# Nepalese woman burned alive



## Asath (Feb 19, 2012)

Sorry for the rather horrific thread title, folks, but there is no real way to sugar-coat this one --  according to CNN, a 40 year old mother of two in Nepal was burned alive at the stake yesterday after being accused of witchcraft.

Yesterday.  In 2012.  

It appears that the authoritatively ‘spiritual’ continues to defend itself against the unsanctioned ‘spiritual’ in a rather inhuman manner.  Now please understand that this act, while bearing clear echoes of much earlier ‘Christian’ behavior, was attributed to the local ‘shamans,’ and is not an act that was either authored by nor attributed to your particular religion(s).  So I ask that the strident self-defensiveness be held aside in favor of a larger thought – Belief.

I’m not going to bother guessing whether or not the woman was actually a ‘witch,’ since such a thing would not only be a ‘spiritual’ matter, but is also by definition a fantasy and an actual impossibility.  There really aren’t any ‘witches,’ and we’ve kinda progressed, we thought, past such nonsense.  

But, the persecuting ‘authority’ that was able to make such an accusation, secure such a conviction, and carry out this unbelievably abhorrent death sentence also based themselves entirely on the ‘spiritual.’  This is not a matter of law, morality, or thoughtful consideration of the right of a society to protect themselves against damaging behavior.  And this sort of thing is also unlawful in Nepal – so those responsible will be found, tried, and punished – according to LAW.  NOT according to the Law of their Belief – but according to the Law of Humans.

And I know that this is an isolated and hideously rendered example, as well as a rare one, but it illustrates all too well the dangers of allowing a ‘belief’ to secure itself as the arbiter of truth and the instrument of justice.  It wasn’t all that long ago that ‘witches’ were being burned here in the United States by ‘believers’ who had to be forcibly restrained by the Law of humans from carrying out their own idea of the Law of their own beliefs.  

The point here is twofold – ‘Belief,’ unrestrained by any actual facts or outside authority, tends to take on a life of its own, and reduces into a persecuting mob against any and all disagreement, real or perceived – and both history and obviously current events bear out that truth.  Second, it is obvious and nearly unarguable that ‘belief’ has never changed its tactics, and promulgates itself the same as a virus, spreading itself by not only self declaration and self-replication, but also by an assumption of its own righteous immunity from facts.  

Forget about the players in this one incident, and think about the concept – ‘Believers,’ once again, tortured and killed their perceived opposition in a gruesome manner in order to make a point.  Nothing new here, so let’s don’t speak of how ‘Christians’ are above that, since their own history, both past and present, says that they are not.  Nor, it seems, are any other Belief Systems.  What, exactly, do incidents like this one speak to, other than the narrow-mindedness, vindictiveness, cruelty, and selfish ignorance of the realm that is broadly known as ‘belief’?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2012)

It's impossible to reason with a believer.


----------



## Asath (Feb 20, 2012)

Pretty quiet in here, huh?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 20, 2012)

Here is my take on it. Killing someone because their religious beliefs are different than yours is wrong. This would be a good amount of the wars in History. I lot of killings and wars are just blamed on religion. It might be you want their land so you tell yourself they are Pagans and you are taking it for God is an example. Killing is wrong for most other reasons too. Abortions are wrong as an example. Murder although much worse is like V.D. or drugs. They affect every socio-economic and religious group. It's one of those sins that people can get caught up in because of rage and other reasons. Not a very deep answer but I just wanted to break the ice.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

Maybe you should try asking the Nepalese Shaman???


----------



## Asath (Feb 20, 2012)

I think that is a pretty safe set of observations.  It would be difficult for any reasonable person to disagree with any of them, individually, and it looks like you have a pretty good idea where this thread is meant to go.

It sort of starts here: “This would be a good amount of the wars in History. I lot of killings and wars are just blamed on religion. It might be you want their land so you tell yourself they are Pagans and you are taking it for God is an example.”   A great example, and perhaps the most pointed one.

Allow me to refine this thought just a bit – a good amount of the wars are not simply ‘blamed’ on religion – that position is a bit defensive, and understandably so if one is a member of a religion.  But the truth is always a little more complex than one sentence ‘explanations.’  Understand now that I’m coming from the perspective of someone who thinks that any and all of the ‘Gods’ that history has offered up did not then and do not now actually exist as anything other than man-made constructs, and purely purposeful ones.

From the perspective of a leader (Tribal Chief, Pharaoh, Pasha, King, or whatever), if you need or simply wish to conquer others you’re really going to need some help from those you are leading.  Raising an army against invaders or against a present threat to the simple interests of your people (protecting themselves, in other words) is pretty easy.  Raising an army sufficient to cross swords with others who pose no such direct threat, at a great distance and for the sole purpose of agrarian conquest, is quite another.  You need something other than the here-and-now if you want to motivate simple peasants who are trying to peacefully live their lives, and turn them into blood-thirsty killers seeking to wipe out an ‘enemy’ they didn’t even really know they had.  The poor, simple, day-to-day folks had no real ideological reasons to launch any ‘Holy Crusades’  That sort of thing was the furthest thing from their minds.

