Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: As is your apparent point of view. Of course it 'boggling' when one doesn't want to understand it. It's your call what you choose to believe.
For the idea that religion is violent to be true, every religious person would have to be violent, which is not true (at least in the real world)
I didn’t claim that every variation of religion was inherently violent, they are not, I am claiming that Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the Abrahamic religions – all call for violence and death in their religious texts and that when a follower of any of these religions follows the commandments calling for violence and murder then that religion is culpable.
toddytodd wrote: I think this says it all on your apparent view of religion. There are zealots in (probably) every religion. However, they are outweighed by those who are peaceful. You picked out the worst part of those who believe their religion - assuming they are going to 'kill because their god tells them to'. Absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should step back at look at religious people as a whole, not a small 'select' group.
What you fail to understand is that the fundamentalists – the “zealots" – are actually correct about the three abrahamic religious texsts, they are theologically correct. I know fully well that there are moderates in every religion and I claimed that this has nothing to do with the basis of that religion or what is contained in the specific holy text, it has to do with enlightened secular criticism and modernity. I am not claiming that all and every religious person in the world is the fundamental type or that they all take their religious text literally and follow it in exactness – my argument has nothing to do with religious moderates except that they are theologically incorrect – my argument is not about the religious but the actual religion and what it actually teaches in the holy text.
toddytodd wrote: Part right, part wrong. Part 1) Religious beliefs (and any belief) can cause a person to kill, as well as do good. 2)Absolutely an opinion. If you believe otherwise, that is very, very sad.
I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here, it comes off as somewhat contradictory. Religious beliefs motivate – as you point out like any other belief – people to engage in both positive and negative behavior. This is simply not an opinion it is reality, beliefs motivate people to act and behave in a certain way and in ways that – without the belief – they may not have ever partook. If you dispute this I suggest that you review some elementary psychology.
toddytodd wrote: Wow, now you are reaching to prove your point. Anyone can have this type of issue, correct?
I have no idea how this is a coherent response to my post. I was claiming that it is psychotic to believe that religion is a physical entity itself going around killing people, I was agreeing with you.
toddytodd wrote: I can't speak on the qua'ran, but I don't remember any of the Commandments from the Old Testament telling anyone to kill anyone.
Then you didn’t read the OT and you haven’t been paying attention to my posts. Here are a few:

Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22
toddytodd wrote: Personally I don't believe in the current interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. I don't believe human writer's like John or Paul of whoever was without bias. But that is how I choose to believe. Nor am I defending religion as a whole, only pointing out that when people say 'religion is violent, end of story' is beyond ridiculous and absolutely wrong.
I do not claim that religion is violent, I claim that the abrahamic religions – theologically – are inherently violent and that when individuals lend absolute credence to these religions they are embracing violence. Clearly moderate religion is not inherently violent but they are not basing this moderation on what is actually found within their religions proclamations. They are deriving their moderation from enlightened secular criticism and modernity, not from the basis of their actual religion.
toddytodd wrote: Do violent people exist and use religion or religious belief to do their killing, hurting, etc? Absolutely. They will continue to exist and use religion to justify their claims. Do peaceful people exist and use their religious views or beliefs to justify their good deeds? Absolutely.
I do not dispute this.
toddytodd wrote: For you to see it otherwise is more than sad.
I don’t.
toddytodd wrote: Fact is indeed that people use their religious beliefs to kill. Just like they use any other 'perceived weapon' to kill. It's not the religion that kills, but the will of the person(s)(not guns, no knives, not bombs) that kills.
This is not entirely accurate. As I have already pointed out beliefs are “principles of action" and as such are not tools that are “used." Sure some people use religious beliefs for their own purposes but I am speaking of the people that are used by their religious beliefs, the people that truly believe in the legitimacy of the violent commandments made by their religion and act in accordance to them; these people are not using religion, they are being used by the religion.

You are, of course, free to your preconceived notions and ideals of violent religions (pick one). I doubt anyone can change your point of view, most certainly not me. I couldn't care less. It is bothersome when people make general comments about things and claim them to be fact. Frightening
I also question anyone who believes the bible (in this case) is word-for-word God's word, but that's a different story.
And yes, that is entirely accurate, regardless of what you (want) to believe. A person can make (just about) anything (tangible or not - which does include beliefs of said religion) violent if they want or need to - religion is not different.
People want to make things so much more difficult than they really are. You should look for what's there and not what you want to see.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: Isn't this a contradiction?
How in the world would it be? I went through numerous passages and cited several, this is not plagiarism it is citation! :lol:
wormwood wrote: That is because you pick and choose what you want to read. That is why you have such a distorted vision. Each prophet changed the laws, because Judaism was a living religion. Christians, follow what they consider the last great Jewish prophet, and so the law was according to Jesus for them. That is why they don't have to stone people to death...did you ever read about JC stoning someone to death? I know you don't believe me, but you ARE doing the same thing zealots do which is pick and choose what to read that reinforces what they already believed. You are more of a secular zealot.
Secular zealot? :lol:
You are simply wrong and only espousing the theologically bankrupt notion that the commandments and passages found within the bible don’t actually matter, that is just silly. Jesus didn’t repudiate the old testament – see my pervious posts – and when viewing the bible as the infallible word of god it is every bit as violent, aggressive, intolerant and hateful as it seems. You seem to be rather uninformed regarding the actual contents of the bible.
wormwood wrote: No, but it does demonstrate two points. One that even in the same breath as the "barbaric" instances there is compassion.
I never claimed that there aren’t instances of compassion in these texts, there are and I’m sure I could list them more proficiently that you. What I am arguing is that there is an overabundance of the barbaric instances and that these instances have and continue to motivate “true” believers.
wormwood wrote: Two, what this means is that people in their communities were subject to these laws. Strangers were not to be mistreated or oppressed.
That is simply false. If the stranger were to be considered a witch the stranger would be put to death. Based on that one commandment it could be argued that outsiders are to be completely left alone but there are a number of other passages that imply otherwise. The commandments calling for the utter destruction and death of other peoples and nations and then there are the numerous passages that clearly state that outsiders and aliens are also to be killed such as Lev. 29:2, Lev 24:16 and Numbers 18:7 all explicitly mention that outsiders and aliens are to also be put to death. You should actually read the bible, or at least read the passages that I have cited.
wormwood wrote: If you did not like the laws of the community, there was no reason to stay there. I know people will disagree with me on this one, but do something for me; post any instance you can find of the Jews going outside of their community to enforce their laws, with no divine inspiration. For example, Joshua hears there is a sorceress living two towns over with the Hittites, so of his own volition he goes and kills her and God is pleased. If you can find anything even remotely similar to that, you might be able to make a case, until then you have nothing.
Without divine inspiration? That would be peripheral to the point I’m making.
wormwood wrote: Yeah, who needs to read a book sequentially to understand it?

