Is all magic bad?

[Judas130]

I think they need to go one better on issuing apologies and debating reparations for the ethnic minorities whom they repressed, killed, and forced into conversion--which brings us back to the hypocrisy issue.

I sense, when LitNet theists want to challenge the atheists here who are willing to debate them back, the whole thing becomes about benevolence and a *loving* deity, whom they rush to exempt from the human cruelty practiced in its name.

Now, I might cut them some slack on Christianity and late Rome, because there we have an empire on its last legs--but I am less charitable about the price of colonialism and the use of *ministry* to justify it and salve the European conscience.

Thats an altogether different issue. yet one that deserves its time and thought on also. Christian history and its present together display some vile hypocrisy, and the things done in God's name, by Christians, have been sickening. Yet i sometimes forget, by my family's will, that I am still a Christian. I am not responsible for these atrocities. A hypocrite, is someone who does not practice what he preaches, and i seriously doubt that ALL Christians are thus. A christian child born tomorrow is not a hypocrite to hold Christians morals, as it was not he who murdered or repressed.

[Simao]

Thats an altogether different issue. yet one that deserves its time and thought on also. Christian history and its present together display some vile hypocrisy, and the things done in God's name, by Christians, have been sickening. Yet i sometimes forget, by my family's will, that I am still a Christian. I am not responsible for these atrocities. A hypocrite, is someone who does not practice what he preaches, and i seriously doubt that ALL Christians are thus. A christian child born tomorrow is not a hypocrite to hold Christians morals, as it was not he who murdered or repressed.

I totally agree with you. I really don't get why children or grandchildren should apologize for what their ancestors did. I think the closest thing to an apology that everyone should accept is the fact that the children don't approve the acts of their ancestors and that is it. You'd find a lot of people hypocrites, liers and all together immoral but that doesn't mean by anyway that the religion is what those people display. People are people and religion is religion. People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

[Judas130]

I totally agree with you. I really don't get why children or grandchildren should apologize for what their ancestors did. I think the closest thing to an apology that everyone should accept is the fact that the children don't approve the acts of their ancestors and that is it. You'd find a lot of people hypocrites, liers and all together immoral but that doesn't mean by anyway that the religion is what those people display. People are people and religion is religion. People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

Well Said.

[Jozanny]

People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

What does religion represent then that so many people, millions, if not more, fail to use the doctrine to live in compassion and humility? In Christianity, eating the flesh and blood of Christ is not merely symbolic, though most who take communion probably don't give it a second thought that their god dictates "you have to eat me in my human form for salvation to have any possibility of success."

The act of cannibalism is hardly consistent with mercy, with turning the other cheek--and Islam not only permits the subjugation of women, but leaves the door open for domestic violence which at the very least has been criminalized in most Western legal canons.

I do not buy it--this notion that Christian doctrines are super-attenuated forms of perfection toward reunification which would be pure bliss but for the human failing of following the directions to the letter.

*We*, and I include Western atheists in this group, should be ashamed, and feel guilt, for what was done to minorities in the name of this Jesus, and believers should not willfully blind themselves to historical atrocity.

Believe all you like, but you owe the less fortunate atonement for evils which were done using your creeds as justification. It should trouble your conscience and weigh your prayers, and lead to activism, true activism, like risking yourselves in inner cities to push back against gang violence and drugs. My sister, who is still a Catholic, is terrified of the inner city--and that is hypocritical. If you really believe in following Christ, you should be right there in the muck with his sinners, and if you get in danger well, by what you believe you will have martyred yourself for theology, but so few of you really follow the example.

[The Atheist]

If you really believe in following Christ, you should be right there in the muck with his sinners, and if you get in danger well, by what you believe you will have martyred yourself for theology, but so few of you really follow the example.

Well said.

I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?

[Judas130]

Believe all you like, but you owe the less fortunate atonement for evils which were done using your creeds as justification.

i can not accept that. I don't follow my religions dogma or creed, i dont even feel i belong to my faith. However, a Spanish catholic in today's world, who is devout in his faith, was not the ancestor who slaughtered innocents in the Philippines in the name of his faith. That, was his ancestor, and that ancestor will be judged accordingly by his God for his actions. The spanish catholic today, in this example, lives his life on a clean slate, he would do well to accept that these atrocities happened so that he learns from them, but in no way do i believe he should hold responsibility for them.

a German born today isn't responsible for Hitler just because he might become passionate for his country.

