The Struggle...The Battle Begins...

Anything Goes

Postby Kazuya » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:32 am

plop wrote:Nevertheless, hiding personal interests behind the defense of freedom, many people who had done nothing to deserve punishment, were beheaded durign the French Revolution.
Example? The people who got punishment, were the supporters of absolutism. You know, the kind of guys who had let the people starve to death and so on.

plop wrote: -at least when they were from the western world- their inspiration came from christiansim, or more accurate, from the Gospels.
Where does the morality in the bible/gospels come from? Check out stoicism. Christianity copied a lot from it. The persistence of evil in mankind, the (holy )spirit and the soul. The destination of the soul after death, some sort of kinship of humans with god(s). All chrsitianity has added was the assumption that god is a single concious entity. Despite that, the rest matches pretty well.

plop wrote:Plato and Aristotle are more like adds, attemps of a rational structuration of something that refuses to fit in the demands of this world, and that therefore has resulted in many persons providing a lot of scandals.
Plato and Aristoteles lived long before Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived. And they are by far not the only ones, who engaged in philosophical questions. Our morality and laws today, match much more with the school of Epikur (around 340 BC), than with the ones of christianity, islam or judaism.
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby KeVeX » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:38 am

Kazuya wrote:Plato and Aristoteles lived long before Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived. And they are by far not the only ones, who engaged in philosophical questions. Our morality and laws today, match much more with the school of Epikur (around 340 BC), than with the ones of christianity, islam or judaism.


I'm always amazed at the relavence that Aristotles findings have on today's society.
User avatar
KeVeX
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: North Carolina

Postby plop » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:57 am

Kazuya, i know that wikipedia can not be too credible, but this is what i have found. Most of all, go to "Private statements"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... us_beliefs

That is the very example of a ruler using religion in benefit of his objectives, no matter how differents are his goals to those of the religion in which he claims to beleive. In fact, his disbeleive in ocultism makes him more of a rationalist.

External gestures are not enought to credite faith; you have the cases of Constantin, emperor of Rome, who only was bapstished at the end of his life and maintained all the pagans elements of his investidure, and made coins with pagans gods. And Friedrich Der Groose, the one who really commanded to inscrbe in the buckle of the prusians unifroms "Gott mits Uns". I reed an extract from him that i can only parafrasing. "It takes only a few minutes of rational thought to realize that the idea of a supernatural creator is unsustainable. Nevertheless, an stateman should show respect to those things that his subdits value..." But that respect, as in many other hierarchs, no matter if beleivers or not, didn't reach the obvious point of lives and possesions of those subdits.

Kazuya, i am afraid of seeing you making bits of quotes. You are refering to the end of a parable. He wasn't commanding to kill them, and from the religious perspective that he reaaly cared about, he is more giving a sentence of faillure to those religious leaders who opposed to him.

If i remember right, in the same gospel accordong to Luke, after he says "now you get swords", and some disciples answer: "look, master. Here we have two swords" he reprehend them, and he does the same when Peter wounds the priest servant -even if in that moment, he states that that is the way it has been meant- Yes, the legions of angels.

When Jhon ask him if he wants them to make fire come from the sky to burn a village in which Jesus was regected, he scold them also. He expulsed the merchant and exchangers of money from the Temple, but that was done with ropes and bare hands, not with weapons. Later, Popes and others religious leaders pretended to justify acts against the spirit of the Gospel with partial quotes, but from the textes, it is hard to say that he supported a real militar action.

It is true that there can be found seemengly contradictory statements in the Gospels, that is why it is better to take them as a whole. If not, almost every thing can be atribuited to Jesus.

Edit: Plato and arsitotle were used, respectively, by Sanit Agustin and Saint Tomas of Aquini, in order to asimilate the ancient world's legacy and trying to provide a rational base to Christianism.

In the first lettre to the corinthians, Paul affirms that christianism is "madness" for the pagans. I know that stoicism is considered the portico -stoa in greek- to christianism. Nevertheless, Jesus is a jew from a remote village. He had acces to reads of the Thora, but it is not so sure that he had the chance to obtain pagans sources, that very few jews appreciated -one of the exception being philon of Alexandria- and that provided such poor results to Saint paul in Athens.