It would help if you were to read the book at all, despite the order in which you did so. :wink:

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: You are, of course, free to your preconceived notions and ideals of violent religions (pick one).
This isn’t about a “preconceived” notion and/or ideal. It is about the printed commandments calling for violence and murder found in several religious texts and that when people lend credence to these religions – to varying degrees – the religions are responsible for its adherents following the violent and murderous passages. It’s not that difficult a concept.
toddytodd wrote: I doubt anyone can change your point of view, most certainly not me. I couldn't care less. It is bothersome when people make general comments about things and claim them to be fact. Frightening
This is misinformed vagary.
toddytodd wrote: I also question anyone who believes the bible (in this case) is word-for-word God's word, but that's a different story.
I’m glad to hear that. It is with those that believe the bible to be the infallible word of god wherein we run into the problems that the violent and deadly passages pose.
toddytodd wrote: And yes, that is entirely accurate, regardless of what you (want) to believe. A person can make (just about) anything (tangible or not - which does include beliefs of said religion) violent if they want or need to - religion is not different.
Sure, but there is a difference between conflating something that doesn’t inherently promote violence and death between something that does (as does the bible).
toddytodd wrote: People want to make things so much more difficult than they really are. You should look for what's there and not what you want to see.
Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

[wormwood]

Quote: If an individual owns a gun they are not explicitly motivated to engage in any form of behavior but if an individual believes that the creator of the universe has commanded them to either fight and kill infidels or burn in a lake of fire for eternity then they are explicitly motivated to act on the belief. Beliefs are, as Sam Harris says, “principles of action," guns are not. I think you're wrong. You are supposed to be a psychology buff. People act very different when they have a gun. Most notably people are much more confident and many people are much more willing to enter into confrontations. Do you think adults would get robbed by 16 year old kids if the kids had only their fists to back up their threats? Get real. As for your second point, there is nothing inherently violent in religion. It takes zealots who read selectively (ahem) to turn religions into tools of destruction or persecution. For example, Exodus 22:20 says "he shall be utterly destroyed"... it does not say that YOU should destroy him. In fact if you keep reading you will see.

Quote: Clearly you are either a member of Judaism or Christianity and as such your religion actually doesn’t, it teaches you to not only judge homosexuals, adulterers, idolaters, etc. but it teaches you that they should be killed. There is a difference in judging a person and judging an action. You are confusing the former with the latter. Again we are talking about religion and not religious people.

Quote: Furthermore this idea that it is wrong to judge people on the merit of the beliefs that motivate their actions is dangerous, should we not judge racist white supremacists? Not if you live in America. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, no matter how f*cked up and backward it is. As long as their lifestyle does not conflict with the law, or my livelihood, I could personally care less what they believe.

Quote: Should we not judge pedophiles that believe children are sexually viable? I don’t think so. Again, aren't you supposedly into psychology? Pedophiles have a problem. They should not be allowed near children, and they should be given help, but they should not be personally attacked or condemned on a personal level. The simple act of them believing something, does not make them a bad person. I suppose you have something to say about OCD or the mentally handicapped next? People with epilepsy steal :lol:

You are confusing judging an action with judging a person, but keep it up, it is quite amusing.

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

You are honestly serious?
:lol:
Are you so dense you missed it? Allow me to rephrase: You are so dense that you missed it. You might want to go back and re-read
I will not repeat myself so that you can argue only to prove a point to yourself; it's a waste of both our time
Originally I thought it sad - now... don't much care. You are like many uber-religious people, (reading something and sticking to it without any common sense because it suits your cause) - it's kinda' ironic
:think:

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: I think you're wrong. You are supposed to be a psychology buff. People act very different when they have a gun. Most notably people are much more confident and many people are much more willing to enter into confrontations. Do you think adults would get robbed by 16 year old kids if the kids had only their fists to back up their threats? Get real.
I’m amenable to this argument.
wormwood wrote: As for your second point, there is nothing inherently violent in religion. It takes zealots who read selectively (ahem) to turn religions into tools of destruction or persecution. For example, Exodus 22:20 says "he shall be utterly destroyed"... it does not say that YOU should destroy him. In fact if you keep reading you will see.
You are simply restating the same falsehood, it is becoming redundantly absurd. If a religion is based upon a religious text and that text calls for violence then, clearly, that religion is inherently violent; whether or no the religious adherents actually follow the violence is irrelevant, what matters is that the violence is there and is to be followed as stated in the text.
Furthermore it is simply a vague argument to wage that a few of the violent passages state that an individual will be destroyed rather than explicitly stating that the adherent will be the ones destroying them, especially in light of the numerous passages that state that the adherents are to explicitly kill individuals themselves.
wormwood wrote: There is a difference in judging a person and judging an action. You are confusing the former with the latter. Again we are talking about religion and not religious people.
There is a difference between judging an action and a person but there is also a difference between judging a person based on their actions and there is a difference between judging a religion based on its content.
wormwood wrote: Not if you live in America. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, no matter how f*cked up and backward it is. As long as their lifestyle does not conflict with the law, or my livelihood, I could personally care less what they believe.
I didn’t claim that people didn’t have the right to believe these things, nice straw man. If a pedophile believes that children are sexually viable – they have the right to believe this – but I am going to judge them based on this and furthermore this belief has a great potential to be in conflict with the law and/or your and societies “livelihood.”
wormwood wrote: Again, aren't you supposedly into psychology? Pedophiles have a problem. They should not be allowed near children, and they should be given help, but they should not be personally attacked or condemned on a personal level. The simple act of them believing something, does not make them a bad person.
I agree but if they act upon these beliefs their actions should be condemned and that is my point with religion. If religion is acted upon as set out in the bible those acting in accordance should be condemned for their actions and the bibles commandments motivating these actions should be condemned as equally as the disorder that motivates people to be sexually attracted to children.
wormwood wrote: You are confusing judging an action with judging a person, but keep it up, it is quite amusing.
False.

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

You are honestly serious?
:lol:
Are you so dense you missed it? Allow me to rephrase: You are so dense that you missed it. You might want to go back and re-read
I will not repeat myself so that you can argue only to prove a point to yourself; it's a waste of both our time
Originally I thought it sad - now... don't much care. You are like many uber-religious people, (reading something and sticking to it without any common sense because it suits your cause) - it's kinda' ironic
:think: That's simply erroneous and dishonest.

[wormwood]

Quote: How in the world would it be? I went through numerous passages and cited several, this is not plagiarism it is citation!


Quote: Secular zealot?
You are simply wrong and only espousing the theologically bankrupt notion that the commandments and passages found within the bible don’t actually matter, that is just silly. Jesus didn’t repudiate the old testament – Oh I must have been confused by this: John 7:53-8:11 :lol: Seriously, your "knowledge" on the subject is a joke.

Quote: and when viewing the bible as the infallible word of god it is every bit as violent, aggressive, intolerant and hateful as it seems. You seem to be rather uninformed regarding the actual contents of the bible. :lol: Yeah,...it's ME. Since you are SOOO knowledgeable, why don't you expound on the verses you quoted using the proper reading methods? You know, there were no vowels when this stuff was first written and the texts actually says much more that the KJV translation. I'll give you a hint: peshat, remez, drush and sod not to mention the countless acronyms. It's ok, go ahead and look it up and pretend like you knew about it :lol:

Quote: I never claimed that there aren’t instances of compassion in these texts, there are and I’m sure I could list them more proficiently that you. What I am arguing is that there is an overabundance of the barbaric instances and that these instances have and continue to motivate “true" believers. Did you happen to catch the context of the moments of compassion? Forget it, it is obvious that you will see what you want to see...after all who could be more proficient than you? :lol:

Quote: That is simply false. If the stranger were to be considered a witch the stranger would be put to death. Based on that one commandment it could be argued that outsiders are to be completely left alone but there are a number of other passages that imply otherwise. The commandments calling for the utter destruction and death of other peoples and nations and then there are the numerous passages that clearly state that outsiders and aliens are also to be killed such as Lev. 29:2, Lev 24:16 and Numbers 18:7 all explicitly mention that outsiders and aliens are to also be put to death. You should actually read the bible, or at least read the passages that I have cited. First, I am not sure where you found a book with 29 chapters of Leviticus :lol: Second, there are many factors that you ignore, like the abolishing of many of these practices by rabbinical teachings and revelations. Also, the much more numerous verses calling for mercy and restraint. Third, I don't consider it wrong for God to take our lives. If there is an all powerful creator, then he gave me life...how can I complain about a gift, which I did nothing to earn, being taken? (To paraphrase a christian parable) If you were stranded on a desert isle, with nothing but sand in every direction, then one day, God talks to you and shows mercy and makes a tree grow, and you enjoy it's shade and fruit, but the next day the tree is dead, how can you complain that the tree which you did not plant, nor tend, is dead? At least you had shade and fruit for a day. I would wager that you would still complain.

Quote: Without divine inspiration? That would be peripheral to the point I’m making. No it wouldn't. If religion were inherently violent, as you claim, then God would be pleased at senseless and undirected killing of infidels everywhere. Like I said, these rules applied to their community, if you didn't like it you could leave. Life was hard, and societies were strict, the only way to ensure your community stayed in the proper bounds was the threat of death, which even then does not work all of the time. The threat of death was pretty common until our PC, hug the world culture told us it was "wrong".

Quote: It would help if you were to read the book at all, despite the order in which you did so. I get it...this is your version of whit. :-| Nice deflection of the fact that you won't read the book sequentially BTW...bravo. For someone who has not read the bible at all, I have a few religious people agreeing with me...must be a series of lucky guesses.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: Oh I must have been confused by this: John 7:53-8:1l Seriously, your "knowledge" on the subject is a joke.
I admit that this is an aspect wherein Christianity rises above Islam, because there are such outstandingly obvious contradictions it is easier to pick and choose the ones which one feels like but, again, this simply does not absolve the violence condoned and promoted in the bible; you are foolish to claim otherwise. I am familiar with the passage in John but I am also familiar with the passages found in Matthew 17 and Mark 7:8-10, passages which you seem to think either don’t exist or don’t matter. Your knowledge on this subject isn’t so much a joke as it is completely ridiculous.
wormwood wrote: Yeah,...it's ME. Since you are SOOO knowledgeable, why don't you expound on the verses you quoted using the proper reading methods? You know, there were no vowels when this stuff was first written and the texts actually says much more that the KJV translation. I'll give you a hint: peshat, remez, drush and sod not to mention the countless acronyms. It's ok, go ahead and look it up and pretend like you knew about it
Your petty attempt to rewrite a plethora of passages in the bible is without merit. Furthermore the KJV is one of the more watered down and tame versions of the bible, use others and some of the passages become worse.
wormwood wrote: First, I am not sure where you found a book with 29 chapters of Leviticus
That was a typo, it should read Leviticus 20:2.
wormwood wrote: Second, there are many factors that you ignore, like the abolishing of many of these practices by rabbinical teachings and revelations. Also, the much more numerous verses calling for mercy and restraint.
These are not factors that I ignore, they are factors that are peripheral to my point. Which is that in the bible such sinister passages remain and further there are people who take these passages literally – Leviticus 20:13 sure is paraded around – and that when people take such passages literally and act upon them this is only illustrating my point, that the bible is a source of violence and conflict. I do not dispute that there are redeeming passages in the bible – personally there are too few in comparison to the opposite for me – and I do not dispute that people can be Christians, Jews and Muslisms while conducting their lives productively and peacefully. I do not dispute these things, what I am arguing is that these religions are sources of violence and conflict and that this is, in part, because the religious texts that are foundational to these faiths are condoning and promoting the violence and conflict.
wormwood wrote: Third, I don't consider it wrong for God to take our lives. If there is an all powerful creator, then he gave me life...how can I complain about a gift, which I did nothing to earn, being taken? (To paraphrase a christian parable) If you were stranded on a desert isle, with nothing but sand in every direction, then one day, God talks to you and shows mercy and makes a tree grow, and you enjoy it's shade and fruit, but the next day the tree is dead, how can you complain that the tree which you did not plant, nor tend, is dead? At least you had shade and fruit for a day. I would wager that you would still complain.
I don’t engage in the transient “what if?” game, I find it convoluted. Although to consider the scenario I would be grateful that I had shade and fruit for a day, certainly better than none at all and at least I would be able to hold on to the memory.
wormwood wrote: No it wouldn't. If religion were inherently violent, as you claim, then God would be pleased at senseless and undirected killing of infidels everywhere. Like I said, these rules applied to their community, if you didn't like it you could leave. Life was hard, and societies were strict, the only way to ensure your community stayed in the proper bounds was the threat of death, which even then does not work all of the time. The threat of death was pretty common until our PC, hug the world culture told us it was "wrong".

I don’t claim that all of religion is inherently violent. As I have already said within this thread: “I didn’t claim that every variation of religion was inherently violent, they are not, I am claiming that Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the Abrahamic religions – all call for violence and death in their religious texts and that when a follower of any of these religions follows the commandments calling for violence and murder then that religion is culpable.”
wormwood wrote: I get it...this is your version of whit. Nice deflection of the fact that you won't read the book sequentially BTW...bravo. For someone who has not read the bible at all, I have a few religious people agreeing with me...must be a series of lucky guesses.
Excuse me but I never claimed to have read the bible out of sequence. Bravo on another red herring. I actually have read the bible sequentially, from beginning to end, twice; I hate reading books out of order, any book, and now I only go back to reference various passages in the bible but I do so well aware of the sequence in which they exist.
Furthermore the fact that a “few religious people” agree with you means absolutely nothing. Many moderates have likewise never read the bible in its entirety and this is illustrated by the fact that, at least toddytodd, wasn’t even aware that the OT contained passages condoning and promoting violence and death. This is one of my points, that zealots are right in their interpretation of the bible – while their views are abhorrent – they are theologically correct.

[wormwood]

Quote: I admit that this is an aspect wherein Christianity rises above Islam, because there are such outstandingly obvious contradictions it is easier to pick and choose the ones which one feels like but, again, this simply does not absolve the violence condoned and promoted in the bible; you are foolish to claim otherwise. I never claimed it needed absolving. In fact, I think I said: Quote: I don't consider it wrong for God to take our lives. Meaning that if God truly called for death, then it could not be malicious unless that was the intent. I just don't think your representation is accurate, based not only on my own first hand experience reading the text, but the experience of many many others. If you don't think that the prophets changed the laws, and that, in fact, the rules and regulations have remained constant since Leviticus, then there is nothing more to discuss. You are right, and everyone else is wrong. What is the definition of delusion again? :lol:

Quote: I am familiar with the passage in John but But...you chose to ignore that? In one instance you say, you can't ignore one part and read the other, then you do it in the next breath. ANYWAY...

Quote: I am also familiar with the passages found in Matthew 17 Another typo? Can you please explain what is at all violent or abhorrent about Matt 17?


Quote: and Mark 7:8-10, passages which you seem to think either don’t exist or don’t matter. :lol: This is so pointless. Read the whole chapter. Jesus doesn't say to be violent.

Quote: Your knowledge on this subject isn’t so much a joke as it is completely ridiculous. More original content. :lol:

Quote: Your petty attempt to rewrite a plethora of passages in the bible is without merit. Furthermore the KJV is one of the more watered down and tame versions of the bible, use others and some of the passages become worse. Yeah...MY attempt. I have a time machine that allows me to go back into time and write religious texts in a language I don't even speak, using a coding system I barely understand :lol: . If you don't believe me about the coding look it up.
Quote: Ancient Hebrew texts were written without vowels. The pointing only came into wide use in about 500-600
C.E. There was another very popular method of writing which used acronyms. This and another system called
Notarikon (actually there are several forms of this system but only two are used enough to have major impacts on
translation) has confounded non-Hebrew (and many Hebrew) speaking people for thousands of years. Add this to the
debate of evolution vs. creation and one sees the entire scope of this misunderstanding.
"Misunderstanding?" many people ask. Yes, the modern understanding of the creation as told in the Torah is
wrong. With the original Hebrew and the knowledge of the ancient grammatic techniques there is an entirely different
picture of the beginning of space and time. Using this knowledge of Hebrew the first sentence of Genesis's true
meaning is as follows (Genesis 1: 1):
The Spirit of God brought into continuous expression the dual principle of life and death by "containing" it in an infinite array of cosmic manifestations. This creation is a perpetual precess by means of which the Cosmic Principle is eternally brought into realization. Through this initial manifestation the first nine archetypes of existence came into being. The creation was dual, for in the process of creating the material universe, the Cosmic Principle brought Itself also into manifestation.
(Epstein, 1978, pg. )."
This does not at all sound like the Genesis 1:1 that most people from the West know. The concept that needs to be understood is that each letter in Hebrew is also a word, generally a noun. There is also a concept or idea attached to each letter that goes back to the time when the Hebrew alphabet was used as heiroglyphs before it developed into a
fully written language. If the notarikon is used, another translation can be made: In the beginning God saw that Israel would accept the law (Epstein, 1978, pg.21). This has an entirely different meaning altogether. If used simultaneously as these techniques are designed to be used we see that "The Spirit of God brought into continuous expression... and in the beginning God saw that Israel would accept the Torah (law)."


Quote: That was a typo, it should read Leviticus 20:2 This is about giving your daughter to a demon...are you concerned with the frequency of this? :lol: It is possible that this is connected to an ancient ritual which used a brass molech statue, a baby is placed in the hands and they are heated, when the baby screams (is burned), the priest performed some ritual. Either way, you shouldn't give you daughters to demons, and you shouldn't burn babies...that's just common sense :wink:

Quote: These are not factors that I ignore, they are factors that are peripheral to my point. Which is that in the bible such sinister passages remain and further there are people who take these passages literally – Leviticus 20:13 sure is paraded around – Well it goes against God's covenant with Abraham. Abraham was to be the father of nations, and the Jews are to be fruitful and multiply. I am not sure why the christians would care.

Quote: I do not dispute that there are redeeming passages in the bible – personally there are too few in comparison to the opposite for me – and I do not dispute that people can be Christians, Jews and Muslisms while conducting their lives productively and peacefully. I do not dispute these things, what I am arguing is that these religions are sources of violence and conflict and that this is, in part, because the religious texts that are foundational to these faiths are condoning and promoting the violence and conflict. I really think it depends on how far you read. If one were to stop reading at Leviticus, like you choose to do, then I agree that things seemed a little harsh.

Quote: I don’t engage in the transient “what if?" game, I find it convoluted. Although to consider the scenario I would be grateful that I had shade and fruit for a day, certainly better than none at all and at least I would be able to hold on to the memory. Then how can it be evil for God to take a life, or order someone else to take a life? They are His to give and take.

Quote: I don’t claim that all of religion is inherently violent. As I have already said within this thread: “I didn’t claim that every variation of religion was inherently violent, they are not, I am claiming that Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the Abrahamic religions – all call for violence and death in their religious texts and that when a follower of any of these religions follows the commandments calling for violence and murder then that religion is culpable." So where is the example of Jewish people enforcing their laws outside of their communities? That, or explain why people did not simply move if they wanted to be adulterers or homosexuals.

Quote: Furthermore the fact that a “few religious people" agree with you means absolutely nothing. Well I am simply espousing the theory which holds the most parsimonious consensus :wink:

Quote: Many moderates have likewise never read the bible in its entirety and this is illustrated by the fact that, at least toddytodd, wasn’t even aware that the OT contained passages condoning and promoting violence and death. Oh his religion sounds abhorrent :lol:

Quote: This is one of my points, that zealots are right in their interpretation of the bible – while their views are abhorrent – they are theologically correct. You don't have to convince me that you agree with zealots and their thinking, I was trying to convince you of that, but it sounds like you know.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: I just don't think your representation is accurate, based not only on my own first hand experience reading the text, but the experience of many many others. If you don't think that the prophets changed the laws, and that, in fact, the rules and regulations have remained constant since Leviticus, then there is nothing more to discuss. You are right, and everyone else is wrong. What is the definition of delusion again?
A good definition of delusion would be the willful misrepresentation of another’s argument. The fact remains that the violent and sinister passages are in the bible, they are not repudiated within the bible, people read the bible literally as if it were the infallible word of god and people then act accordingly. This is clearly a problem and it stems what is spelled out in the bible.
wormwood wrote: But...you chose to ignore that? In one instance you say, you can't ignore one part and read the other, then you do it in the next breath. ANYWAY...
You give all this talk about quoting passages in their fullest context yet you

haven’t the slightest problem quoting me out of context, brilliant. :roll:

This is what I actually said: “I am familiar with the passage in John but I am also familiar with the passages found in Matthew 17 and Mark 7:8-10, passages which you seem to think either don’t exist or don’t matter. Your knowledge on this subject isn’t so much a joke as it is completely ridiculous.”
wormwood wrote: Another typo? Can you please explain what is at all violent or abhorrent about Matt 17?
Whoops, I meant to type Matt. 5:17 wherein he claims to have come “not to abolish but to fulfill” the law. Nothing violent about Matt. 17, simply some really bizarre stuff.
wormwood wrote: This is so pointless. Read the whole chapter. Jesus doesn't say to be violent.
I didn’t claim that in this particular chapter Jesus was telling people to be violent but, rather, that he was telling them to follow the OT laws – except, it appears, the laws of kashrut – but Jesus also had his vengeful side. Matt 15:4 (he says “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.”) and in Luke 19:27 he is commanding that certain individuals be brought before him and slaughtered. Clearly Jesus is telling people to be violent.
wormwood wrote: Yeah...MY attempt. I have a time machine that allows me to go back into time and write religious texts in a language I don't even speak, using a coding system I barely understand If you don't believe me about the coding look it up.
So, let me get this absolutely straight, you claim that all of the violent and gruesome passages in the bible have been mistranslated? Would you care to support this?
Furthermore even if the bible had been mistranslated, which I know many portions of it have been, this fact alone does not say anything against my argument which is that the current bible is riddled with calls for violence and conflict and that these calls are being heard by individuals under the impression that the bible is the infallible word of god and must be followed as such.
wormwood wrote: This is about giving your daughter to a demon...are you concerned with the frequency of this?
Clearly I am not concerned, I don’t believe in demons, fairies, ghosts, the Loch Ness, etc. I was merely pointing out a passage in which “aliens” and “outsiders” were to be included in the punishment because you claimed that a vague passage excluded them and I included a few that suggested otherwise, such as Lev 24:16 and Numbers 18:7.
wormwood wrote: Well it goes against God's covenant with Abraham. Abraham was to be the father of nations, and the Jews are to be fruitful and multiply. I am not sure why the christians would care.
What does? The passage in Lev.? Either way it doesn’t really matter how you interpret the passage, I am glad that you view it through the lens of enlightenment and modernity, but the simple fact is that it is in the bible, it is not repudiated in the bible and many people believe it to be the infallible word of god. That is what I am arguing about, that these passages are violent and dangerous and when people, believing that their creator wrote them and that they are to be followed as such, act accordingly the passages retain a level of culpability.
wormwood wrote: I really think it depends on how far you read. If one were to stop reading at Leviticus, like you choose to do, then I agree that things seemed a little harsh.
That is the problem, that there are “harsh” passages in the bible and there are people understand them to be the written word of their creator and follow them accordingly.
wormwood wrote: Then how can it be evil for God to take a life, or order someone else to take a life? They are His to give and take.
I don’t believe in god so I was responding to the hypothetical scenario without any inclusion of a god. If there were a god I wouldn’t believe that he would have the right to indiscriminately kill, if that is the vengeful, sadistic god that you believe in, fine, but what a sorry and disgusting god it would be.
wormwood wrote: So where is the example of Jewish people enforcing their laws outside of their communities? That, or explain why people did not simply move if they wanted to be adulterers or homosexuals.
I am not going to stand for this ridiculous argument that “if people don’t like being treated with violence and petulance they should just move” that is ignorant and it is a very good thing that we do not allow such an argument credence in world politics now. Furthermore I already cited a few passages where “outsiders” were included in the laws, I cited one which you disliked because it included demons and I also cited Lev 24:16 and Numbers 18:7.
wormwood wrote: Well I am simply espousing the theory which holds the most parsimonious consensus
Good memory but false. What I am espousing actually contains the most

evidentiary abutment :wink: and the religious fundamentalists that slave

over studying the bible every day agree with me, or rather I agree with them; only theologically speaking, I disagree with them about, essentially, everything else.
wormwood wrote: Oh his religion sounds abhorrent
Ummm, no. I didn’t say that toddytodd’s religion was abhorrent, I have already told him that I am grateful for his enlightened and modern views regarding religion.
wormwood wrote: You don't have to convince me that you agree with zealots and their thinking, I was trying to convince you of that, but it sounds like you know.
Nice semantic foolery but the fact is that the fundamentalists fervently study the bible rigorously and moderates, largely, do not. The fundamentalists understand the bible and are theologically correct, moderates are not and, again, this is illustrated beautifully by toddytodds complete ignorance of the OT.

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

You are honestly serious?
:lol:
Are you so dense you missed it? Allow me to rephrase: You are so dense that you missed it. You might want to go back and re-read
I will not repeat myself so that you can argue only to prove a point to yourself; it's a waste of both our time
Originally I thought it sad - now... don't much care. You are like many uber-religious people, (reading something and sticking to it without any common sense because it suits your cause) - it's kinda' ironic
:think: That's simply erroneous and dishonest.

Typical tactic to avoid the truth. But whatever works for you I suppose.
The good thing about religion is people can make it into what ever they want it to be. You, my friend, are a prime example of how it's done. :clap:

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

You are honestly serious?
:lol:
Are you so dense you missed it? Allow me to rephrase: You are so dense that you missed it. You might want to go back and re-read
I will not repeat myself so that you can argue only to prove a point to yourself; it's a waste of both our time
Originally I thought it sad - now... don't much care. You are like many uber-religious people, (reading something and sticking to it without any common sense because it suits your cause) - it's kinda' ironic
:think: That's simply erroneous and dishonest.

Typical tactic to avoid the truth. But whatever works for you I suppose.
The good thing about religion is people can make it into what ever they want it to be. You, my friend, are a prime example of how it's done. :clap: Dude, come on. You have consistently waged the very same false assertion from the beginning of this thread to which I have presented evidence directly from the bible, in support of my claims, yet you still wage the very same transient, shallow and baseless charges; that, my friend, is intellectually reprehensible, dishonest, and willful self deception.

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: JDHURF wrote: Wow, maybe you should take your own advice to heart here.

You are honestly serious?
:lol:
Are you so dense you missed it? Allow me to rephrase: You are so dense that you missed it. You might want to go back and re-read
I will not repeat myself so that you can argue only to prove a point to yourself; it's a waste of both our time
Originally I thought it sad - now... don't much care. You are like many uber-religious people, (reading something and sticking to it without any common sense because it suits your cause) - it's kinda' ironic
:think: That's simply erroneous and dishonest.

Typical tactic to avoid the truth. But whatever works for you I suppose.
The good thing about religion is people can make it into what ever they want it to be. You, my friend, are a prime example of how it's done. :clap: Dude, come on. You have consistently waged the very same false assertion from the beginning of this thread to which I have presented evidence directly from the bible, in support of my claims, yet you still wage the very same transient, shallow and baseless charges; that, my friend, is intellectually reprehensible, dishonest, and willful self deception.

A response that starts with 'dude' is consistent with your claimed ideas and understanding of the concept at hand. Evidence for the bible? Do you not remember what I have already said about validity of the Bible?
Laughable: taking 'evidence' of a book written by flawed people to demonstrate the idea of God and his personalty and plan and belief system. Laughable is probably the best descriptive term that could be used without offending.
Trying to explain it to you is beyond useless. You already have your mind made up, which is fine. As long as you are happy with it I suppose.....
Just know that you are no better than some of the other 'religious' people on here, with your predetermined mind set.

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: A response that starts with 'dude' is consistent with your claimed ideas and understanding of the concept at hand.
Gratuitous ad hominem.
toddytodd wrote: Evidence for the bible? Do you not remember what I have already said about validity of the Bible?
Have you not been reading my argument? I have said nothing about evidence “for” the bible. I have only presented evidence from the bible.
toddytodd wrote: Laughable: taking 'evidence' of a book written by flawed people to demonstrate the idea of God and his personalty and plan and belief system.
But that isn’t what I’m doing and your continuous failure to understand my argument is unbelievable. My point is that, ultimately, the bible is false and is not speaking on behalf of any alleged supernatural entity but rather that, yes, people with flaws wrote the book and that many more people - unfortunately even presently - believe it to be the infallible word of god, that it should be followed accordingly and that this poses a problem based on various passages that are violent, divisive and sinister in implication.
toddytodd wrote: Laughable is probably the best descriptive term that could be used without offending.
Trying to explain it to you is beyond useless. You already have your mind made up, which is fine. As long as you are happy with it I suppose.....
Get a grip, you have yet to comprehend by actual argument.
toddytodd wrote: Just know that you are no better than some of the other 'religious' people on here, with your predetermined mind set.
My mind is not “predetermined,” it has been determined by what I have observed, researched and learned but clearly yours is. You were “predetermined” to believe that there were no violent and petulant passages in the bible – which is hilarious in its inaccuracy – and that religious dogma and belief is not to be held accountable for the actions which it inculcates.

[toddytodd]

JDHURF wrote: toddytodd wrote: A response that starts with 'dude' is consistent with your claimed ideas and understanding of the concept at hand.
Gratuitous ad hominem.
toddytodd wrote: Evidence for the bible? Do you not remember what I have already said about validity of the Bible?
Have you not been reading my argument? I have said nothing about evidence “for” the bible. I have only presented evidence from the bible.
toddytodd wrote: Laughable: taking 'evidence' of a book written by flawed people to demonstrate the idea of God and his personalty and plan and belief system.
But that isn’t what I’m doing and your continuous failure to understand my argument is unbelievable. My point is that, ultimately, the bible is false and is not speaking on behalf of any alleged supernatural entity but rather that, yes, people with flaws wrote the book and that many more people - unfortunately even presently - believe it to be the infallible word of god, that it should be followed accordingly and that this poses a problem based on various passages that are violent, divisive and sinister in implication.
toddytodd wrote: Laughable is probably the best descriptive term that could be used without offending.
Trying to explain it to you is beyond useless. You already have your mind made up, which is fine. As long as you are happy with it I suppose.....
Get a grip, you have yet to comprehend by actual argument.
toddytodd wrote: Just know that you are no better than some of the other 'religious' people on here, with your predetermined mind set.
My mind is not “predetermined,” it has been determined by what I have observed, researched and learned but clearly yours is. You were “predetermined” to believe that there were no violent and petulant passages in the bible – which is hilarious in its inaccuracy – and that religious dogma and belief is not to be held accountable for the actions which it inculcates.

You are free to have your beliefs (as wrong as they may be). :wink:
It would appear that, if Christianity were as violent as you claim, all Christian believers would be shooting people, blowing up buildings and killing children, murdering sects of the population, etc.
While I don't (nor ever) denied that happened, I believe that to be (if it truly happened as the bible dictates) a miscalculation and/or misunderstanding of God itself.
I stand by my correct statement that people are violent and can make anything (tangible or not) violent or appear to be violent. I doubt God told any person or group to go and kill all of "X" people, then turn around and same murder is a sin, detestable by God.
That doesn't make any sense.
And to take one or more stories (note the term story) in the bible, and ignore all the peaceful parts of the bible, then say 'christianity is a violent religion' is fooling oneself.

[JDHURF]

toddytodd wrote: You are free to have your beliefs (as wrong as they may be).
More of the same. The same being willful deception and an utter contempt for reality.
toddytodd wrote: It would appear that, if Christianity were as violent as you claim, all Christian believers would be shooting people, blowing up buildings and killing children, murdering sects of the population, etc.
You continue to misrepresent my argument and to wholly misunderstand it. I have not made the claim that Christianity in general – encompassing the various forms that it takes – is all violent but, instead, that the religious text book for which is foundational to it is and that this is inherently dangerous and problematic; clearly, this is not to say that all of Christianity in its greatest sense is as such.
toddytodd wrote: While I don't (nor ever) denied that happened, I believe that to be (if it truly happened as the bible dictates) a miscalculation and/or misunderstanding of God itself.
I do not believe in a supernatural entity or force so I would agree that such actions and commandments are miscalculated and a general misunderstanding regarding “god,” but these actions and commandments are calculated correctly and understood efficiently regarding the bible.
toddytodd wrote: I stand by my correct statement that people are violent and can make anything (tangible or not) violent or appear to be violent.
Agreed.
toddytodd wrote: I doubt God told any person or group to go and kill all of "X" people, then turn around and same murder is a sin, detestable by God.
Agreed but that is, essentially, what the bible claims.
toddytodd wrote: That doesn't make any sense.
No kidding. The overwhelming majority of religious dogma does not make the least bit of sense.
toddytodd wrote: And to take one or more stories (note the term story) in the bible, and ignore all the peaceful parts of the bible, then say 'christianity is a violent religion' is fooling oneself.

Again you are grossly misrepresenting my argument.

[mojo]

JDHURF wrote: Judaism and Christianity:

OT:
Exodus 22:18
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 18:3
Numbers 18:7
Deut. 17:5
Deut. 17:12
Deut. 18:20
Deut. 20:17
Deut. 21:18-21
Deut. 21:22
Deut. 22:22

For those of you who mistakenly believe that Jesus repudiates the barbarism of the OT (Matt. 17, Mark 7:8-10)

NT:
Matt. 10:21
Matt. 15:4
Matt. 24:50
Mark
Matt. 10:34
Luke 19:27
Acts 3:23
Romans 1:31


Islam:
“God is the enemy of the unbelievers” – (2:98 )

“We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the fire. Evil shall be their fate.” – (2:126)

“The unbelievers are like beasts” – (2:172)

“Slay them whenever you find them. Drive them from out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage….If they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded.” – (2:190)

“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” – (2:216)

There are a slew of these sorts of passages within the Qu’ran but the hadith is even more explicit:

“Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked.”

“A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer.”

“He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.”

“Paradise is in the shadow of swords.”

These are all only a portion of the examples of the incitements to violence and murder found in all three religions. To claim, erroneously, that an individual under the impression that any of these religious texts is the true and infallible word of god and must be followed as such are not, in any way, culpable for the violence thereafter is simply lying to themselves.

It is because the bible was taken literally that there was the Crusades, the witch hunts and torture and murder in the name of God. It is because the quaran and the hadith is taken literally that there is Jihad, suicide bombing and torture and murder in the name of Allah.

Matthew 17 deals with Jesus prophesizing his own resurection and curing a child that was inflicted with a demon. In no way does Jesus even allude to physical violence.

Mark 7:8-10
You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition." He went on to say, "How well have you set aside the commandment of God in order uphold your tradition! For Moses said, "Honor your father and mother, and whoever curses your father and mother shall die".

He obviously talking about a spiritual death. Because in Mark 7:15 he states "Nothing that enters one from the outside can defile that person; but only the things that come out from within are what defile."

Actually I suppose I should thank you because I had never payed so much attention to that last particular line. But it speaks with tremendous importance.

[Todd D.]

Quote: You continue to misrepresent my argument and to wholly misunderstand it. I have not made the claim that Christianity in general – encompassing the various forms that it takes – is all violent but, instead, that the religious text book for which is foundational to it is and that this is inherently dangerous and problematic; clearly, this is not to say that all of Christianity in its greatest sense is as such.
I do think that toddytodd is misunderstanding your point, but at the same time, I don't think you are readng deep enough in to the texts that you are criticizing.

Saying that Christianity or any of the Abrahamic faiths, in their purest form (that is to say, directly from the Bible/Koran) advocate violence is a bit like saying that that they advocate technophobia, or that they oppose industrial society. After all, you don't see any factories in the Bible, nor can I find one instance of a closed electrical circuit. Clearly neither of us would suggest that is the case though, right?

What you are reading in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is the actvities and dealings of a nomadic people at the dawn of civilization. Their actions must be taken in that context. Wheras today their reactions to certain situations might be deemed "overly violent", by their standards many of the actions that, according to the text, came down from the Almighty were actually more merciful than what the precedents called for. In that context, the idea that the Abrahamic Faiths deal more in mercy than vengeance does gain some credibility. As those societies evolved, and moved closer to the time period of the New Testament, again you see more and more pacifism and mercy where there previously was vengeance.

[JDHURF]

mojo wrote: Matthew 17 deals with Jesus prophesizing his own resurection and curing a child that was inflicted with a demon. In no way does Jesus even allude to physical violence.
I didn’t cite Matt. 17, go back and read the whole thread, it was a typo; I had meant to cite Matt. 5:17 as an example of Jesus claiming to have not come so as to abolish the OT law. For as I, within this thread, said with regards to Matt. 17: “Nothing violent about Matt. 17, simply some really bizarre stuff.”
mojo wrote: Mark 7:8-10
You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition." He went on to say, "How well have you set aside the commandment of God in order uphold your tradition! For Moses said, "Honor your father and mother, and whoever curses your father and mother shall die". He obviously talking about a spiritual death. Because in Mark 7:15 he states "Nothing that enters one from the outside can defile that person; but only the things that come out from within are what defile."
He is not “obviously talking about a spiritual death.” Although one can surely interpret the text as such it was not always interpreted in that way, only through the lens of enlightenment and modernity has it been so. Furthermore there is no way to loosely interpret Luke 19:27 as not explicitly promoting physical violence.
mojo wrote: Actually I suppose I should thank you because I had never payed so much attention to that last particular line. But it speaks with tremendous importance.
In that sense, your welcome. From your perspective of the bible I could probably offer some fairly interesting passages that you would enjoy.
Todd D. wrote: Saying that Christianity or any of the Abrahamic faiths, in their purest form (that is to say, directly from the Bible/Koran) advocate violence is a bit like saying that that they advocate technophobia, or that they oppose industrial society. After all, you don't see any factories in the Bible, nor can I find one instance of a closed electrical circuit. Clearly neither of us would suggest that is the case though, right?
It is not similar to saying that they advocate technophobia or an opposition to industrial society in any way whatsoever. There are passages affirmatively testifying to violence, it is not a lack of the opposite that promotes violence, such as would be the case with technophobia and an opposition to industrial society. I am not claiming that, based on an absence in the bible, it is promoting violence I am claiming that what is included in the bible is promoting violence.
Todd D. wrote: What you are reading in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is the actvities and dealings of a nomadic people at the dawn of civilization. Their actions must be taken in that context. Wheras today their reactions to certain situations might be deemed "overly violent", by their standards many of the actions that, according to the text, came down from the Almighty were actually more merciful than what the precedents called for. In that context, the idea that the Abrahamic Faiths deal more in mercy than vengeance does gain some credibility. As those societies evolved, and moved closer to the time period of the New Testament, again you see more and more pacifism and mercy where there previously was vengeance.
Certainly true, but peripheral to my point. My point being that these passages remain in the bible, that many of them are – in no way – repudiated within the bible and that there are many individuals that read the bible literally as the infallible word of gad and act accordingly.