[Redzeppelin]

Well said.

I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?

A total misunderstanding of what Jesus meant. Jesus did not mean allow evil to have its way with you, or to allow evil to be perpetrated upon others. The "turn the other check" comment deals with the minor insults, sleights, and annoyances that come from interacting with people in our day to day life - it's Jesus way of mitigating the "eye for an eye" stuff of the OT. Nothing in the Bible indicates that we are not to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or our country from harm.

If you intend to use the Bible to attack believers, make sure you know what it actually says and the context within which it says those things. I know I get toasted around here when I speak of scientific things with less than optimal accuracy.

Christians seem to think they have the moral perogative on the stairway to heaven, and I think they need to go one better on issuing apologies and debating reparations for the ethnic minorities whom they repressed, killed, and forced into conversion--which brings us back to the hypocrisy issue.

All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

All people - not just Christians - do hypocritical, atrocious things to other people. Being a Christian does not mean being perfect or being sinless - and there's no doubt that terrible things have been done in the name of God and God will judge those who committed those acts - but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).

I sense, when LitNet theists want to challenge the atheists here who are willing to debate them back, the whole thing becomes about benevolence and a *loving* deity, whom they rush to exempt from the human cruelty practiced in its name.

God is not responsible for the abuses committed in His name by others, any more than you would be if I went out and murdered people and said "I do this in honor of Jozanny!"

God gave us freewill, and we are responsible for the choices we make with it. He is not responsible for those choices.

Now, I might cut them some slack on Christianity and late Rome, because there we have an empire on its last legs--but I am less charitable about the price of colonialism and the use of *ministry* to justify it and salve the European conscience.

How benevolent of you to cut us some slack. Who put you in the judgment chair, and what about your life or belief system allows you to take the superior position?

As for the evils done in the name of God - that is a regrettable reality that God will judge, but how interesting that many atheists choose to overlook the reality that more good is done in the name of God than evil. That is what I would call selective evidence.

[The Atheist]

A total misunderstanding of what Jesus meant.

Uh, no it is not. Please read on.

Jesus did not mean allow evil to have its way with you, or to allow evil to be perpetrated upon others. The "turn the other check" comment deals with the minor insults, sleights, and annoyances that come from interacting with people in our day to day life - it's Jesus way of mitigating the "eye for an eye" stuff of the OT. Nothing in the Bible indicates that we are not to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or our country from harm.

That's fine, but it has no relevance whatsoever.

Unfortunately, to show why that does not apply in 2008, I would have to discuss current politics and point out that none of the situations you quote above; no threat, no defence, applied in the case of Iraq.

If you intend to use the Bible to attack believers, make sure you know what it actually says and the context within which it says those things. I know I get toasted around here when I speak of scientific things with less than optimal accuracy.

As I trust you now realise, I know exactly what it means. However, as noted above, the moral issue is completely disregarded by hundreds of thousands of theists involved what I certainly consider "unjust" if I look at it from either my own morality or "WWJD?"

Another point that seems to be missing from your argument is that the christian bible has been interpreted in hundreds and hundreds of different ways and there is no scholarship which makes your reading of it right and anyone else's wrong. That's the joy of science & maths, you see - no interpretation, just the same old results every time, year in, year out.

From Adam & Steve to Noah to Job, to the life of Jesus, the theology & letters of Saulus and the gibberish of Revelation, every christian church has its own unique interpretation - Catholics treat Genesis figuratively, fundies literally and the Anglican church is happy to treat the entire book as allegorical, not even demanding Mary's divinity or a bodily resurrection.

I know this is aimed at Jo, but I'll stick my $0-02 worth here.

All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

Yet, I presume you'd be equally certain that yours is really the right one.

but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).

I am just amazed at the persistence of this notion.

Happily, that certain fundamental christian sects choose to believe the nonsensical idea that atheism has caused evil does not make it so. It does, however, show the deperation with which those same fundies need to find things to berate atheism with. I guess there's an element of "tit-for-tat" in it, because atheists are apt to point out the evil deeds done in the name of god/s. The bad news is that there's no equivalence in the two claims.

God is not responsible for the abuses committed in His name by others, any more than you would be if I went out and murdered people and said "I do this in honor of Jozanny!"

I don't know of any atheists who would disagree with your statement. I haven't ever heard of "god" being blamed for past excesses, genocide, torture and murder. All of the atheists I've ever met credit religion and humans with the crimes. Given that religion is a human construct, I don't even need to argue that god is a human construct, because we agree implicitly, men are responsible.