A ‘belief,’ that cannot be questioned nor verified, is just the ticket – if the ‘unknown and eternal truth’ can be firmly established, and one can then announce that the REAL Threat is to the core of their eternal souls, then the folks who put that ‘belief’ into a codified reality can then raise armies of ideologues all day long, and employ them in ‘righteous’ conquests, all the while sitting safely back and reaping the rewards.

Unfortunately, AFTER having created that, and employing those ‘peasants’ in battle after battle, most of the various ‘leaders’ either won or lost, and their empires have all come and gone.  What remains, aside from the ashes and destruction of the battlefields, is a populace who was taught to believe, and still does.  Just because the leaders failed doesn’t mean that their followers died with them.  Not knowing what the game was, the ‘followers’ not only multiplied, but each and all took up their own ideological ‘truth’ to be just what they were told it was, from birth, and taught that to their own children, from birth, and then from those to the next generation – and on and on . . . 

And here we now are.  ‘Believers,’ still unquestioning, persecuting those who think differently without ever really asking the one simple question – “ Um?  Dad?  What makes their ‘belief’ wrong, and my belief right?  Can you run that one by me again?”  

It gets even more complex than that, not only historically, but also theologically and philosophically, but that seems like enough to get us started, and this post is already much too long . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

While all the 'Christians' were burning witches in our past history, what were the rest of y'all doin' about it? What did your relatives do about that and what did your past relatives do about slavery. I'm sure all the atheists were sitting over in a corner being good, minding their own business, and whittlin'...and never owned a slave nor attended a lynchin' nor viewed a witch burnin', probably never shot an injun either.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> And here we now are.  ‘Believers,’ still unquestioning, persecuting those who think differently without ever really asking the one simple question – “ Um?  Dad?  What makes their ‘belief’ wrong, and my belief right?  Can you run that one by me again?”



Same for unbelievers...they do the exact same thing, same mindset. What makes their belief or nonbelief right or wrong?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> Pretty quiet in here, huh?



Sorry, I'm usually sitting here in antisipation, biting my nails to the quick, but I decided to go out for a while instead....


----------



## Asath (Feb 21, 2012)

“While all the 'Christians' were burning witches in our past history, what were the rest of y'all doin' about it?”

Passing laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathering them up into as many prisons as we could afford to build.

“ . . . and what did your past relatives do about slavery . . . “

Passed laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathered them up into as many prisons as we could afford to build.

“I'm sure all the atheists were sitting over in a corner being good, minding their own business, and whittlin' . . . “

And we’re quite glad that you, personally, are sure, but the results are before your eyes – we came up with this odd doctrine that we call the separation of church and state – which means that just because a whole mess of nutball believers wish to burn folks in the name of their own ‘belief,’ the rest of us don’t have to allow you to hide behind the robes of your ministers and let you get away with it – we get to put you into as many prisons as we can afford to build . . .  We made sure that your ‘belief’ could no longer be used as sword, shield, or refuge.  In short, we defended ourselves, by force of human Law, against the irrational.  We don’t call that, “ . . . sitting over in a corner . . . whittlin’ . . . ,” as you so colorfully accuse.  We call that the Constitution of the United States. 

Now.  The topic at hand is NOT about Christian paranoia NOR is it about Christian persecution complexes NOR is it about a single thing other than the origins of and continuing misuses of the concept of ‘Belief’ at the expense of reality.  If that topic cannot be addressed in any manner that adds to the discussion, then I might ask that the odd rants be moved to some other thread where they might be better received.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> “While all the 'Christians' were burning witches in our past history, what were the rest of y'all doin' about it?Passing laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathering them up into as many prisons as we could afford to build.*Prove it....you're the one that proclaimed it, it's up to you to prove it...names and dates and proof please....idiots eh?*
> 
> “ . . . and what did your past relatives do about slavery . . . “
> 
> ...



*Like I said you can rant and no one else can, you can accuse and no one can defend themselves least a rant come their way*

Like I said I won't be back here....rant and rave away about whatever pops into your brain...


----------



## Asath (Feb 21, 2012)

“Like I said I won't be back here . . . “

Really?  We can’t thank you enough.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 21, 2012)

Your arrogance is really starting to show there asath.Why is it that all atheist are the same.The same agenda,the same arguments,the same tactics,same arrogance....Are there any  atheist out there bold enough to be different.Do any have original ideas or do they all use the same material,youtube videos etc and so on.Someone please step up and be different,it does get boring in hear purty quick!!!Most all atheist debates are canned,from what I can tell!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sorry for the rather horrific thread title, folks, but there is no real way to sugar-coat this one --  according to CNN, a 40 year old mother of two in Nepal was burned alive at the stake yesterday after being accused of witchcraft.
> 
> Yesterday.  In 2012.
> 
> ...



