The Campaign Builder's Guild

from a christian perspective, however, GOD's acts of wrath and vengeance were justified by the acts of the targets. speaking as a non-christian, it reminds me of the monty python skit where a criminal would frequently nail boards to his victims heads; the victims constantly claimed, "oh yes, very nice chap. well yes, he did nail a board to my head, but to be fair, i had it coming." i imagine christians don't see it that way, though.

by the way, notice how many times this guy cites the book of leviticus? from what i understand, many scholars consider levit to be the bastard-step-child-book of the bible, as almost the entire book was rendered obsolete with the covenant of christ. if we choose to go by levit, then i no longer see any immoralty in enslaving canadians.

According to Leviticus, I have the right, nay, the duty, to stone my neighbor for shaving his sideburns.  How dare he, that pagan sideburn shaving bastard!  

I, of course, feel very fashionable in my enormous sideburns.

I just wanted to observe something that you won't hear very frequently from the clergy, although if you ask the wise ones will quietly admit it.

Everyone reads and quotes those parts of the bible they want and ignores the rest.  Everyone.

Quote from: DeeLNew American Standard, Study Edition.  I just looked over the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and count the prohibition against being false about others as the ninth commandment, the tenth being the prohibition on covetousness and the eighth being against theft.  What exactly do you mean by combining the ninth and tenth commandments?  (I'm not trying to be difficult here; I have heard the prohibition against false witness listed as the eighth commandment before, and just don't know how that would work.)

The way I learned it was;
8- false witness
9- coveting of property
10- coveting of everything else

I still use it simply because it's what I learned, although it does not make much sense to have them split.

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinfrom a christian perspective, however, GOD's acts of wrath and vengeance were justified by the acts of the targets. speaking as a non-christian, it reminds me of the monty python skit where a criminal would frequently nail boards to his victims heads; the victims constantly claimed, "oh yes, very nice chap. well yes, he did nail a board to my head, but to be fair, i had it coming." i imagine christians don't see it that way, though.

Do you consider jailing someone an evil act? It is essentially what God does, only for an eternity. And to be honest, there is no confirmed case of God's wrath and vengeance being brought down on earth for thousands of years. Some would even argue that God does not punish anyone who abandons him, just ceases to protect him from the evil that would otherwise befall him.

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinby the way, notice how many times this guy cites the book of leviticus? from what i understand, many scholars consider levit to be the bastard-step-child-book of the bible, as almost the entire book was rendered obsolete with the covenant of christ. if we choose to go by levit, then i no longer see any immoralty in enslaving canadians.

Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were all rendered obsolete after Christ's coming. They were the groundwork for a civilization's attempt to stave off God's wrath, which is no longer needed through Christ.

*looks around the boards*

...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...

Hey guys, I don't mind religious discussion here, any discussion is fine, and any and all opinions are valid; let's just make sure everyone keeps things civil.

Edit: And let me clarify by saying, I don't think anyone here has said anything out of line yet, I just want to make sure we stay that way.

Cheers!

Quote from: stargate525...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...

Not the only one!

I'm not interested in "taking on the entire boards," though. I've avoided most of this topic, because extremist whackjobs like this article's author make me angry!

Thanks, Ish.  We're cool.

Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations.  I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.

Edit:  And just so everyone knows, I'm not really out to take on anyone, except perhaps the author of that so-called 'exposing Satanism' site.

Quote from: DeeLThanks, Ish.  We're cool.

Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations.  I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.

There are numerous major denominations that do not consider the Bible inerrant, and only Catholics place any emphasis upon the Pope (and many Catholics I've spoken to are moving away from the infallibility of that figure, as well.)

There are a surprising number of us who are remarkably rational, progressive, well-educated, and even (*gasp!*) socially liberal. We just don't get a lot of airtime, because we don't froth at the mouth. :)

Yeah, it seems to be getting that way.

I haven't had a good yak about faith wars in quite a while, so allow me to indulge...

I myself put absolutely no stock in religion whatsoever, but heathen attempts to smear the integrity of Christianity always seem yawn-inducing.  I mean, how many arguments against the theodicy do we need?  It all seems to be a restating of the same nonsense you've heard innumerable times before.

The worst offender is: "religion has caused more wars than anything else."  How many times have any of us heard that, and how quickly did it become an obscene, overused cliche?  For one, it's basic premise is wrong.  People have caused more wars than anything else - heck, we cause all wars.  It's like saying "guns kill people" or "cars are made for hit-and-runs".  It's the ultimate moral cop-out, wherein the absolute responsibility, which should lie in the hands of men and women, is placed upon an inanimate object, or in the case of religion, a concept without physical property.