I will read carefully the capitule of French Revolution and Faith, because, at least in the limited time that i can use here, it was mixed, more due to politicals reasons than scrupules. Nevertheless, the "policy of Terror" is an example.

Edit II: Off course i know that Plato -real name, Aristocles, very similar to Arsitotle but not equal- and Aristotle lived before Jesus, whom, by the way, is considered a real person by most of historicians, even if not all of them.

Plato is a nicname, meaning "wide", because, from a lot of exercise, he had very wide back. Aristotle was one of his disciples, aswell as he was from Socrates. They are some sort of link, from the end of the Golden age of Athens to the hellenistic -culturally influented by the greeks, but with differencies- empire of Alexander.

Edit III:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit ... us_as_myth


For non-historicity
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby Kazuya » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:01 am

plop wrote:Kazuya, i know that wikipedia can not be too credible, but this is what i have found. Most of all, go to "Private statements"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... us_beliefs


I said before, that Hitler wasn't an atheist and the statements there support the view, that he was religious. He attacked a particular form of religion, but that's not "atheistic". Moreover I found a mistake in the marriage entry.
from wikipedia:

"Hitler's marriage

On April 29, 1945, Hitler and Eva Braun chose to marry only in front of a civil servant of the city of Berlin and chose not to hold any religious service or blessing ceremony for their marriage."

The laws of that time were made by the NSDAP, including the laws for marriage. And at that particular time, the civil servant was at the same time a priest. And the witnesses who survived later said, that the priest said the following to Hitler:
"Mein Führer, aufgrund der Gesetze muss ich sie das jetzt fragen. Sind sie rein arischer Abstammung?"
"My Führer, because of the laws I have to ask you now. Are you of pure arian ancestry?"

Here a source from witnesses:
http://www.schaepp.de/hitlers-ende/in.html

"Hitlers Testament

Vor dem Selbstmord plante Hitler noch die Hochzeit mit Eva Braun. Solange er an seine Zukunft geglaubt hatte, wollte er sich nie an einen Menschen binden; nun belohnte er die Treue der Gefährtin. Kurz nach der Zeremonie, rief Hitler seine Sekretärin Traudl Junge zu sich."

Translation: Hitlers Testament

Before the suicide Hitler planed the marriage with Eva Braun. As long as he believed in a future, he never wanted to bind himself to another person. Now he rewarded the loyality of his consort. Shortly after the ceremony, Hitler called for his secretary Traudl Junge.

There was of course not a ceremony, as we would think of in our days. It was a really tenuous one, but there was the speech of the priest, the kissing of the bride and for the celebration, it is known that they were drinking sparkling wine, although Hitler normally rejected alcohol.


plop wrote:Kazuya, i am afraid of seeing you making bits of quotes. You are refering to the end of a parable. He wasn't commanding to kill them, and from the religious perspective that he reaaly cared about, he is more giving a sentence of faillure to those religious leaders who opposed to him.

The story goes basically like this: A man gives his servants some money, he wents on a journey to become a king and in the meanwhile, his servants are supposed to multiply the money. He becomes king, comes back and rewards his servants with cities, depending on how much money they made. And there is this one servant who did not invest the money, but saved it. So the king calls that man evil and then comes this quote.
Jesus used that particular story to tell the people: Do what I told you or you will be punished. And this is not just my interpretation.

That's what the Jesuswalker say about how that should be interpreted:
"But you are God's enemy when you set your will against his and refuse to use productively what he has given you. That is a dangerous place in which to stand, as an enemy of God."

or this

"He will punish his enemies. There is no room for rebellious subjects in Christ's Kingdom."

So apparently Jesus does judge people for not believing in him. And he encourages people to punish others, if they don't obey him or his orders. Jesus is not the "Make Love not War"-Hippy. The point is, that there is such a brutal language used in the punishment, kill, slay down, murder. The point is, that there is a capital punishment for not believing, unless the king is not a metaphor for god, but I have never found anyone, who does think it refers to somebody else then god. And if he wasn't commanding to kill them, what was he then commanding?
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:16 am

I know that story. You are quoting a source for interpretation which can be biased. First time i ever heard of them.

