hey athiests! i'm chatting with a person from liberty university on yahoo

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

He also says that he comes bearing a sword, doesn't he?

But does the sword = war?

Matthew 10:34-36

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5]


What is Jesus talking about? The world does not love Jesus, or his believers because they oppose the teachings of the world, thus Jesus will bring strife to Christians, dividing families between believers and unbelievers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Torture? Doubtful.

The Inquisition definetly included torture.

Wars in God's name?
None of the crusades had the popes speaking infalliably. Therefore they could be wrong in ordering the Christians to go attack the Muslims.

The seeds of Papal infallibilty existed since the beginning of the Papal Revolution. And before then, the head of the Church during the Roman era (ie, the Emperor) was considered basically infallible. After all, he ruled with consent of God and was his Vicar on Earth. He defined what doctrine and law was (with Church counsels) and enforced Church law. It was just a hop, skip, and jump to infallibility.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.' "

Overturning tables ! = beating up.

Yeah, but how did he drive them out? With a vicious tongue lashing?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Inquisition definetly included torture.

Yep, I wondered about your allusion, and recalled after I posted.

Again, does everything a pope does become infalliable? That I don't see even in Catholicism.

And of course, I can always attack the justification for papal infalliability if I so choose.

With a vicious tongue lashing?

Yes, that seems to be the case.


What an image. Jesus Christ kicking the butts of the temple sellers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

does everything a pope does become infalliable

No, of course not. I'm saying that just because Jesus did not say those things does not mean they aren't a part of Christianity. They were added by later Popes (and Emperor-Popes). Even if the reformation changed that for a large section of Christianity, it is still part of the history.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here's my first rock to throw at PH

The Evangelical Atheist

"It is not the place of science to demystify the universe. For magic is everywhere around you. It is there every time the moon rises; it dances in the swirling currents of rivers; its voice sings a hymn on the wind. It is wherever you choose to look for it."

[David Floyd]

Ben,

Care to comment on my post re: God and morality?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, that seems to be the case.


What an image. Jesus Christ kicking the butts of the temple sellers.

Still, violence is not limited to physical attacks.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sure Nietzsche doesn't care what God thinks either, specially since God died before Nietzsche did.

As if. We can prove Nietzsche is dead. If you want we can dig him up for ya. Where's your proof, reason-boy?
By the way, I think you guys should talk to a priest or a theologian if you want an explanation of the nature of god. Your description of hell as "punishment" is a little too off-base to even begin to correct, for starters...hell is the state of being endured by those who have not regained communion with God. The Hellbound choose their isolation of their own free will, and God cannot "make" us go either way without destroying the very thing that makes us human. Just because Falwell hasn't matured past preschool notions of morality doesn't mean that we haven't, or you shouldn't.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, does everything a pope does become infalliable? That I don't see even in Catholicism.

Did the Catholic Church give up the doctrine of the Pope's infailliability ? I thought it had still not be successfully attacked by the reformists...

[Elok]

The Pope calls himself infallible ex cathedra-from the seat-i.e., when he is announcing a decision made in council with the college of cardinals. And I'm pretty sure they haven't taken it back.

[Bosh]

Well the Pope has only spoken "infallibly" twice, once to say that he could be infallible if he wanted to and once to say something about Mary that escapes my mind.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
By the way, I think you guys should talk to a priest or a theologian if you want an explanation of the nature of god.

Theologians themselves disagree on this, and they disagree with the priests and ministers, who disagree with each other.

So what's your point?

Originally posted by Elok
Your description of hell as "punishment" is a little too off-base to even begin to correct, for starters...hell is the state of being endured by those who have not regained communion with God.

That is just one of the interpretations. What makes this more correct than other interpretations?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So you wake up today, and your god decides that helping others is morally wrong, but wanton murder is not.

If that was what God wanted me to do, why would I have a problem with it? Since God obviously has more information than me, and I trust him completely, it will be better for everyone if I do what he commands.

I would take an awful lot of persuading to believe that the command was coming from God though.

Think of it this way. Imagine you are in a mall and you see a policeman chasing someone. The policeman has a gun and shouts for everyone to get down; he is going to shoot the guy running away. Do you assualt the policeman because he is going to commit murder, or do you trust the policeman since he has more info than you have? (Admitedly it is not quite the same since not stopping a murder isn't as bad as comitting one, but I am sure I could come up with a war analogy if pushed...)

What is your justification for saying that murder is wrong? Is it wrong because it 'feels' wrong? Would murdering Hitler 'feel' wrong too? Or do you have a criterion for it, such as to maximise the number of 'happy people' (would murdering an innocent child be worthwhile to save 100 people's lives?)? If the latter, do you feel you are in a position to judge which action causes maximum 'happiness'?

[MikeH]

Think of it this way. Imagine you are in a mall and you see a policeman chasing someone. The policeman has a gun and shouts for everyone to get down; he is going to shoot the guy running away. Do you assualt the policeman because he is going to commit murder, or do you trust the policeman since he has more info than you have? (Admitedly it is not quite the same since not stopping a murder isn't as bad as comitting one, but I am sure I could come up with a war analogy if pushed...)

The christian thing to do there would be to protest the policeman's action non-violently. If I was following the teachings of Jesus then whilst forgiving both the policeman and the person he was chasing I'd stand in the policeman's line of sight and ask him not to shoot the robber.

From an non-religious point of view, murder is wrong because society functions a lot better when people are able to specialise. If murder and theft are allowed then people have to spend a lot of their time defending themselves and their property. If they are illegal you can have a specialised police force to protect the majority of people, who can then perform their own task in relative safety. Theft and murder between two competing societies (aka war) is also something that can potentially reduce the efficiency of a society but sometimes the benefits are seen to outweigh the costs.