talk about.) If that is the case, then I would agree with you regarding people who are committing violent acts. My original point was to make a distinction between people who take it upon themselves to kill other people in the name of God and Biblical people who were truly commanded by God to kill (for a purpose other than the mere end of all non-believers).
I'm largeling talking about modern-day religions, yes. However, just as we recognize that the modern-day Islamic Jihad and the past Christian Crusades were the result of "religious hijacking" rather than a direct order from God, have you ever wondered if the wars brought about in the Old Testament weren't perhaps something similar?

Personally, I find the last statement of your quote there to be a bit strange. What's one of the most widely known of the Ten Commandments? "Thou shalt not kill." A god that commands you to kill, especially in light of that earlier directive, is not a god worth following. Don't you agree? If you don't, I'd have to ask you to reconsider what your religion means to you. Is it a means to an end, or is it a shunting of personal responsibility onto God?

Quote:
Again I can't speak for other religions, but I would say Christianity, at its core, does promote division. Now I'm not saying that Christianity teaches people to discriminate, segregate, enslave, or kill non-Christians. That's not the type of division I'm talking about. But Jesus does teach people to behave and believe in a certain way. To be a bit more clear, when the main lesson of the New Testament is to accept Jesus as one's Lord and personal Savior, that is no longer a superficial division. But while division is there, it is not meant as an excuse to start treating other people badly. I believe that's true. But I also believe God says so only for those specific people in the Old Testament, and not to all believers. And I don't think rape was one of the commands given.
As I mentioned before, even if you can lump all religions into one set of morals and values, a division is already created: some people in the world likely won't have those morals and values. You're right.

Part of my focus on the superficial divisions (those particularly being what brand of religion you follow, and perhaps what sub-sect within that brand you belong to) comes about by discovering something interesting in the Old Testament. There is a line somewhere in there that defines what a Jew is. My father, whose native language is Hebrew, read over that segment and said that it could be translated in multiple ways. The interesting way defines a Jew as a person who has the values and morals that the religion tries to teach. I believe it even goes so far as to say that a person like this could be a Jew without even knowing it, and perhaps even without their knowing of God. Their virtues make them a person of God. The English translations do not seem to have chosen that form of translation. It makes sense why they wouldn't have. For the sake of organized religion, membership does need to be somewhat defined and thus exclusive, and practices must be adhered to.

I am aware that it's a potentially controversial translation. I also wouldn't be surprised if no similar statement existed in other religions. However, it's a fascinating concept. It ties in with my concept of what the true purpose of religion is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Come to think of it, wasn't there a famous story in the OT where the protagonists slaughtered a whole tribe because of the actions of one rapist? (After exploiting their willingness to make amends, too).

Religions may promote peace and harmony, but that doesn't mean the means they precognize are peaceful.
I haven't heard of that story. I wouldn't doubt that it exists, but could you possibly cite it for us?

I'm also a bit wary of accepting your last statement. A religion, by its teaching, may promote peace and harmony. Any non-peaceful means to achieving that goal are generally not dictated by the religion and are not compatible with its teachings. At least, off the top of my head I can't think of any incidents where an atrocity occurred that was sanctioned by the values and teachings of the religion. In all of those cases people either misunderstood the writings of their religion, or justified their acts based on superficial differences.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 19:20   Link #1091
monster
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I'm largeling talking about modern-day religions, yes. However, just as we recognize that the modern-day Islamic Jihad and the past Christian Crusades were the result of "religious hijacking" rather than a direct order from God, have you ever wondered if the wars brought about in the Old Testament weren't perhaps something similar?
No, because I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. While people may misuse it, I do not believe itself to be a product of misuse.
Quote:
Personally, I find the last statement of your quote there to be a bit strange. What's one of the most widely known of the Ten Commandments? "Thou shalt not kill." A god that commands you to kill, especially in light of that earlier directive, is not a god worth following. Don't you agree? If you don't, I'd have to ask you to reconsider what your religion means to you. Is it a means to an end, or is it a shunting of personal responsibility onto God?
Well, for that we must understand what the law is for and who is bound by that law. In Romans 3:20, Paul said, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." So the law is there for humans to know sin, it is not there to restrict God's sovereignty. In general, yes, God forbids murder. But he is also free to create exceptions to the rule, and those exceptions may become laws for the people involved, but not necessarily for everybody or for every moment.