Yes, he considered a mistake to not to following him, but violence wasn't his way. He considered that the Father would do that, and possibly in the after life, as with the parable of the poor Lazarus. Parables as that aren't necessarely meant to be taken literally. The exactitude of mathematics is here out of place.

Maybe the wikipedians writers made a mistake. Still remains Hitler's manipulations on christianism, and deformations for his own use. He made a "tailored" gos for himself, or he claimed to beleive in such a god. Nevertheless, if you are going to keep defending, even if implicitly, that only beleivers behave that way, and all non-beleivers are good, i will have to erase you from my list of rational people :roll:

Edit: that very article shows that he didn't hesitated from rising atheist, so surely, if he had a certain type of faith, i was very pragmatic about it. I don't know what to say about that testimony, because i know less german than informatic.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby NESCAFE_DELIGHTS » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:53 am

Former Jew Vs Richard Dawkins


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i74ZnwEuEMg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i74ZnwEuEMg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
User avatar
NESCAFE_DELIGHTS
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:37 am

Postby Dazza » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:16 am

I saw that two part TV special and that guy was definitely the scariest of the people Dawkins interviewed. It's hard to see there being any kind of peace in the region with people like that on this planet.
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Postby plop » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:39 am

NESCAFE_DELIGHTS wrote:Former Jew Vs Richard Dawkins


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i74ZnwEuEMg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i74ZnwEuEMg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Nescafe, i don't think you are helping your self with this.

I wonder if mister Dawkins gatheres this sort of beleiver with, let say... Teresa of Calcutta. I reed once that Dr. Livingstone was a preacher and went to Africa in an attemp to stop slavery. I wonder if this Dawkin have heard of father Kolbe, or Karl Barth. I wonder if he wasn't sort of happy to find some one like the man he interviewed.

I wonder how many muslim would feel ashamed of one of them talking like that. I am sure that there are many that would cry wishing peace above all (but peace can not be without respect either. And the moderm state of Israel -and i admit that HAVE TO DEFENSE ITSELF- could respect more UN decisions and so).

That former jew seems to be very clearly in the popularly called: "syndrome of the converted". It happens all the time; those who embraces something from a different, and some times "opposed" (i use the "" because this opposition is circunstancial. Islam and Judaism aren't "natural" enemies) background, are the most violent and merciless.

Ghandi was a beleiver and he was a man of peace. Carlos I of Spain and V of Germany is responsible for the only -that i know- siege and sack of the Vatican -in 1527- and he was a catholic ruler. To mention involvement of religion in conflicts and not mention the part that policy and economy have on it, makes me have terribles doubts about one person's ability to understand situations. And not recognizing that many times, persons with power manipulate beleives in which themselves don't beleive isn't helping.

He said that he didn't hate any one. As far as he didn't tryed to find a beleiver with a better will for dialogue, makes me doubt it.

How to explain then that China and the U.S.S.R. were at the rim of war? Both were atheists and both had the same ideology, no? If someone thinks that this is a too simple point, i agree. And to make things more clears, i want to present another example:

During spanish supremacy, France didn't hesitated to allow muslim corsairs to use its harbours in the mediterranean in their war against Spain. Both Spain and France were christians, and by them France was largely catholic. Wars in Europe begun long before the Reform. In Spain, before 1492, it wasn't unusual, but all the oppose, that one chirstian kingdom declared war against another christian kingdom, aswell as the muslim kingdoms in the iberic peninsule, called Taifa kingdoms, used to fight each other.

If the atheist in that video really beleives that with the desapearance of religions turmoils among humans groups is going to dissapear, that humans beings will be more rational -i heard that Voltaire, so tolerant and rational as he was, didn't reject investing on slavery- and because of rationalism will be more mercifull, he has made an act of faith, haven't reed enough about human history and there were two integrist instead of one in that video.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby NESCAFE_DELIGHTS » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:29 am

Plop, I was not trying to help myself or further "my cause", by posting the clip about (Former Jew Vs Dawkins).

What I was trying to show was the fact that us humans differ and that we have to learn to accept that. We all have our points of view, and some are stronger than others etc...

You see, some ppl may react to the former Jew's statements, but ppl tend to put a blind eye to what is going on in his minds eye regarding events.