As for the evils done in the name of God - that is a regrettable reality that God will judge, but how interesting that many atheists choose to overlook the reality that more good is done in the name of God than evil. That is what I would call selective evidence.

Again, I think you're generalising here. I certainly recognise - as do many atheists - the good that religion does. The trouble is that nobody has yet prepared a cost/benefit analysis for religion overall. Whether the billions spent on preachers' salaries, private jets and mansions and the oppression of women by some religions outwieghs the good is hard to tell. The RCC alone is possibly costing hunderds of thousands/millions of lives with its ongoing failure to endorse contraception.

[Jozanny]

All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

All people - not just Christians - do hypocritical, atrocious things to other people. Being a Christian does not mean being perfect or being sinless - and there's no doubt that terrible things have been done in the name of God and God will judge those who committed those acts - but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).

How does this absolve you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you redeem yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

I can judge, quite simply, because I don't accept the doctrine which tells me I am less than an *unknowable* essence, to use Richard's definition. What about persecution of Jewish Europeans? Your conscience is entirely clear on the historical impetus of your faith which got you to its modern forms? I am abused by able-bodied Protestants all the time, and of many different skin tones. It is rather sanctimonious for you to tell me they will be judged for their prejudice and lack of compassion--it merely proves to me that doctrine is a broken reed which has a pretty sharp thrust.

I have paid my dues as an activist for the voiceless, and will continue to do so, and I also acknowledge the historical guilt of my ancestors. That is conscience, to me.

If you think non-believers and those who aren't of your faith are wrong, haven't you already consigned them to a fate worse than that you believe you will be getting? If you are going to tell me it isn't for you to judge, it seems pretty clear you already have if you are absolutely certain the doctrine you follow will reunify you with the divine, but upon my death, I will continue to *suffer* due to separation from it.

This is also an ideal which seems tailored to allow humans to be cruel to each other rather than allowing for compassion, and doubt.

[Judas130]

How does this ABSOLVE you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you REDEEM yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

Nuuur, listen, I did not commit these crimes, and neither did Red. Other men have done it based on their ideals and the ways in which they feel they must practice their faith. I find it mildly irritating and slightly insulting that you say I/we must be absolved for sins we did not commit. Its quite simple:

two men of same faith. one chooses to axe a civilian to prove some point in their God's eyes. the other, a good young man, sits at home watching movies and prays to the same god before dinner.

the man who had the axe has sinned on his own. the other is in no way responsible for it. Yet they worship in the same faith, in the eyes of the law your ideal is ridiculous.

when you say things like this, it reminds me of how when western people think 'Islam' or 'Muslim' they instantly think 'terrorism'. A good Muslim schoolgirl has not committed an act of terrorism while another Muslim does, the second person must be absolved, the first has nothing to do with it, even though they worship the same deity.

Your ideal is quite unfair.

[Jozanny]

Nuuur, listen, I did not commit these crimes, and neither did Red. Other men have done it based on their ideals and the ways in which they feel they must practice their faith. I find it mildly irritating and slightly insulting that you say I/we must be absolved for sins we did not commit. Its quite simple:

two men of same faith. one chooses to axe a civilian to prove some point in their God's eyes. the other, a good young man, sits at home watching movies and prays to the same god before dinner.

the man who had the axe has sinned on his own. the other is in no way responsible for it. Yet they worship in the same faith, in the eyes of the law your ideal is ridiculous.

when you say things like this, it reminds me of how when western people think 'Islam' or 'Muslim' they instantly think 'terrorism'. A good Muslim schoolgirl has not committed an act of terrorism while another Muslim does, the second person must be absolved, the first has nothing to do with it, even though they worship the same deity.

Your ideal is quite unfair.

No it isn't. White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black. True followers would end European and American wealth, and you don't. Caucasians are guilty of some of the worst human genocides, and a good portion of those genocides were done in the name of Christianized nations.

I am not *absolving* myself due to my non-belief, hardly. I actually practice what I preach.

I wonder how many believers on this board truly do the same.

[dzebra]

White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black.

So are you implying that anyone who is white and European is automatically guilty of some evil deed against people of another color?

I know that people are guilty of evil things, but generalizing crimes based on color or nationality seems unfair. Shouldn't everyone be begging forgiveness of everyone regardless of color?