About your question of what my religion means to me, the answer is neither. Being a Christian to me means having a personal relationship with God. It is not a means to an end, it is the end itself.

And I must make it clear that it is not a shunting of responsibility either, because like I said before, God did not command me (or anybody alive today) to kill anybody. So how can I hold God responsible if I killed others?
Quote:
As I mentioned before, even if you can lump all religions into one set of morals and values, a division is already created: some people in the world likely won't have those morals and values. You're right.

Part of my focus on the superficial divisions (those particularly being what brand of religion you follow, and perhaps what sub-sect within that brand you belong to) comes about by discovering something interesting in the Old Testament. There is a line somewhere in there that defines what a Jew is. My father, whose native language is Hebrew, read over that segment and said that it could be translated in multiple ways. The interesting way defines a Jew as a person who has the values and morals that the religion tries to teach. I believe it even goes so far as to say that a person like this could be a Jew without even knowing it, and perhaps even without their knowing of God. Their virtues make them a person of God. The English translations do not seem to have chosen that form of translation. It makes sense why they wouldn't have. For the sake of organized religion, membership does need to be somewhat defined and thus exclusive, and practices must be adhered to.

I am aware that it's a potentially controversial translation. I also wouldn't be surprised if no similar statement existed in other religions. However, it's a fascinating concept. It ties in with my concept of what the true purpose of religion is.
I do question the part that I put in bold (I'm not sure if that's from your father or from you). Because I do not see how you can be called a person of God if you do not know God. But regardless of that, Jews are not the only people of God. That much the Bible itself clearly says, even in the English translation. After all, neither Noah nor Abraham was a Jew, but I would not doubt that they are still people of God.
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 23:09   Link #1092
Backwards Blues
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Okay, let's just straighten this out.

You allege that the invasion of Canaan by Israelite Semite tribes and the forceful slaughtering and displacement of their inhabitants (also Semite) is justified because it was a "divine order"? So all those men who died, all those women who were raped, all those children who were savagely killed were just unfortunate consequences of a necessary war?

No war is necessary. Every killing, every act of violence is ultimately avoidable. I thought your religion taught that.
There is no proof of rape. At least historically. You can suppose that it happened, but that's about all you can do.

Yes. War is sometimes necessary. No, my religion does not teach that. If you don't like it, that's honestly your problem. War is a last resort, as it always should be. But that doesn't mean its innately wrong.

Also, yes. There is always an "unless God says so" clause in every religion, because the entire premise of a religion that contains a being of a higher mind than yourself that you're supposed to follow, is that the higher mind understands things much clearer than you ever will, and its often best to listen to it.
__________________
Backwards Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-26, 23:58   Link #1093
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Blues View Post
Yes. War is sometimes necessary. No, my religion does not teach that. If you don't like it, that's honestly your problem. War is a last resort, as it always should be. But that doesn't mean its innately wrong.

Also, yes. There is always an "unless God says so" clause in every religion, because the entire premise of a religion that contains a being of a higher mind than yourself that you're supposed to follow, is that the higher mind understands things much clearer than you ever will, and its often best to listen to it.
Pardon me for interrupting, but I am a little confused (and in no way taught in the ways of religion )...

You have claimed that war is sometimes necessary, but your religion does not teach that war is necessary (which automatically defeats your first point). But, then you claim that "God" can make war necessary, in which case your religion does teach that War is necessary...

I guess I am confused as to what you are arguing concerning religion and its involvement in war. Does this mean that such Holy Documents as the Bible (or whatever holy text you or others read) are only relevant when God is not directly speaking to mankind, but when someone in the religion claims to have spoken to God (or, if you prefer, God actually speaks to the religious group, explaining its plan), the rules and regulations originally stated cease to matter and can be ignored for a time?