For example, Dawkins ask's him about 11th september, but he replies by describing state terrorism acted out by the jews on helpless palestinians, and the ethnic cleansing that has destroyed the very fabric of society there. And America's non-stopping support for Israel's tyranny and agressions against a nation. So America's foreign (biased) policies has led to great evil indeed including 11th september.

That was the point. We must understand what's the cause of these acts of terror...surely you will then know who the real evil ones are, not some arab with a turban wrapped round his head and holding a machine gun in his hand screaming "Allaah is the Greatest". But the men in blue who make the evil decisions and move the pawns the way they see fit regardless of other ppl's rights down in Washington...!!!
User avatar
NESCAFE_DELIGHTS
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:37 am

Postby plop » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:05 am

Nescafe, the matter is that the muslim showed there reafirms the prejudices against islam. That is why i don't think it was a good idea from you to post the link.

Evil is evil, no matter who performs it. Vengeamce makes ecual the victim and the agressor and only produces more violence.

To my knowledge, the first time USA attacked islam was arround 1804. The europeans powers were trying to arrange a "final solution" for the algerian corsairs strikes (not anymore a menace for Europe, but still a pain in the neck) that, actually, a former european power had created: Spain, expulsing muslim there in the XVI century. The expulsed had to assault vessels carring food to survive.. and to "arrange counts". But europeans powers were unable to stablish and agreement due to political reasons, and begun negotiations. Washington was "ashamed" of the european attitude and sended the US Navy to cannon the algerian shore. Algerian corsair didn't cease until France (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity) colonizated it.

All that parograf, not to try to show that i know more than Kazuya -i don't, by the way- but to show how violence is unable to resolve conflicts: What achieved 9-11 to the islamic cause? Two islamic countries occupied and thousands of deaths. Waht achieved the classical warfare made by the biggest military power of our time with those wars? To increase terrorism. I beleive in God, not in violence.

Even if i have to admit that there are situatuions where violence is unavoidable, it won settle things. It will create more turmoil later.

Oh, yes. I know how bad christiandom has followed the message of peace of Jesus Christ. But for me, that faillure and that tragedy only provides more reason to the one who said it. "To the one who slap you in one cheek, present him the other" Nothing could be more irrational -and i don't think i would be able to do it, i confess, at least not just on my own forces- but nothing is more right.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby NESCAFE_DELIGHTS » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:43 am

I agree with you plop, 11th sep. has not done anything for Islaam, and Islaam is free of blame for what some youth do when they have been pushed to their limits and dont have right direction to take the right course etc.

But still the inner causes should be understood before passing judgment a certain action that took place...

In this case, America's staunch and biased support for Israel's aggression against a whole nation is to blame for some muslims to leave their homeland and act out acts of terror i.e. 11th sep.

Which does not make it right at all....but who's to blame...really???
User avatar
NESCAFE_DELIGHTS
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:37 am

Postby plop » Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:22 am

Who is to blame? I guess every one.

Try to consider this: from a christian point of view, the Holy Land was christian first, so from a christian point of view it wasn't a war of conquest but of LIBERATION. (Nevertheless, after all the faillures, some religious christians begun to affirm that those defeats were signs from God, in the sense that it wasn't God will for christians to have it. In fact, before such recognition, at least one monk wrote that, if those knights wished salvation, had to renounce to the word and go to a monastery. That to so barbarically slipery humans blood couldn't bring salvation to no one)

I understand if you consider that point of view "bastard", and nevertheless there is certain historic ground for it. From certain point of view, the muslim conquered the Holy Land from the bizantine empire, which possesed it and was christian.

And used to have fights with the so called latins, or Roman Catholic. And mostly, those were wars for economics and politicals reasons. It isn't fault of christianism if those who claimed to embrace it didn't obey it. Neither the world would have known less wars without dogmatics religions. Pagans romans didn't give a s... about religions's differencies, and they were the "best" war machine.

The interesting ponit, and one that shakes all the bigotry about terrorist being manipulated by religious leaders throught religion, is that, as far as i know, all the attakcer had univeristy degrees, from western's world countries, at least one of them from Germany, so it can not be said that they didn't have any other option. They had the education and the contact with others cultures. That simplification of "religion-barbarism" is totally out of place. Faith or atheism, igorance or doctoral degree, people can be good or bad all the same.