[Etienne]

No it isn't. White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black. True followers would end European and American wealth, and you don't. Caucasians are guilty of some of the worst human genocides, and a good portion of those genocides were done in the name of Christianized nations.

I am not *absolving* myself due to my non-belief, hardly. I actually practice what I preach.

I wonder how many believers on this board truly do the same.

Oww this very perspective is the actual basic of all racial, cultural, nationalistic, etc. hate. I am not accusing you of anything, mind you, simply I find that the way of reasoning is flawed in itself, even if in some cases, like yours, it might lead to positive results.

Since when am I responsible for the deeds of someone else, just because his skin color was the same?

Bad deeds have been committed in the past. But I don't think the solution lies in raising forever such things from the past, or even try to fix them as close as possible to what it was before. I personally think that once the deed is done you should simply strive to make the best of it, or else, it will simply cause more harm. Let us take the illustrative example of Israel. After the Holocaust, Israel was given to the Jews. Bad move. It caused much more harm than good. But now, people have been living there for years, the existence of Israel has become entirely justified and cannot be contested or it will simply create yet more harm than good, etc. etc. etc.

Now let's take the example of native Americans (I'll take the more specific example of those in Canada, but I think my example could be extended much further) where by trying to give them as much as possible to so-called conditions to their ancestral lives, it is in fact simply destroying them. Why do you think there is so much suicide, drug problems, criminality, poverty, etc. in native American reserves? If they were simply integrated to the society as normal citizens it would be best for both parties. But there is one (main) thing stopping it and it is the reasoning that spawned this post.

One should take the present situation, then look to the future, without minding too much the past (to some extent), and make the best of it for all parties involved.

[The Atheist]

Bad deeds have been committed in the past.

This is true.

I know of no culture or race which hasn't committed atrocities against others. Christians now are no more responsible for slavery than Germans are for the Holocaust, Americans for the genocide of Native Americans, Australians for genocide against Aborigine or Belgians for genocide in its former colonies.

The world just can't work that way, and as you note at the end, far better to have learnt the lesson and move forward for the benefit of all.

[Redzeppelin]

That's fine, but it has no relevance whatsoever.

Which, of course, you'll neglect to explain or demonstrate.

Unfortunately, to show why that does not apply in 2008, I would have to discuss current politics and point out that none of the situations you quote above; no threat, no defence, applied in the case of Iraq.

What you really need to do is deal with the fact that I responded to this statement:

"I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?"

I dealt quite clearly with the implication of this sentence - which (at the risk of being insulting and explaining to you what you should already clearly understand) is simply this: that serving in the military is a violation of Jesus' admonishment to "turn the other cheek." I addressed that quite clearly; why you're acting like your statment was more complex is a mystery to me.

As I trust you now realise, I know exactly what it means. However, as noted above, the moral issue is completely disregarded by hundreds of thousands of theists involved what I certainly consider "unjust" if I look at it from either my own morality or "WWJD?"

No - you've said absolutely nothing that shows that you understand the portions of the Bible you quote. All you're really done (as usual) is act as if I'm obviously wrong for reasons you don't have to (or cannot) provide. I'm dealing with what you said - period. Why you're squirming around with all kinds of other responses is something I don't understand.

Another point that seems to be missing from your argument is that the christian bible has been interpreted in hundreds and hundreds of different ways and there is no scholarship which makes your reading of it right and anyone else's wrong. That's the joy of science & maths, you see - no interpretation, just the same old results every time, year in, year out.

Here a straw man, there a straw man, everywhere a straw man...

You're grasping, my friend. You made a comment that any Christian knows to be false, and now, rather than admit that you might be wrong, you're throwing up whatever you can to smokescreen the issue. This has nothing to do with interpretation and everything to do with the principles put forth in the Bible. It takes no interpretive gymnastics to understand that the Bible does not say anywhere that you are to tolerate the perpetration of evil against yourself, your family, your country. Period. Defending oneself from harm, one's family, and one's country does not in and of itself constitute a violation of the "turn the other cheek." Jesus said "turn the other cheek" if someone slaps your cheek - not "turn the other cheek" while you are assaulted, your wife raped, and your country attacked by a hostile enemy.

If you want to argue about Iraq, well, your original comment should have made that clear. It didn't.

From Adam & Steve to Noah to Job, to the life of Jesus, the theology & letters of Saulus and the gibberish of Revelation, every christian church has its own unique interpretation - Catholics treat Genesis figuratively, fundies literally and the Anglican church is happy to treat the entire book as allegorical, not even demanding Mary's divinity or a bodily resurrection.