The thing you fail to mention,which is typical, is a shaman told the crowd the woman was a witch.The last time I checked Shamans and Christians dont really have that much in common.Trying to compare Christians in America to a Shaman in Nepal is really a sad grasp and not a very good comparison......It must be the hot topic over there at the atheist headquarters or something???Come on now you can do better than that,Right?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Am insane group of primitive people burn a woman alive and somehow I am responsible because I also believe in a higher power 

And, you can reason with some believers, and you can reason with some atheists.  Stubborn does not have idealogical boundaries.

Also, Asath, I enjoy MW's contributions (I know I am like minded), and don't really think it is necessary to insult folks that you disagree with.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Am insane group of primitive people burn a woman alive and somehow I am responsible because I also believe in a higher power


You know us nut-job believers, can't trust us as far as you can throw'us.



> Also, Asath, I enjoy MW's contributions (I know I am like minded), and don't really think it is necessary to insult folks that you disagree with.


He made some statements that were then called out to be proven by MW, he couldn't and went straight to the insults, thats got be in a phycology book somewhere, probably chapter 1, "introduction to phycology"


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> “While all the 'Christians' were burning witches in our past history, what were the rest of y'all doin' about it?”
> 
> Passing laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathering them up into as many prisons as *we* could afford to build.
> 
> ...


Who the heck is "we"? Only secular people have passed laws? 



> Now.  The topic at hand is NOT about Christian paranoia NOR is it about Christian persecution complexes NOR is it about a single thing other than the origins of and continuing misuses of the concept of ‘Belief’ at the expense of reality.  If that topic cannot be addressed in any manner that adds to the discussion, then I might ask that the odd rants be moved to some other thread where they might be better received.



So let me get this straight, 'non belief' = peace? That about right Asath?

You seem to be stuck on the fact that if a person believes in God, that somehow they constantly have murder or evil on the brain. I would give examples of the direct opposite, but somehow I'm sure you could think of a few examples yourself. So what point exactly are you trying to get across.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 21, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Asath
> “While all the 'Christians' were burning witches in our past history, what were the rest of y'all doin' about it?Passing laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathering them up into as many prisons as we could afford to build.





> mtnwoman-Prove it....you're the one that proclaimed it, it's up to you to prove it...names and dates and proof please....idiots eh?





> “ . . . and what did your past relatives do about slavery . . . “
> 
> Passed laws against ignorant, belligerent idiots who did such things, then gathered them up into as many prisons as we could afford to build.?”





> mtnwoman- Prove it and I want dates and names....


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Wow.  16 posts in and not one "believer" gets it.  Asath is not talking about any religion at all!  His premise is about belief and belief only.  The fact that you believe on faith alone, makes you little different, other than the details in what you believe. 

All Asath is highlighting, is the dangerous nature of such belief.  History has shown that it is a great motivator and has been used for vile acts more often than not. In all names, be it, Allah, Christ, or Hitler.  It amazes me the horrific acts humans will do to each other becuase of belief alone.

To me belief is not the only factor.  It is belief compiled on emotion, and faith alone, void of logic and fact, that creates a dangerous compound.  Even worse is when the belief runs directly contrary to logic and fact. It becomes extremely poisonous to humanity, stripping away the natural instincts of mankind, and creating a easy catalyst for atrosities.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> To me belief is not the only factor.  It is belief compiled on emotion, and faith alone, void of logic and fact, that creates a dangerous compound.  Even worse is when the belief runs directly contrary to logic and fact. It becomes extremely poisonous to humanity, stripping away the natural instincts of mankind, and creating a easy catalyst for atrosities.



I think what you are talking about when a person has a belief, but is also ignorant, then that belief might be used as a tool for evil.  I agree.

But, that applies to pretty much anything.  I mean, we can associate farmers with the people who have used shovels to kill each other too.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> It wasn’t all that long ago that ‘witches’ were being burned here in the United States by ‘believers’ ...



Really?  And where did that happen?  Not at Salem.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/quality-of-life/11-chickens-slaughtered-alameda-garden/

Seriously, wake up folks.....farmers are dangerous!!!  These boys used those shovels to kill 11 chickens


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Why is it that all atheist are the same.The same agenda,the same arguments,the same tactics,same arrogance....



Some atheists are more "the same" than you may realize.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Some atheists are more "the same" than you may realize.



Wait a second.....all the ones who post in here regularly have very distinct ways of communicating.  Do you think a few of them are the same person...or just formerly banned folks resurected?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> and faith alone, void of logic and fact



This is where you guys don't get it and, quite frankly, you get ridiculous.  I understand what you said and that I may be taking it a little out of the intended context.  You're pointing out that faith ALONE is dangerous.  In some ways, I actually agree with that.  Faith in anything without a "check" is dangerous in any form.  