To clarify, to the best of my knowledge the Noahide Laws and the Decalogue predate the conquest of Canaan, and in both sets of rules, God (or Yahweh in this case) both emphasize the importance of the severity for those that commit the act of murder. The Noahide Laws specifically say that all those who commit murder must be murdered in return ("He who spills the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilt..." (slight paraphrased text)). So, how can the Canaan conquest (or any religious war that is not based around defense) be justified unless you are specifically saying that God let mankind break the rules God already set?
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 00:04   Link #1094
Backwards Blues
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk View Post
Pardon me for interrupting, but I am a little confused (and in no way taught in the ways of religion )...

You have claimed that war is sometimes necessary, but your religion does not teach that war is necessary (which automatically defeats your first point). But, then you claim that "God" can make war necessary, in which case your religion does teach that War is necessary...

I guess I am confused as to what you are arguing concerning religion and its involvement in war. Does this mean that such Holy Documents as the Bible (or whatever holy text you or others read) are only relevant when God is not directly speaking to mankind, but when someone in the religion claims to have spoken to God (or, if you prefer, God actually speaks to the religious group, explaining its plan), the rules and regulations originally stated cease to matter and can be ignored for a time?

To clarify, to the best of my knowledge the Noahide Laws and the Decalogue predate the conquest of Canaan, and in both sets of rules, God (or Yahweh in this case) both emphasize the importance of the severity for those that commit the act of murder. The Noahide Laws specifically say that all those who commit murder must be murdered in return ("He who spills the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilt..." (slight paraphrased text)). So, how can the Canaan conquest (or any religious war that is not based around defense) be justified unless you are specifically saying that God let mankind break the rules God already set?
When did I ever claim that Christianity teaches that war is an absolute wrong in any situation?

To kill is not to murder. At least not in the religious sense (nor is it legally, for that matter) Consider war, as the best example. To eliminate an enemy combatant does not earn you 25 to life for murder of the first degree. Neither does it in the religious sense. Otherwise, any time life was taken, it would be considered wrong. Even if it was in self defense.

No. Life may be precious, and to do away with it is never a positive thing, but it isn't always a wrong thing.
__________________
Backwards Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 00:58   Link #1095
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Blues View Post
When did I ever claim that Christianity teaches that war is an absolute wrong in any situation?

To kill is not to murder. At least not in the religious sense (nor is it legally, for that matter) Consider war, as the best example. To eliminate an enemy combatant does not earn you 25 to life for murder of the first degree. Neither does it in the religious sense. Otherwise, any time life was taken, it would be considered wrong. Even if it was in self defense.

No. Life may be precious, and to do away with it is never a positive thing, but it isn't always a wrong thing.
Actually, I specifically mentioned that war in the line of defense (defending yourself against others) is allowable by Judeo-Chrsitian doctrine. But, you have also mentioned that war for the sake of conquest (in this case the destruction of Canaan) is also acceptable (simply because God says it is okay), which instantly goes against what you are saying in this post. Do you see my confusion?

Let me clarify my confusion for you: There is war in which you defend your homeland, and then there is war in which you conquer another nation. Which one is "right" by your religion? Because your staments have, at least for me, been confusing.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 01:13   Link #1096
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstert View Post
... But I also believe God says so only for those specific people in the Old Testament, and not to all believers. And I don't think rape was one of the commands given.
Actually, there's an incident where He commands them:
[Num. 31:1] And the Lord said unto Moses, "Avenge the children of the Mid'-an'ites.. They warred against the Mid'-i-an'ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. Moses said, "HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2008-07-27 at 01:30.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 01:22   Link #1097
Backwards Blues
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk View Post
Actually, I specifically mentioned that war in the line of defense (defending yourself against others) is allowable by Judeo-Chrsitian doctrine. But, you have also mentioned that war for the sake of conquest (in this case the destruction of Canaan) is also acceptable (simply because God says it is okay), which instantly goes against what you are saying in this post. Do you see my confusion?