None of this is germane to the comment you made and the refuation I provided. Interpretation has nothing to do with the fact that your insinuation is flat out wrong.

Yet, I presume you'd be equally certain that yours is really the right one.

Condescending as always. If you'll read your answers to my posts, you'll see that your attitude of unquestionable rightness is pretty much the same.

I am just amazed at the persistence of this notion.

Yes - reality is quite persistent, isn't it?

Happily, that certain fundamental christian sects choose to believe the nonsensical idea that atheism has caused evil does not make it so. It does, however, show the deperation with which those same fundies need to find things to berate atheism with. I guess there's an element of "tit-for-tat" in it, because atheists are apt to point out the evil deeds done in the name of god/s. The bad news is that there's no equivalence in the two claims.

Nobody said atheism "caused" evil; you might want to re-read my post a bit more carefully again. I made it clear that atrocities are committed under all beliefs - including atheism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al). It is not an attempt to "berate" atheism as it is to reinforce the reality that people tend to be petty, vicious, and quarrelsome no matter what they do/don't believe. People are bad no matter what they believe in; the Christian is supposed to behave better, but humanity sometimes gets in the way - just like it gets in the way of atheists doing the right thing sometimes too.

I don't know of any atheists who would disagree with your statement. I haven't ever heard of "god" being blamed for past excesses, genocide, torture and murder. All of the atheists I've ever met credit religion and humans with the crimes. Given that religion is a human construct, I don't even need to argue that god is a human construct, because we agree implicitly, men are responsible.

The implication from many atheists in these forums is very clear: God is to blame for the terrible things Christians do. How could you possibly have missed that?

Again, I think you're generalising here. I certainly recognise - as do many atheists - the good that religion does. The trouble is that nobody has yet prepared a cost/benefit analysis for religion overall. Whether the billions spent on preachers' salaries, private jets and mansions and the oppression of women by some religions outwieghs the good is hard to tell. The RCC alone is possibly costing hunderds of thousands/millions of lives with its ongoing failure to endorse contraception.

And you just engaged in a fair amount of generalizing too about "preacher's salaries" etc -- the majority of people who serve God do so for average pay, to less than average pay - often making huge sacrifices to serve. You reached into the standard pocket of stereotypes for that one, my friend. Don't accuse me of what you yourself do and expect me to take the hit quietly.

How does this absolve you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you redeem yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

My theology? What - by the way - is "my theology"?

How I "redeem" myself? What? What are you talking about? I don't have to "redeem" myself - Christ did it for me.

I can judge, quite simply, because I don't accept the doctrine which tells me I am less than an *unknowable* essence, to use Richard's definition. What about persecution of Jewish Europeans? Your conscience is entirely clear on the historical impetus of your faith which got you to its modern forms? I am abused by able-bodied Protestants all the time, and of many different skin tones. It is rather sanctimonious for you to tell me they will be judged for their prejudice and lack of compassion--it merely proves to me that doctrine is a broken reed which has a pretty sharp thrust.

What is all this? I don't have to atone for the misdeeds of other Christians. I reiterate: God will judge all in the end; Christians who misrepresented God will bear a harsher penalty because they should have know better (as the Bible says, "to those whom much is given, much is required"). Atheists who just want to beat the dead horse of Christian misbehavior have a tunnel vision which allows them to pretend that only Christians act hypocritically and do terrible things in the name of something good - but the reality is that is a fact of the human condition and occurs at all levels of family, culture, society.

If you think non-believers and those who aren't of your faith are wrong, haven't you already consigned them to a fate worse than that you believe you will be getting? If you are going to tell me it isn't for you to judge, it seems pretty clear you already have if you are absolutely certain the doctrine you follow will reunify you with the divine, but upon my death, I will continue to *suffer* due to separation from it.

All beliefs claim to have the exclusive truth; the Jews do, the Hindus do, the Muslims do, the Buddhists do - so why does everyone get hostile when the Christians say the same?

I haven't "consigned" anybody to anything - I have stated my belief that Christianity is the correct way to God. Guess what? In a so-called "tolerant" world, aren't you supposed to tolerate my belief? From what you're saying, it sounds like you're not being very tolerant, my friend.

This is also an ideal which seems tailored to allow humans to be cruel to each other rather than allowing for compassion, and doubt.

Only those who are unfamiliar with the Bible (esp the Gospels) would make such an incorrect statement.