Having studied Christianity for quite some time - and having two parents who, frequently and at many different times offered me apologetics literature - a defense I often hear about several different philosophies, especially Christianity, is that its qualities or merit cannot be judged exclusively by the behavior of its allegd participants.

For example, the Christian Church has, as is common knowledge, committed some of the most criminal and diabolical subversions of just about every culture it has laid its talons on since its inception, from the cults of the Middle-east, to the heathen Europeans, to the annihilation of innumerable Indian tribes and clans. Since, according to the apologists, murder is not sanctioned by the Biblical precepts, the people who claimed to come to these lands and spread Christianity in the name of the One True God were heretics who forever tarnished the reputation of Christianity.

I refuse to buy this copout any longer.

There is typically a considerable parallel between what a particular element claims to be intended for, and the most common use or outcome of said element.

For example, if I am a civil union representative dealing with a company that pledges itself to financial dignity and a strong sense of business ethics, yet tosses around bribes, pulls extortion scams, and sucks every dime out of union funds with the most corrupt and evil tactics of manipulation and deception, I am not going to pretend that the company is, in fact, rooted in righteousness. In spite of what that meaningless pledge of dignity indicates about the quality of the company, this does not distort the fact that they are crooks.

As another example, Communism is rarely judged in relation to its inception by Marx and Engels, but is instead judged by the historical success of its application in Russia, Cuba, and the Far East.

Why is Christianity exempt from this type of rational conclusion-forming?

The very spirit of Christianity - as it has been expressed since its very inception by every credible power in human history - is in direct contradiction to the precepts outlined in the Bible. From its roots and connection to the warlike Zealots, to the conversion of Rome, to the entrapment and subterfuge of countless other, dignified, noble cultures, Christianity has expressed itself in enough circumstances, regardless of epoch, context, or intent, to identify itself as a breathing entity to which its own spirit and name can be attached.

This, as human history has recorded it, is Christianity.

This perhaps was not the intention of the originator of the faith; this was perhaps the exact opposite of it. The fact remains, however, that this is the end result - a xenocidal war machine that assimilates everything it touches.

If this type of a description of Christianity were an isolated incident, I wouldn't mind so much - it's easy to sell that a rag tag pack of maniacs in central park talking about how God won't stop playing the kazoo right in their ears is not an accurate reprsentation of what Christianity truly is.

The things that have been done in the name of Christianity, that have been ordained and sanctioned by the church itself, is too great a historical trend to pass off as "a few stray sheep running from the herd." Cruel, blood-hardened tyrants have forged the true definition of Christianity, which is ironically very different from the Bible.

Well, I'm done running my mouth. What do you guys think? What is more important in the judgment and definition of a particular faith or creed? The principle by which it claims to exist, or by the continuous straying from those principles for the benefit of the self?

That position always struck me as ridiculous.

As if Christians could suddenly do away with any "bad apples" by defining them out of their existence. If that were at all valid, could humanity suddenly do away with criminals by defining them out of being human (i.e. to be human, one cannot commit crime)? It would be ridiculous to say the least.

Even if we accept that position as holding merit, it still doesn't absolve Christianity of anything. It does not, in any way, do away with the Christian socialization, and background those people posssed. Hence, they committing an act of malice or crime only serves to show that either Christianity is directly responsible for the act, or simply powerless to stop it.