But let's get something perfectly clear in here...Faith is not the antithesis of logic or fact.

Faith is faith.  Logic is logic.  Fact is fact.  Truth is truth.  None are the opposite of any of the others and, many times, they compliment each other perfectly.

There is an entire field of study devoted to the combination of faith and logic...it's called apologetics.  True followers of Christ DO have that check and so let's not lump Christians in with these barbarians.  We have the HS.  We have the Word of God to check our beliefs against.  There is no way that a follower of Christ could have the idea to murder someone and then check that with the HS and scripture and come away justified.

Faith alone can actually be a very good thing.  Faith alone in the wrong things can be very dangerous.  That's why the check is important.  

Faith does not require a labotomy as you guys would have the world believe.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> This is where you guys don't get it and, quite frankly, you get ridiculous.  I understand what you said and that I may be taking it a little out of the intended context.  You're pointing out that faith ALONE is dangerous.  In some ways, I actually agree with that.  Faith in anything without a "check" is dangerous in any form.
> 
> But let's get something perfectly clear in here...Faith is not the antithesis of logic or fact.
> 
> ...



How do I not get it?  I never said faith is the antithesis of logic.  If anything you just reinforced my premise.  Maybe I was not clear enough. Here let me clarify my position. 

Belief = Emotion + faith - (logic + fact) = disaster.

Belief = Logic + fact - (Faith + emotion) = Prosperity

IMHO anyways. 

JB the type of belief I am talking about can apply to anything including farmers.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

This is how you don't get it.

My point is that you either messed up the second equation or refuse to acknowledge that...

Belief = Emotion + Faith + Fact + Logic = Prosperity

...is an option and possibility as well.

You did not include faith and logic together in either of your equations.  Therefore....I have to conclude that you believe that they cannot exist together and they are the antithesis of each other.

Faith and logic can exist in the presence of each other.  Apologetics anyone?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> This is how you don't get it.
> 
> My point is that you either messed up the second equation or refuse to acknowledge that...
> 
> ...



1st acting emotional is never good.  It clouds judgement.  We all have it and it is extremely hard to turn off.  It should never be used in a decision making process.  I can trace almost all my mishaps in life to making irrational decisions based on emotion.  Most can.  Emotion is also the easiest for those in power to tap. Just look at Hitler.

2nd were Logic and fact take precedent, faith is unwarranted.    A belief in a logical conclusion, based on fact does need faith. If you need faith in those facts, they are not by definition, facts.  They are assumptions, inconclusive of the truth, and usually quite erroneous to form an action.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> JB the type of belief I am talking about can apply to anything including farmers.



I follow, I was just pointing out how much fun we can have when we do guilt by association.  Horrible things have been done in the name of God, even today.  But not by me, and I would hope not by the other Christians on this Forum.

Being a Christian prohibits it by definition.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> A belief in a logical conclusion, based on fact does need faith. If you need faith in those facts, they are not by definition, facts.  They are assumptions, inconclusive of the truth, and usually quite erroneous to form an action.



I know you are arguing with HF, but I would like to toss a thought into the mix......

I believe in God by logic and Jesus by faith.  My faith in Jesus leads me in the opposite direction of violence, etc. because he set the example of living and commanded us to love each other.  That being the case, I do not see how a Christian (true, not the characterizations which exist in large numbers) could be guilty by association of somebody killing another person in the name of any God.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow, I was just pointing out how much fun we can have when we do guilt by association.  Horrible things have been done in the name of God, even today.  But not by me, and I would hope not by the other Christians on this Forum.
> 
> Being a Christian prohibits it by definition.



One only need to look at these forums to see that being Christian means different things to different people.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> One only need to look at these forums to see that being Christian means different things to different people.



Point taken.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Wow.  16 posts in and not one "believer" gets it.  Asath is not talking about any religion at all!  His premise is about belief and belief only.  The fact that you believe on faith alone, makes you little different, *other than the details in what you believe*.
> 
> All Asath is highlighting, is the dangerous nature of such belief.  History has shown that it is a great motivator and has been used for vile acts more often than not. In all names, be it, Allah, Christ, or Hitler.  It amazes me the horrific acts humans will do to each other becuase of belief alone.
> 
> To me belief is not the only factor.  It is belief compiled on emotion, and faith alone, void of logic and fact, that creates a dangerous compound.  Even worse is when the belief runs directly contrary to logic and fact. It becomes extremely poisonous to humanity, stripping away the natural instincts of mankind, and creating a easy catalyst for atrosities.



In which case makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> In which case makes all the difference in the world.



Sometimes.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow, I was just pointing out how much fun we can have when we do guilt by association.  Horrible things have been done in the name of God, even today.  But not by me, and I would hope not by the other Christians on this Forum.
> 
> Being a Christian prohibits it by definition.