Possibly muslim have no choice, i say, only possibly. And nevertheless i don't think violence will bring them any advantage. Even to Israel; destroyed a lot on Beiruth, and what accomplished in 2006? To my knowledge, to increase popular support to Hezbullah. Not even rescued the kidnapped soldier... to my knowledge. And attacked a city causing "collateral damages", bringing further shame on it, but the state of Israel had prooved that it doesn't care too much for it. As i known of israelian jews who REJECT those sort of actions, i don't blame them. They are as trapped as the palestinians if you ask me, except that israelians have better infraestructure.

Maybe the moderm state of Israel has became -or maybe allways was- too pragmatic. After centuries being pursued, it had to be natural for the jews to suppouse that, with an army, their problems will cease. Your problems are differents, but still there is something that seems basically the same, jews brothers.

Maybe muslim reaction is natural, as the jew's reaction and as the christian Middle Age reaction, but still it is not good, but "human, too human", and i am quoting Nieztsche with pun intended.

Yes, my biggest disagree with Mr. Dawkins isn't that there is too much religious indoctrination, but TOO LITTLE, NOT ENOUGH.

Aren't lust and violence natural? Aren't God -and this time i don't care which word you put there- and miracles unnatural? I am afraid we beleivers have been called to be in some way not natural and we have failled and there is where religion have failled.

God bless you. And every one here. (no pun intended, no joke)
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby NESCAFE_DELIGHTS » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:01 am

Amen to that......

:)
User avatar
NESCAFE_DELIGHTS
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:37 am

Postby Kazuya » Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:18 am

plop wrote:Yes, he considered a mistake to not to following him, but violence wasn't his way. He considered that the Father would do that, and possibly in the after life, as with the parable of the poor Lazarus. Parables as that aren't necessarely meant to be taken literally. The exactitude of mathematics is here out of place.
The very simple question is:
Why the brutal language? The Man could have send him away, he could have punished himwith another work or he could have ignored him and only reward the others. But he didn't. Depending on the Bible, the words are: "kill", "put to death", "slay" or something alike. I asked you, how that should be interpreted. What tells you, that the described punishment here, is a metaphor for something less brutal? I can't find any indicator for that.
Another important point is, that the man orders his followers to punish the ones who disobey him. He doesn't do the killing or punishment himself. So what makes you believe, that this part means metaphorically, that god will do the punishment? Is there any part in the story, that supports that interpretation?

plop wrote:Maybe the wikipedians writers made a mistake. Still remains Hitler's manipulations on christianism, and deformations for his own use. He made a "tailored" gos for himself, or he claimed to beleive in such a god. Nevertheless, if you are going to keep defending, even if implicitly, that only beleivers behave that way, and all non-beleivers are good, i will have to erase you from my list of rational people :roll:
Now you're putting words into my mouth that I haven't said. Remember, that it was said, that guys like Hitler behaved in the way he did, because he didn't believe in god. Go back to the first pages of the thread and read it. I hope it is clear now, that this statement is bogus. That's what I try to point out the whole time.

plop wrote:And used to have fights with the so called latins, or Roman Catholic. And mostly, those were wars for economics and politicals reasons. It isn't fault of christianism if those who claimed to embrace it didn't obey it. Neither the world would have known less wars without dogmatics religions. Pagans romans didn't give a s... about religions's differencies, and they were the "best" war machine.
As long as there is mankind, peoople will commit acts of violence. EXACTLY! The objection to religion is that it gives people a free ride to justify their violence. And when you name examples of religious battles, that were originally about power or economics, then this is enough proof for me, that those instituions, which endorsed these actions are not "godly". Which in the end means, that they are liars, charlatans and deluders. That may sound like hard words, but what other words are there to express that?

plop wrote:The interesting ponit, and one that shakes all the bigotry about terrorist being manipulated by religious leaders throught religion, is that, as far as i know, all the attakcer had univeristy degrees, from western's world countries, at least one of them from Germany, so it can not be said that they didn't have any other option. They had the education and the contact with others cultures. That simplification of "religion-barbarism" is totally out of place. Faith or atheism, igorance or doctoral degree, people can be good or bad all the same.