Th point your parents are trying to make is that a Christian is not called to be a 'Christian', he/she is called to follow Christ. With having said that, it is extemely imnportant that the claimant (who calls themselves Christian) uphold the things that Jesus said. Now, we know that no man is perfect and that all wll stumble. But there is a far cry from the maniacal tyrants, who called themselves Christans, and the peacemakers of today and of old who followed Jesus. Where is the ambiguity? Jesus Himself told His followers to watch of for wolves in sheeps clothing. Revelation talks about the seven churches in Asia Minor, fove of which became corrupted. John the Revelator was not merely mentioning churches in Asia. It is symbolic of where you are or where you are not, in Christ. Jesus said, "You either gather or you scatter." That's it. You are either propogating a message of truth or a message of falsehood. There really is no in-between. Now, of course anyone who calls themselves 'Christian' is going to claim that they are a 'real Christian.' I understand your annoyance with this. How do you think that makes true Christians feel? These wackos going out perverting the truth and they get lumped in with the lot. Apparently it works, because you seem to condemn the whole of Christendom for a few jackasses. Is that really fair? Would you like me to call you a homicidal and genocidal athiest just Stalin and Mao, simply because you're an athiest? Or would you rather have me recognize you, for your actions as GOD would?

Does this make sense? Once again, I understand that you're sick of seeing hypocrites. Everyone is; most of all, God. But if there is anything in you that could for even one second rationalize that there just might be a God, don't you think He has reserved a time of reckoning for their abominations? Indeed, He has.

The bottom line is this: Your parents are right to say that we shouldn't group everyone together simply by some loose affiliation. Another word for that is racism, bigotry, sexism, etc... Here's where the rubber meets the road. Everyone knows what a Christian is supposed to be like because they claim absolute truth. Athiest get to be comfortable because they have no moral compass. (That doesn't mean that they don't believe in morals). That means that there is nothing differentiating right and wrong, other than their own opinion. How convenient it is to point our fingers at a group because we know what their beliefs are. Does that make sense to you?

Y'know, last night, I was actually falling asleep when making that post, so I wasn't sure if my point was clear and distinct. Having said that, thank you for providing a precise example of what I was attempting to illustrate from bloodshot eyes.

My point is that your definition of what a Christian is - a person who directly obeys the teachings of the Gospels - is now in such a low majority that historical Christians - from the warrior Zealots to modern belligerent American rednecks - have commanded the use of the name, to the point where these people are the ones to whom common people refer when speaking of Christians.

So, in other words, pick a new name. The Christians have hijacked it.

PS: I'm not an atheist, but thanks for trying.

Hyroglyphyx you have misrepresented atheistic morality.

let me clear it up for you.

Utillitarianism, choosing the action that will cause the least amount of harm to all involved.

the majority of atheists subscribe to this moral guide.

Claiming that atheism is synomynous with moral relativism is an insulting straw man.

I would claim christianity is the religion that prescirbes moral relativism. After all even a mass murderer can get in to heaven if they accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

Then every athiest would have to be in agreement, which would be so unlikely that we might as just well say that it is impossible. Stalion was convinced that what he was doing was moral and just. So did Hitler. So did Mao. But other athiests viewed this as an abomination. There has to be something set in concrete, otherwise we're just wading around in wet cement. For there to be morality, or for us to assign what it is moral means that someone gets to choose that for us, as far as it relates to the law, irrespective of what we think. Without some clear guidelines there can be no moral imperatives that actually work with a consistency.

You mean the ones I just listed two posts ago?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Then every athiest would have to be in agreement, which would be so unlikely that we might as just well say that it is impossible. Stalion was convinced that what he was doing was moral and just. So did Hitler. So did Mao. But other athiests viewed this as an abomination. There has to be something set in concrete, otherwise we're just wading around in wet cement. For there to be morality, or for us to assign what it is moral means that someone gets to choose that for us, as far as it relates to the law, irrespective of what we think. Without some clear guidelines there can be no moral imperatives that actually work with a consistency.

A bit off topic, but could you be more of a child? Make a damn decision for yourself, instead of having it handed down to you from up on high.

Why don't you decide what morality means?

because everyone knows might makes right.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

A bit off topic, but could you be more of a child? Make a damn decision for yourself, instead of having it handed down to you from up on high.

Why don't you decide what morality means?