I find it worrisome that such an argument is one of the most oft-touted in the "war" against religion.  It's like the war against terrorism.  You cannot fight it; it is an idea, and like religion, it stems from a human aspect that cannor be quashed by any means short of mind control.  We are not fighting "terror" when we increase security measures and turn a wary eye towards those of 'ethnic' persuasion, for terror can only be conquered within onesself.  We are fighting terrorists, a corporeal threat with more immediate relevance to our supposedly dimished physical safety.  Similarly, we can try to fight religion all we want, but it is a quality that has no physical base.  It's a human conflict; a war against aspects of Man.  Better to focus your efforts against its use and abuse: Against political restructuring of faith, against genocide inspired by ideologies, and many other things.  To make war against religion is to ignore its good qualities (altruism, modesty, honesty, restraint, cooperation, respect... etc.) in pursuit of the destruction of the bad, and to ignore the fact that whether or not you can destroy a given faith, you can never destroy faith, and faith will in time become religion, because that's what it does.

You're fighting a losing battle, folks (or at least one I hope you do not altogether win), and for all that I disagree with stargate525's beliefs as a Christian, I do not disagree with his unquestionable prerogative to choose.

Now that was cathartic.

EDIT:
Having said all this, let me emphasise: I agree that there are numerous faults inherent in any given religion.  But it is important to remember that the fault of the part does not entail a fault of the whole.  Just because a given religion has certain unsavoury qualities, it does not follow that all religions share such qualities.  It is merely testament to Relgion's capacity for such things.  Much like mankind, eh?

A brief reminder on terminology:

Jerry Falwell, Jack Chick, and the guy who runs that site are EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS. Most of the stereotypes and fallacies applied to Christians in some circles are really the beliefs of a visible minority.

CHRISTIANS are a much, much, much more diverse lot. Trying to characterize a Christian belief is akin to triyng to define all scientists, regardless of their field of study-- only the most basic statements are universal (belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all things, as the path of salvation, for example-- and that's a common trait, not a unilateral truth).

And darnitall, Salacious beat me to posting AND stated my view better than I could have.

Quote from: Salacious AngelNow that was cathartic.

As cathartic to read as I'm sure it must have been to write. Thank you for that.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: stargate525...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...

Not the only one!

I'm not interested in "taking on the entire boards," though. I've avoided most of this topic, because extremist whackjobs like this article's author make me angry!

Huzzah, moral support!

Quote from: DeeLThanks, Ish.  We're cool.

Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations.  I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.

Edit:  And just so everyone knows, I'm not really out to take on anyone, except perhaps the author of that so-called 'exposing Satanism' site.

our ranks are now three! DeeL, no worries from me as far as denominational differences.


I probably should clarify, by 'taking on the entire boards' I meant something more like 'being argued to death.' This was previous experience, and I see that I might actually enjoy this debate.

Well, I consider myself a sort of atheist, more of a "weak atheist" than strong one. (If you haven't heard the term before, google is your friend.)

But mostly I'm with SA here. In my view, all religions are human institutions, and as such, are prone to error, irrationality, bigotry, and hate, as much so for love and brotherhood. Just like other human institutions, like Rotary Club, or political parties, or the like. Individual religions should be judged (in my view) for the balance of positive vs. negative qualities.

Of course, we'd all wish that irrationality and superstition would be banished. It's identifying what exactly constitutes these things that is the hard part. I see the evangelical/fundamentalist mind set as promoting these things, and hence evil. But these can be found in variations of all religions, and also in pretty much any political party, or any movement that arrogates to itself the sole right of moral judgment. Religion isn't particularly better or worse at this than anything else.

The example at hand seems to be a case where someone is trying to "prove" his own righteousness by denouncing the perceived sins of others. The proper response to this is more pity than anger. Whatever this person is looking for, s/he won't find it on the path s/he is currently following.

As for me, I'm just glad this is the kind of board where someone can post like Salacious Angel just did without provoking either a 'duuuuuh' response or a hearty, 'YOU GODLESS ATHIEST!  HOW DARE YOU TRY TO BE RATIONAL!  FAITH DOES NOT CONFORM TO MERE RATIONALITY, AND I REFUSE TO THINK, OR PERMIT ANYONE ELSE TO THINK, ABOUT THE HIGH AND HOLY INSTITUTE OF RELIGION!'

I don't think we're going to see that here.  And that's nice.