You are mixing two different things up here. As a matter of fact, all of them were religious fundamentalists. The guy was Mohammed Atta, who became a religious fanatic here. He attended islamic prayer groups here. A lot of those groups are known to the police and the secret agnecies, because of their anti-constitutional prayers. They regularly attack the seperation of religion and state, which is written down explicitly in our cosntitution and aim for an islamic Germany, run as a theocracy. Mohammed Atta was a member of those groups. He became a religious fanatic here, because we give those people way too many free rides.

plop wrote:Yes, my biggest disagree with Mr. Dawkins isn't that there is too much religious indoctrination, but TOO LITTLE, NOT ENOUGH.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iS6LwHJz1jk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iS6LwHJz1jk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Indoctrinated like that? Have you the "Truth", plop?
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:16 am

Asuming that this will be to no avail. i am going to answer you (but i am convinced that you are at least as strongly sided as i am; that is why dialogue is impossible):

1- the gospel quote that you refer IS PART OF A PARABLE, A FABLE, he isn't actually comanding anyone to do anything. and, as far as Israel was a theocracy, he is accusing them, as responsibles to guide the people of God, of having failled in their religious duty.

2- your lack of acceptancy of any bad action performed by any atheist -like, for example, not speaking about marxists, being athesits, and the "sans culottes" demanding the end of the church in France or the policy of terror, that was wider- and you never accepting or mentioning anythin good done by beleivers, like father Kolbe or mother Teresa of Calcutta, are meaningfull silents that put those words in your mouth.

3-The faillure, and even the betray of the institutions, doesn't proove that what those institutions say or pretend to defend is a lie. Do you beleive that no one beleiver has problems with that? Many do, and that can be a reason to make distance with the institution. But the institution isn't God.

In the concentrations camps there were experiments in humans beings in order to make science progress. Why don't you have to regret science for that, for example? Is the only case? (like the japanese in China) Isn't a big deal of science effort addresed to weapons and war? Is science less guilty than religion? I remember to have watched a lot of III Reich micros in documentaries and so, in which they justifyed their racial position using evolution. Oh, i can accept that the theory of evolution wasn't meant for that. But you don't seem to be able to admit that there are religions advocating PEACE and manipulated by others in order to justify acts against those religion's principles.

4- so, the guy went to Germany, the modern country, and the fanatism that he didn't learn in poorer countries he got in the modernm, with a lot of countacs with differents persons and so. Ok, and still he wanted to become an integrist and a terrorist.

5- kazuya, it is good that you love maths, because you don't seem to be equally capable to catch the sense of a text as you do with ecuations. Was it so hard to notice that i was speaking in behalf of peace? I really haven't watched that video, and i am not going to waste time and energy on it, because most seemengly you haven't reed what i wrote. You seem to get only the parts that interest you and reject the context. It is not the first time that i find "scientifical" and "rational" atheists doing that trick. How disapointing.

Edit: I forgot you spoke about indoctrination and the Truth -this last, i don't remember to have mentioned. You brought the word here.

Did you really read carefully my post in which i comment my main difference with mister Dawkin? Did i encouraged war or integrism? Have you tried to read the New Testament as a whole, and not just the quotes that fit yours convictions? Didn't you noticed that i presented vioence as something bad? Do you know that in one of the letters by Jhon, there is a quote like this: "The one who claims that loves God and doesn't love his brother, is a liar and God isn't in him, because if he doesn't love to his brother, that he can see, how can he loves God, that he can not see?

Did you knew that for jews, samaritans were like catholics for luterans, or the opposit? Have you consider what that means when, in another parable, Jesus, who is a jew (as man) present as a good example a samaritan, to another jew, because the man who is receiving that fable is a jew -in some versions, if i remember properly, a teacher of religion- Kazuya? Just in case you haven't, i am going to provide you some clues: Human genre is beyond groups hatres. It is a message of universality.

Did you know that Jesus said: "The one who wish to be the first must makes himself the last"? Or
Last edited by plop on Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

PreviousNext

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron