[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The "Who is God?" Tirade



>Hm.  The problem about your kind of arguing is that you are jumping from mere
>observations to generalized conclusions way too quickly.

Bernd:

OK, here's my last word too.

I have to be general because to cite specifics would be too much, I think.
But the Xtians in this country (at least) preach that evolution is false.
And that is provably wrong.

>No one denies your right to defend yourself against unwanted Christianization.
>But when defending yorself, you should be fair enough not also to attack the
>majority of Christians who don't want to bother you with their beliefs at all.

Actually, I'm not attacking any specific Xtians, just the stated faith and
beliefs.

>I'm not very familiar with US domestic politics, but I guess that even fanatic
>Christian lobbyists only want to make their moral values a general law, not
>their beliefs.  So, again, don't over-generalize.

I'm not. They are dictating their morales and faith into law. This is a
fact. One of the two main political parties over here are being held hostage
by them, in fact. And will lose the election mainly because of it.

>> In fact, the Xtian religion claims to be THE truth.
>
>Wrong.  Like every religion, Christians try to find as much evidence as
>possible to confirm that what they believe might be true.

I don't know about Germany, but that's not the case here. Here they claim to
have the one and only truth...and historically, at least, so have the
European Xtians.

>Only fanatics claim to know the religious truth.

Well, I certainly agree with that. Of course, I'm thinking of a specific
group of fanatics...

>Etymology is a serious science that doesn't play games like this.  `God' and
>`good' seem to be etymologically unrelated.  `Good' means `fitting well'
>whereas `god' most likely means `he who is invoked'.  And it is sure that there
>is no relationship between `devil' (Greek `diabolos') and `evil'.

Oh? It seems obvious to me. The spelling says it all.
However, I gave you the dictionary meaning of "gospel," and that should tell
you something.

>Hm, maybe you really wouldn't believe your eyes if you went to, e.g., the
>Netherlands and saw how liberal religious teachings are in this country.  But
>also in America, churches don't consist of fanatics only.  Watch out, and you
>will find lots of reasonable Christians at the very place where you live.

Well, there you point out another flaw. It seems that the Xtian faith can't
reconcile their beliefs and so have split into an endless number of sects.
Not good. They should set a better example.

>As for the Pope:  No, he isn't the Catholic Church, and he also doesn't possess
>the truth.  

I can agree with that, too. See how much we agree? But the Pope is supposed
to be God's rep on Earth...the most Holy of all men...the "heir" of
Peter...make that St. Peter.

>Again I must conclude from your words that I am an asshole because I am German
>and once all Germans were Nazis...

Ha! Since you came into Germany a generation ago, I'd say that I would fit
that description better than you. And you know I didn't mean that about
myself. I can be an asshole, but I try not to...and only do it when required.
Bernd, you're taking this thing way too personally.

>No, you cannot take the history of a certain group as an evidence for what this
>group is all about and how it will behave in the future.  Again, this would be
>pure agitation.  Of course, members of groups with a `difficult' history have
>to be a little more careful about how they act and what they say than others,
>but their history alone doesn't make them evil, right?

Well, aren't we supposed to LEARN from history? Does a leopard change its
spots? If Xtianity teaches their members that they are the only ones going
to "heaven" and are therefore spiritually superior to everyone else, what do
you THINK will happen in the future (especially after they get control of
this country)?

>Hm, sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what I have written.  Where in
>the paragraph quoted above do I imply that turning the other cheek is the
>correct philosophy whenever you encounter some suffering?

You didn't, but the Bible did. And you qualified it by saying that "when you
have no choice," which I questioned.

>Agreed.  But where in Christianity do you find any evidence for denying human
>nature?  Christian belief accepts humans as unities of body and soul, and of
>course the needs of the body have to be satisfied as well as the needs of the
>soul.  Only if both of them are contradictory, a moral solution has to be
>found...

Every "sin" on the books is contrary to human nature.

>Again, pure agitation. Why do you think Catholics honour their Saints? 

Yeah, how long has it been since there was a new Saint? Mother Teresa
doesn't count...yet.

>Mark, you must have completely misinterpreted something about Christian
>beliefs. 

No I haven't. The Bible says: be satisfied with your lot in life, you will
be rewarded in heaven. Maybe you have a different Bible over there...

>> And the odds are that had the Xtians not been wrestling with their faith,
>> they would have gotten Hitler.
>
>(I assume that you intended to write `would not'.) 

No I didn't. If they weren't hampered by their faith, they would have saved
millions.

>Again you are quoting history as an evidence for bad attitudes of today's
>Christians...  And as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this isn't a priori
>a religious conflict but a nationalist one which unfortunately happens to have
>a serious religious aspect due to a unlucky history.

Oof! Bernd, you need to look into the conflict in N Ireland. It is indeed
religious. And yes, "history teaches us..." Me, I try (at least) to learn my
lessons.

>If we are talking about modern democracies, then the government hasn't much
>power to define anything - making laws is the task of parliaments.  This holds
>true even in the US, where the president has some additional power instruments
>due to the veto system.

That hasn't stopped the laws from getting passed, though. And yes, they can
(and do) define "legal" and "illegal." Taking bribes isn't legal...but
lobbying (which is the same thing) is.

>No, there is nothing strange about it because these are two totally different
>things.  In the first case we are talking about killing an innocent human life
>form whereas in the second one we are talking about severely punishing cruel
>criminals with the aim of deterring others from copying them.

Oh? And who holds themself in a position to determine who is truly innocent
and who is guilty? No, it doesn't wash. Either murder is murder, no matter
who you kill, or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

>But you are generalizing too much and posing agitational questions.  While
>abortion may become an important personal ethical question for some Christians
>in distress, death penalty has nothing to do with religion at all - court
>justice is a completely secular thing.  If some fanatics around you preach the
>contrary, ignore them.

Ouch! When was the last time you read the Ten Commandments? Thou Shall Not
Kill...even *I* know that one!

>Yes, I do.  And there is one good why I do so:  Jesus of Nazareth was a very
>provocative preacher, and he often went to extremes in his speech just to make
>differences clear.

That's pretty dangerous thinking there, Bernd. Next thing you'll be changing
things...

>You cannot take every part of the Bible at its literal meaning, because the
>Bible does contain contradictions.  Sometimes you have to interpret, sometimes
>it's wise to do so.  An organized Christian religion can try to help you with
>that difficult task.

See my comment above. But yes, the Bible DOES have several major contridictions.

>Still the Bible is a great collection of interesting and valuable books.  Have
>you ever read the book Job, perhaps one of the greatest pieces of world
>literature?  (Even Goethe stole some of its ideas for his `Faust'.)  I can only
>recommend you to do so because it exactly covers the difficulties you and I
>have with the question of inevitable suffering.

I've read the entire Bible. Sorry, I was more impressed with Tolkien.

>But now comes society.  And since usually every society consists of about as
>many women as men, it seems to be a good thing to get them together in pairs.

Oh, but we're talking about what the Bible calls a sin here, not man-made
society. Unless you want to say that the Bible wasn't divinely inspired...

>Let's see.  First of all, what's the meaning of the word?  A sin is an act that
>hurts your own or someone else's dignity.  

Now I KNOW that definition isn't in the Bible. No indeed, they were quite
specific...

>However, if everybody is happy and will never feel remorse, then this hasn't
>been a sin.

A nice theory, but I wouldn't tell your local Priest that. I could go with
that, though.

>>From practice (no, not necessarily from your own - I don't want to imply
that),
>you know that adultery will most likely be a sin, but this has not much to do
>with religion - it is rather a consequence of the social convention of marriage
>as mentioned above.  

Hold on now. You're saying that one of the Ten Commandments from the hand of
God himself "has not much to do with religion..." I don't know about this,
Bernd.

>Mark, you are preaching here, and you are talking about a truth you found.
>Isn't that exactly the same behaviour you are blaming your `Xtians' for?  So,
>what makes you better than them when you behave exactly like they do?

I'm not preaching, because (here's the payoff): I don't try to get others to
follow nor do I force them to! BIG difference...I am merely relating my own
personal experience. Not writing it in a book, etc.

>But I kindly request you to also accept other people's belief, even if you
>think that they are mistaken and even if there are some fanatics among them.

Oh I don't know...I don't actually try to change anyone's feelings about
their faith...merely suggest that they might want to seek more info. Now, if
someone asks me what I think about a particular teaching...I will surely let
them know. But I cannot accept someone's belief when it contridicts
something I know to be fact. Take the Flat Earth Society, for instance.

>You are no better than them and they are no better than you. 

Hmmm...surely I'm better than SOME of them, at least. Maybe most of them.
Who can say?
I guess we'll see in the end.




                   Cheers                   ML

"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
                                                                 Pete Townshend