My post was childish? I have tried to decide for myself what is moral. It works really well because no one is there to challenge you.... that is, until you're introduced to the rest of society. If you haven't noticed, societal laws are dictated by what lawmakers view as moral or immoral. Immoral behavior gets you thrown in jail. Here's the problem with relativistic morality: Which human being gets to play God and assign all the rules? How is that 'tolerant' to your own personal views towards morality? The bottom line is that someone decides what is right and wrong for you in society, depending on which country you live in. This is why moral relativity cannot work. Too many cowboys and not enough indians.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

There has to be something set in concrete, otherwise we're just wading around in wet cement. For there to be morality, or for us to assign what it is moral means that someone gets to choose that for us, as far as it relates to the law, irrespective of what we think. Without some clear guidelines there can be no moral imperatives that actually work with a consistency.

You were already told that atheism is not synonymous with moral relativism or immorality, so what should we make of this continuous strawman?

Again, atheism is not synonymous with moral-relativism or immorality. An atheist can have a set of moral guidelines even if those moral guidelines are not inspired or forced upon by a god. Your points are superfluous to what is being discussed.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You were already told that atheism is not synonymous with moral relativism or immorality, so what should we make of this continuous strawman?

Again, atheism is not synonymous with moral-relativism or immorality. An atheist can have a set of moral guidelines even if those moral guidelines are not inspired or forced upon by a god. Your points are superfluous to what is being discussed.



If you're a moral relativist then you can never claim that I'm right or wrong about anything... Neither can you say the same for your own views. If morality is not absolute, then my morals and my reality is whatever I want it to be. You would have no justification to challenge my opinions. I, on the other hand, do believe in absolutes which gives me the right to reject your claims.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you're a moral relativist then you can never claim that I'm right or wrong about anything... Neither can you say the same for your own views. If morality is not absolute, then my morals and my reality is whatever I want it to be. You would have no justification to challenge my opinions. I, on the other hand, do believe in absolutes which gives me the right to reject your claims.



1. Where the fuck did I say I was a moral relatvist?

2. How the fuck is that relevant?

3. Someone who is a moral relativist does not mean that he/she dismisses logic. He/she could very well say that a proposition you have states is wrong or right. He/she however cannot do so when it deals with morality.

4. All of this is irrelevant. Again, atheism is not synonimous with moral relativism, and thus your points are utterly meaningless and unimportant to what is being discussed in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you're a moral relativist(straw-man) then you can never claim that I'm right or wrong about anything(factually or morally)... Neither can you say the same for your own views. If morality is not absolute, then my morals and my reality is whatever I want it to be (false dilemma). You would have no justification to challenge my opinions(reality eh? a straw-man based on a straw-man you must feel so proud). I, on the other hand, do believe in absolutes which gives me the right to reject your claims (humillity, look into it).







Absolutely pathetic hyroglyphyx, next time read the fucking posts before you respond.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:



Absolutely pathetic hyroglyphyx, next time read the fucking posts before you respond.



Then morality is absolute... So which is it? Being as vague as possible won't help the situation.

Are morals absolute or are they relative? We don't want to hear how you think atheism is not synonymous with moral relativity... So I guess I will just ask you point blank. Are morals absolute or not?

Remember when I said read other peoples posts. I FUCKING MEANT IT. if you did you'd learn about utillitarianism, moral absolutes in no way prescribe the existance of god, unless you have an additional premise that for something to be moral it has to be a command from authority, this is of course erroneous.

As to your question, morals are situationally dependent, not dependent on opinion, not dependent on authority, but dependent on the situation. For example, stealing is wrong but would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? Killing is wrong, but would you kill in self defense?

I'm sick of your straw-men and false dillemma's, read a logic textbook and other people's posts.