Let me clarify my confusion for you: There is war in which you defend your homeland, and then there is war in which you conquer another nation. Which one is "right" by your religion? Because your staments have, at least for me, been confusing.
Where did I differentiate? I'm confused. I used the term "war" as being necessary.
I never specified whether or not it was in defense or attack. You assumed that I meant only in defense.

To debunk a point I'm sure will be brought up in the future. No, I'm not in support of invasion for invasion's sake.
Herein lies the religion. I'm in support of what God commands. Whether or not you, or anyone else thinks that God actually exists or not is irrelevant. I believe in Him, and I'm will go along with what He commands. Its a bit of a roadblock in continuing conversation, but its the ultimate end of this discussion.
__________________
Backwards Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 02:03   Link #1098
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Blues View Post
Where did I differentiate? I'm confused. I used the term "war" as being necessary.
I never specified whether or not it was in defense or attack. You assumed that I meant only in defense.
To debunk a point I'm sure will be brought up in the future. No, I'm not in support of invasion for invasion's sake.
To clarify, Judeo-Christian belief only accepts war as being justifiable in the line of defense ("governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.") Any war used as a means of attack or conquest is instantly unjustifiable by Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Blues View Post
Herein lies the religion. I'm in support of what God commands. Whether or not you, or anyone else thinks that God actually exists or not is irrelevant. I believe in Him, and I'm will go along with what He commands. Its a bit of a roadblock in continuing conversation, but its the ultimate end of this discussion.
Okay, I can accept that (and gladly so), but that leads to my original question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk View Post
Does this mean that such Holy Documents as the Bible (or whatever holy text you or others read) are only relevant when God is not directly speaking to mankind, but when someone in the religion claims to have spoken to God (or, if you prefer, God actually speaks to the religious group, explaining its plan), the rules and regulations originally stated cease to matter and can be ignored for a time?
Because, the way you are describing events, we are supposed to follow these basic rules (the Decalouge and the Noahide Laws, etc.), at least untill God comes in and says otherwise. Which begs the question of why God doesn't simply throw away the old rules and simply enforce the new rules (or better yet, never have presented the old rules, and rather just kept whatever new rule it is trying to enforce).

(I should clarify that I do believe in God, but I have a very hard time believing in a merciful or "good" God (not to mention the fact that I have a hard time believing in Heaven or Hell, let alone an actual Soul that survives my physical death). Ambivalence is my God's forte .)

Last edited by james0246; 2008-07-27 at 02:35.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 03:41   Link #1099
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I haven't heard of that story. I wouldn't doubt that it exists, but could you possibly cite it for us?
The Rape of Dinah: Genesis 34.

Quote:
I'm also a bit wary of accepting your last statement. A religion, by its teaching, may promote peace and harmony. Any non-peaceful means to achieving that goal are generally not dictated by the religion and are not compatible with its teachings. At least, off the top of my head I can't think of any incidents where an atrocity occurred that was sanctioned by the values and teachings of the religion. In all of those cases people either misunderstood the writings of their religion, or justified their acts based on superficial differences.
"Kill all the heathens" or "Convert everyone by the sword" may look like losing strategies to us, but maybe they look better to whoever inspired the religion.

BTW, about today's wars... How do we know they're not divinely inspired? How do we know their instigators don't have "personal relationship with God" and that He didn't tell them to kill a lot of people?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-27, 04:10   Link #1100
monster
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Actually, there's an incident where He commands them:
[Num. 31:1] And the Lord said unto Moses, "Avenge the children of the Mid'-an'ites.. They warred against the Mid'-i-an'ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. Moses said, "HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

First, God commanded Israel to kill, He says nothing about rape. And second, you forgot to mention that Moses was angry with the officers for sparing some of the enemies. But since he gave at least the virgins to the men, Moses must have compromised with them. Still, there is nothing there about simply raping these women under command of God. And it is more likely they were taken to be wives.
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.