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 02-21-2006).]

every religion and philosophy has been hijacked and perverted for the purposes of a violent revolution or outright usurption of power etc. christianity if far from the only. and in all honesty, with such a wide history of this going on with so many different ways of throughts and beleifs.... then just focusing on one of them... kinda seems like you have an agenda.after all, your particular belief has prolly been the factor in quite a few mass murders and other sorts of nastiness itself.

everyone has blood on there hands if you look for it.

when looking at it from an unbiased pov without an agenda, the whole thread loses alot of its meaning.

i know this is a heartbreaker: but christianity isnt the big evil ppl might like for it to be.

but really, this thread isnt about illumination: its about confirmation of your beleifs from other like minded ppl.

so, ill continue on with my brand of control and murder, and i encourage you to do the same.

have a nice day.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Remember when I said read other peoples posts. I FUCKING MEANT IT. if you did you'd learn about utillitarianism, moral absolutes in no way prescribe the existance of god, unless you have an additional premise that for something to be moral it has to be a command from authority, this is of course erroneous.

As to your question, morals are situationally dependent, not dependent on opinion, not dependent on authority, but dependent on the situation. For example, stealing is wrong but would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? Killing is wrong, but would you kill in self defense?

I'm sick of your straw-men and false dillemma's, read a logic textbook and other people's posts.







Okay.... Then let's start with something easier. Are there any absolutes at all or is everything situational?

Tyrant, you made a boo boo.

Insert CATHOLIC CHURCH into the second paragraph where you currently have CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

That is not only inaccurate, but misleading.

To address what you have said, you are absolutely correct.

There are very few TRUE Christians in this world. So...what's your point ?

Let the rest take the burden of their transgressions, and leave Christianity alone.

In the end, it is only God that knows our hearts, and only He can judge accordingly.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore about the last twenty posts, as they were way too off topic.

I'll pick up around here: someone was complaining that we can't define all Christians with the same words. However, even those who can be labeled as Christians don't have much going for them. Let's go back a couple of centuries when the world was still flat.

Which church decided to alienate the only correct philosopher of the age?

And again, which church decided to sell items that would surely get you into heaven?

And even further back, which church had three popes at the same time, and cut off Europe from the Byzantine empire?

Christian teachings are guilty of creating stagnant environments and stifling imagination. History has proved it's effinciency, and modern day Christians continue that teaching--that one must convert all to christianity, or they will surely perish. Forget the fact that there is no one true path. Kill those who think otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

A bit off topic, but could you be more of a child? Make a damn decision for yourself, instead of having it handed down to you from up on high.

Why don't you decide what morality means?

How is relying on one's Creator childish ?

Just because YOU don't believe God is there doesn't mean He isn't, or that people who DO acknowledge His existence and rely on Him are childish.

quote:Originally posted by NewModelFifteen:

Let's go back a couple of centuries when the world was still flat.

Which church decided to alienate the only correct philosopher of the age?

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

In other words, Isaiah said the world was round. Isaiah existed long before the disciples of Christ, among whom was Peter, which the Catholic Church claims was the founding father of their religion.

Which philosopher did the church alienate ? Aristotle ? Eratosthenes ? Posidonius ?

quote:And again, which church decided to sell items that would surely get you into heaven?

The CATHOLIC CHURCH, which does NOT represent Christianity !!! It represents itself.

Nowhere in the Bible are we told to buy tangible trinkets to improve our spiritual condition.

NOWHERE.

Martin Luther (not MLK) helped abolish this flawed practice...if you do not know this part of our history, I suggest you rent the movie Luther.

quote:And even further back, which church had three popes at the same time, and cut off Europe from the Byzantine empire?

The Catholic Church.

What has that got to do with Christianity ?

quote:Christian teachings are guilty of creating stagnant environments and stifling imagination.

That's a great opinion there.

Too bad that's all it is.

quote:History has proved it's effinciency, and modern day Christians continue that teaching--that one must convert all to christianity, or they will surely perish. Forget the fact that there is no one true path. Kill those who think otherwise.

Now Christianity is efficient ! *lol*

If we don't teach people about God, they will go to Hell. What terrible people we are, for wanting to prevent you an eternity of suffering !

And no...we don't kill people that don't agree with God.

Read the New Testament.

quote:Origi blah blah blah

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Notice the word used is circle, not sphere. Circles can be flat too.

That argument is old, and tired. It is also easily refuted by looking to the original Hebrew...

Yashab chuwg 'erets yashab chagab natah shamyim doq matach 'ohel yashab.

"Upon the circle" is represented by the word chuwg. The direct translation of the Hebraic lexicon is: "m. a circle, sphere, used of the arch of vault of the sky or the earth." (Strong's Concordance #02329)

The earth is round, and God knew it, therefore Isaiah knew it.

There is no mistaking the context of this scripture.

Then it would be to everyone's benefit if the translations included this tidbit. Don't jump down my throat because I pointed out an obvious error.

I already know what the translation says. I posted the scripture because it was relevant, and illustrated the point.

You didn't bother to research it, so you decided to try and poke a hole in my point, using your ignorance as a foundation.

How did you expect me to react ?

*shakes head*

Also, you consider that "jumping down" your throat ?

Man, you're sensitive. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Catholicism is the foundation of Christianity. Or are Catholics not christian at all? Do not all Christian religions spring from one form of Catholicism or another?

I should add Galileo for good measure, as well.

[This message has been edited by NewModelFifteen (edited 02-21-2006).]

I didn't need to research it. The inconsistency was quite obvious and I did everyone a favour by not ignoring it. I don't need to poke holes in your "argument", as I am neither emotionally nor intellectually invested in its outcome. The whole point of my post was to point out that the scripture you posted did not fit with your elaboration.

The "jumping down my throat" bit was in reference to this "That argument is old, and tired. It is also easily refuted by looking to the original Hebrew...". This is not a neutral response to my neutral statement.

Had you just elaborated on the original Hebrew, I would not have gotten the (accurate) impression that you were copping a bit of an unwarranted attitude.

quote:Originally posted by NewModelFifteen:

Catholicism is the foundation of Christianity. Or are Catholics not christian at all? Do not all Christian religions spring from one form of Catholicism or another?

I should add Galileo for good measure, as well.

Catholicism is a religion that was founded on Christian principles, yes. It is not, in and of itself, Christianity.

And no. All Christian religions (Baptism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc.) stem from Christian foundations, not Catholic foundations.

Christianity is the starting point...religions muddle it up with their humanity.

quote:Originally posted by xcarc:

I didn't need to research it.

If you are going to question my statement, you should make the effort to know what you're talking about.

So, yeah...you do need to, if you ever hope to be right.

quote:The inconsistency was quite obvious and I did everyone a favour by not ignoring it.

There was no inconsistency. The translation "circle" is from the root of the Hebraic lexicon chuwg.

A little research on your part would have explained that to you.

The inconsistency resided only within your ignorance.

quote:I don't need to poke holes in your "argument", as I am neither emotionally nor intellectually invested in its outcome.

Then don't.

quote:The whole point of my post was to point out that the scripture you posted did not fit with your elaboration.

But the point of your post has become alerting everyone of your ignorance on this subject.

Maybe you shouldn't get involved in debates you don't understand.

Everything I post supports my point of view. Any scripture I post will be relevant to my point, and it will be studied to the fullest.

quote:The "jumping down my throat" bit was in reference to this "That argument is old, and tired. It is also easily refuted by looking to the original Hebrew...". This is not a neutral response to my neutral statement.

The argument IS old, and it IS tired. I hardly see how it could hurt your feelings for me to point that out. It was easily refuted, because I have studied the Bible, and you haven't.

Each statement you took offense to was entirely true, and was neutral.

You can take it however you'd like, though.

quote:Had you just elaborated on the original Hebrew, I would not have gotten the (accurate) impression that you were copping a bit of an unwarranted attitude.

Being factual = copping an attitude ?

Hmmm...

Being offended = emo ?