Just as I do not blame all Germans for the actions of their countrymen in WWII, I do not believe its right to blame Christians for acts commited in the name of christianity. If that be the case I would feel compelled to blame all of us and myself for the current state of our country.  No, the blame lies on those willing to use faith and emotion, to spur acts on those only.   The manipulative leaders who understand the devastating power that masses have when void of reason and fact.   The more emotional and ignorant the mass the easier it is to gain power.  Again just look at Hitler.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No, the blame lies on those willing to use faith and emotion, to spur acts on those only.   The manipulative leaders who understand the devastating power that masses have when void of reason and fact.   The more emotional and ignorant the mass the easier it is to gain power.  Again just look at Hitler.



......and the democratic party.  I follow what you are saying.  Blind emotion is easily manipulated by a charasmatic leader.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

I feel sorry for anyone who actually believes that emotion is never good. 

What a horrible way to go through life. 

What is the logical conclusion for the unexplainable?  The answer I've gotten on the past goes something like "everything is explainable. We just haven't discovered the answer". 

Based on logic and what I know is fact, I believe that the God of tha Bible exists and is the explanation for the unexplainable...and he built me with emotions which are ALWAYS a good thing. How I choose to be affected by them is where bad may come in. 

It sounds like some of us need to learn better how to react to our emotions.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ......and the democratic party.  I follow what you are saying.  Blind emotion is easily manipulated by a charasmatic leader.



Both parties are guilty.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Both parties are guilty.



Yes, and I am left without a candidate this time around because of that.  As a whole, the dems are the party of emotional reaction.  The reps just want power and will sell their soul to Karl Marx' ghost to get it.  

What kills me, though, and this lines up with what you are saying, is how much of our domestic and foreign policy is based on the word "fair."  It is a completely subjective and emotional term.  I cringe every time a politician uses it, well that and the word "greed."


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I feel sorry for anyone who actually believes that emotion is never good.
> 
> What a horrible way to go through life.
> The truth of life can be brutal. But I for one will not run from them.  I never said emotion was never good. But acting on emotion is an entirely different beast.
> ...



If I could act void of emotion I would, the truths of life would be much easier to take.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 1st emotion is never good.



What's the weather like on Vulcan?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, and I am left without a candidate this time around because of that.  As a whole, the dems are the party of emotional reaction.  The reps just want power and will sell their soul to Karl Marx' ghost to get it.
> 
> What kills me, though, and this lines up with what you are saying, is how much of our domestic and foreign policy is based on the word "fair."  It is a completely subjective and emotional term.  I cringe every time a politician uses it, well that and the word "greed."



There is very little that our government does that passes the logical, factual, and unemotional smell test.  If it did the political forum would shut down, faith would remain were it belongs, with the individual,  and the peace and prosperity that bloomed from it would be so infectious, that it would conquer the world without firing a shot.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> What's the weather like on Vulcan?



Your right I should amend that to "acting", thank you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> If I could act void of emotion I would, the truths of life would be much easier to take.



As I said before...that makes me very sad for you and those around you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> Emotions is always a good thing? Anger? Hatred? Puppy Love?



I'll stick with your examples for simplicity...

Had you been alive when Hitler was doing what he did, would you have been angry?  Would you have hated him and what he was doing?  Would those have been good or bad things?

Puppy love?  Really?  I can only assume that you are glad you are married to the woman you're married to...right?  I assume you made the decision to ask her out on that first date based on the logical conclusion that her genes and yours might one day make attractive and intelligent children?

Emotions are ALWAYS good.  What you do with them and how you react to them is what can lead to bad things.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> As I said before...that makes me very sad for you and those around you.



It is an impossibility, I am human.  It is much worse now that I am a father.  My emotions run rampant, and I have very little ability to supress or control them.  I still try very hard not to let them cloud my judgement.  When it come to the youngins I fail miserably.  It is a weakness I can live with.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Emotions are ALWAYS good.  What you do with them and how you react to them is what can lead to bad things.




Finances are a good place to keep your emotions away from.  I have often heard the sentence "leave your emotions out of it" relevant to making wise choices.  I also am emotionless at work.  I do my job for a paycheck, not a verbal confirmation, but I want that paycheck because I love my family and want to provide for them.

I kind-of agree with both of you on this one.  I raise my kids to be cold-hearted when making decisions, but I also tell them I love them about 20 times a day (probably an exageration).  I want them to be clear headed capitalists, but I also want them to voluntarily feed the poor......

It is a line we walk determining what level of emotion is appropriate in our circumstance.  Interesting subject.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

You're missing the seperation.  It is not the emotion that makes you go spend money.  It is how you react to the emotion.

JB, you are a Christian.  God built you with emotions.  Therefore, are they good or bad?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll stick with your examples for simplicity...
> 
> Had you been alive when Hitler was doing what he did, would you have been angry?  Would you have hated him and what he was doing?  Would those have been good or bad things?
> 
> ...



I will concede, your right, it is all in how we act upon them. But then they are neither good nor bad, in themselves, they are just there.   They still should never dictate action, alone, void of fact and logic. But thats what makes us human not Vulcan.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> JB, you are a Christian.  God built you with emotions.  Therefore, are they good or bad?



HF, I think they are necessary.  If that means good, then ok.  

Anger can be good or bad depending upon the action it causes.  Love can be good and bad as well (puppy love is ultimately dangerous.....see my avatar).

I am glad I have emotions when my daughter snuggles up to me, or when my boy hammers somebody on the football field.  I hate emotions when I can't seem to think clearly because of them.


I think part of the human experience is the responsibility to regulate our emotions.  The Bible is full of folks who messed up because they did a poor job of it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Really?  And where did that happen?  Not at Salem.



None at Salem, they were hanged until dead and then placed in a shallow graves next to the gallows because they were unfit for Christian burial.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> None at Salem



Exactly.  None anywhere in the US, as far as I know.  But it makes for a good post in the AAA forum.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Exactly.  None anywhere in the US, as far as I know.  But it makes for a good post in the AAA forum.



I believe you are right about none anywhere in the US. Hanging, drowning and pressing were favored means of execution here. I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 were burned at the stake in Europe though.
When religious beliefs control your fate the preferred method of death is of little consequence in the AAA forum or worldwide.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Exactly.  None anywhere in the US, as far as I know.  But it makes for a good post in the AAA forum.





> None at Salem, they were hanged until dead and then placed in a shallow graves next to the gallows because they were unfit for Christian burial.



I just wanted to get my whole quote in there again, not just the first 3 words


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> HF, I think they are necessary. If that means good, then ok.



If they are given to you by God...what does the Bible say about that?  What does the Bible say about God?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hanging, drowning and pressing were favored means of execution here.



One was "pressed" at Salem.  The rest were hanged.  Never heard of anybody drowned for it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I just wanted to get



Noted.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> If they are given to you by God...what does the Bible say about that?  What does the Bible say about God?



Not sure what you are getting at here?   God made Jimmy Carter......does that mean he is good?  How 'bout coyotes?  Or, how 'bout thorns....which were specifically listed as a bad, or punitive, creation in Genesis?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> One was "pressed" at Salem.  The rest were hanged.  Never heard of anybody drowned for it.



Yes, one man was "pressed" and the women were hanged at Salem. No one was drowned at Salem.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> Not sure what you are getting at here? God made Jimmy Carter......does that mean he is good? How 'bout coyotes? Or, how 'bout thorns....which were specifically listed as a bad, or punitive, creation in Genesis?



Jimmy Carter is a creation of God.  Coyotes are a creation of God.  Thorns are a creation of God.  

God is capable of nothing but good, correct?  He declared on the sixth day that creation was now VERY good with the addition of man.



> For everything created by God is good (from 1 Tim)



Creation retains it's "goodness" even though creation itself does things that are "not good".  God created Adam and Eve (and you) with emotions.  Is he capable of creating emotions that are bad?

I'm trying to get to the point that emotions are part of how God made us in his image.  Jesus was emotional.  He wept many times.  He was angered.  He was sad.  He felt love.  Emotions are part of the image God stamped on us.  They are not and cannot be "bad".  How we, in a sinful and fallen state react to them is what is "bad" sometimes.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm trying to get to the point that emotions are part of how God made us in his image.  Jesus was emotional.  He wept many times.  He was angered.  He was sad.  He felt love.  Emotions are part of the image God stamped on us.  They are not and cannot be "bad".  How we, in a sinful and fallen state react to them is what is "bad" sometimes.



Ok, I follow now.  And in that light, I would agree with you, and say the application of anything which determines whether it is used for good or bad.

Shovels can be used to dig holes for beneficial plants......or kill chickens.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

Exactly.  What fallen man does with things can be bad or evil.


----------



## Asath (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow.  

I said, in the OP: “Now please understand that this act, while bearing clear echoes of much earlier ‘Christian’ behavior, was attributed to the local ‘shamans,’ and is not an act that was either authored by nor attributed to your particular religion(s). So I ask that the strident self-defensiveness be held aside in favor of a larger thought – Belief.”

Now, notwithstanding the common boast that there can hardly be anyone on the planet who has not been exposed to the aggressive spread of Christian evangelism, it can hardly be said any more clearly than that.

It appears, just the same, that even though Christians had nothing to do with this incident, and even though that was acknowledged right up front, the screaming paranoia machine cranked itself into high-gear regardless – hurling every tool of self-righteousness and vilification of anything other than itself still remaining in its arsenal . . .  Rather a bare and ineffective arsenal . . .  

Notably, actually reading the OP, actually considering the situation, and actually responding to the specific topic at hand in an adult, thoughtful, and reasonable manner does not seem to be among those tools.

Witch-hunting is behind us?  Sure doesn’t look like it.  The methods and reasons seem not to have changed a bit either.

Thanks folks.  You demonstrate the point.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> Wow.
> 
> I said, in the OP: “Now please understand that this act, while bearing clear echoes of much earlier ‘Christian’ behavior, was attributed to the local ‘shamans,’ and is not an act that was either authored by nor attributed to your particular religion(s). So I ask that the strident self-defensiveness be held aside in favor of a larger thought – Belief.”
> 
> ...



No one demonstrates it better than than you with your elation that MtnWoman no longer will post here. Your attack on her and her resignation brought you great satisfaction. Don't hide behind your rhetoric. Your intentions are crystal clear, your methods are tired, and you are not very nice.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> No one demonstrates it better than than you with your elation that MtnWoman no longer will post here. Your attack on her and her resignation brought you great satisfaction. Don't hide behind your rhetoric. Your intentions are crystal clear, your methods are tired, and you are not very nice.



Like Dalton says: "I want you to be nice until it is time to not be nice"


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Like Dalton says: "I want you to be nice until it is time to not be nice"



Not sure what you mean, or why you felt the need to chime in, but, oh well. It is a blog.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 23, 2012)

Asath said:


> Now, notwithstanding the common boast that there can hardly be anyone on the planet who has not been exposed to the aggressive spread of Christian evangelism, it can hardly be said any more clearly than that.


Looks like we are doing our job then.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Not sure what you mean, or why you felt the need to chime in, but, oh well. It is a blog.



Sometime I'll PM you about it.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

Asath said:


> It appears, just the same, that even though Christians had nothing to do with this incident, and even though that was acknowledged right up front, the screaming paranoia machine cranked itself into high-gear regardless – hurling every tool of self-righteousness and vilification of anything other than itself still remaining in its arsenal . . .  Rather a bare and ineffective arsenal . . .



One, WHAT???? Paranoia machine???

No sir.  We simply disagreed with the premise.  Talk about an over reaction.

Two, the connection you are making is as absurd as an African American claiming you owe them reparations because you were white, and white folks once owned slaves.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> One, WHAT???? Paranoia machine???
> 
> No sir.  We simply disagreed with the premise.  Talk about an over reaction.
> 
> Two, the connection you are making is as absurd as an African American claiming you owe them reparations because you were white, and* white folks *once owned slaves.



ah-hum, it's caucasian american ya racist.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2012)

> It appears, just the same, that even though Christians had nothing to do with this incident, and even though that was acknowledged right up front, the screaming paranoia machine cranked itself into high-gear regardless – hurling every tool of self-righteousness and vilification of anything other than itself still remaining in its arsenal . . . Rather a bare and ineffective arsenal . . .
> 
> Notably, actually reading the OP, actually considering the situation, and actually responding to the specific topic at hand in an adult, thoughtful, and reasonable manner does not seem to be among those tools.



Help Help...I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system.

You saw it, didn't ya?  You saw me being repressed!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Help Help...I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system.



Somehow, that's a lot funnier when you toss it at somebody other than me 

Still haven't seen the movie.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2012)




----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Help Help...I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system.



Bloody peasant!


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sometime I'll PM you about it.



I appreciate your thoughts BH, PM returned.


----------



## Asath (Feb 25, 2012)

Okay folks – here we have a microcosm of the methodology – ready?

“No one demonstrates it better than than you with your elation that MtnWoman no longer will post here.”   

Elation.  That would be an attributed emotion, conveyed from the writer and pasted upon his target.  This is the beginning of a prejudicial argument, and is a classic example of how such arguments are constructed.

Then, from that self-made and completely fallacious premise, there then follows: “Your attack on her and her resignation brought you great satisfaction.”  

Here we have yet another set of assumptions, the first being that there was an ‘attack’ (a rhetorical device meant to bolster a nonsense argument) rather than a reasonable response, and another assignment of thought and emotion (‘great satisfaction’) that is once again completely fallacious but meant only to support an oration that has no basis, cannot be demonstrated, but is employed nonetheless in the pursuit of a point that cannot be made without the support of rhetorical bias previously established.

What is said, in short, is – if the first (false) thing is accepted, then the second (false) thing follows, leading to the third (false) thing.

Then we get this: “Don't hide behind your rhetoric.”  

I don’t remember ‘hiding’ at all – nor do I remember inventing thoughts, assigning them to others, then making conclusions based on that assignment.

But, that is of no value to the evangelistic nature of accusation – “Your intentions are crystal clear, your methods are tired, and you are not very nice.”

I’m not very nice?  Besides?  Darn.  Perhaps a ‘nice’ person, who knows my intentions and thoughts with ‘crystal’ clarity is well ahead of my ‘methods,’  and a ‘nice’ person who hasn’t a single rhetorical falsehood on offer, on their own part, can endeavor to set me straight  . . .

We do, after all, seek factual clarity here, rather than emotional pleading and adolescent accusation.

Not liking something does not make it untrue, and a few bit out of Monty Python, while an entertaining distraction, won’t make the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in shimmering Samite, hold aloft Excaliber . . . .


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Okay folks – here we have a microcosm of the methodology – ready?
> 
> “No one demonstrates it better than than you with your elation that MtnWoman no longer will post here.”
> 
> ...


I'd like to read the condensed version!!!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 25, 2012)

Asath, I was pointing out that your premise was "Belief is bad because believers burn people."

That is a false premise.  My puddle ain't quite as deep as yours, so I will try to summarize the best way I can:

Some people are bad.  Some bad people burn other people.  Not all believers burn people.  Not all believers are bad. Belief is not the source of bad because not all who have it are bad.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Okay folks – here we have a microcosm of the methodology – ready?
> 
> “No one demonstrates it better than than you with your elation that MtnWoman no longer will post here.”
> 
> ...



I call it how it smells Asath.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Asath, I was pointing out that your premise was "Belief is bad because believers burn people."
> 
> That is a false premise.  My puddle ain't quite as deep as yours, so I will try to summarize the best way I can:
> 
> Some people are bad.  Some bad people burn other people.  Not all believers burn people.  Not all believers are bad. Belief is not the source of bad because not all who have it are bad.



Belief trumps reason.  That's why it can cause people to do things that are irrational.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Belief trumps reason.  That's why it can cause people to do things that are irrational.



Yes, but can and will are two different things.  Lots of things can cause other things.  My only complaint is this "guilty by association" link attempted by the OP.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 26, 2012)

Only 2.3% of the world is atheist. Only 11.0% are nonreligious. It only makes since that most crimes, bad things and good things will happen to and by religious people.


----------



## Asath (Feb 26, 2012)

No association was made, if one re-reads without the blinders and knee-jerk self-defensiveness.  The fact of the automatic sense of having been somehow personally accused makes the argument that I did not intend, and it needs to be said aloud that the ‘defenders’ painted themselves by their response.  I made no such accusations and specifically exempted present company from any culpability.  The rest you did that all by yourselves, and showed yourselves in a light of your own.  

The point at hand, here in the ‘nonbelievers’ forum, which is nonetheless constantly and mercilessly besieged by the evangelical screamers, was and is that we still live in a world where the irrational is authored under the broad banner of a ‘belief,’ without regard for anything other than the defense of itself.  

‘Belief,’ as a word and a concept, extends far beyond Christianity, odd as that may seem to single topic, one-dimensional thinkers, and is the root evil behind every popular movement from the skinheads to the holocaust deniers to the environmentalists to PETA and (yes) to the fundamentalist religions.  This is a very broad topic, and a very serious and important problem, and I think it bears some serious thought and some thoughtful discussion.  Taking it personally, and trying to shout the topic down would tend to disqualify one from any considered participation.  

Take the evangelism back to the place devoted to that, and allow us to get on with some actual adult conversation down here.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> No association was made, if one re-reads without the blinders and knee-jerk self-defensiveness.  The fact of the automatic sense of having been somehow personally accused makes the argument that I did not intend, and it needs to be said aloud that the ‘defenders’ painted themselves by their response.  I made no such accusations and specifically exempted present company from any culpability.  The rest you did that all by yourselves, and showed yourselves in a light of your own.
> 
> The point at hand, here in the ‘nonbelievers’ forum, which is nonetheless constantly and mercilessly besieged by the evangelical screamers, was and is that we still live in a world where the irrational is authored under the broad banner of a ‘belief,’ without regard for anything other than the defense of itself.
> 
> ...



Apologetics is the seasoning, the gospel the main course. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is what it is.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> No association was made, if one re-reads without the blinders and knee-jerk self-defensiveness....



 I am starting to wonder if you read your own posts.  Let's refresh the readers with the OP's comments.....




Asath said:


> but it illustrates all too well the dangers of allowing a ‘belief’ to secure itself as the arbiter of truth and the instrument of justice.  It wasn’t all that long ago that ‘witches’ were being burned here in the United States by ‘believers’ who had to be forcibly restrained by the Law of humans from carrying out their own idea of the Law of their own beliefs.



Yes, you are making an association of believers and violence.

And then, you made this claim:



Asath said:


> The point here is twofold – ‘Belief,’ unrestrained by any actual facts or outside authority, tends to take on a life of its own, and reduces into a persecuting mob against any and all disagreement, real or perceived – and both history and obviously current events bear out that truth.  Second, it is obvious and nearly unarguable that ‘belief’ has never changed its tactics, and promulgates itself the same as a virus, spreading itself by not only self declaration and self-replication, but also by an assumption of its own righteous immunity from facts.



Which you led to this conclusoin:  



Asath said:


> Forget about the players in this one incident, and think about the concept – ‘Believers,’ once again, tortured and killed their perceived opposition in a gruesome manner in order to make a point.....What, exactly, do incidents like this one speak to, other than the narrow-mindedness, vindictiveness, cruelty, and selfish ignorance of the realm that is broadly known as ‘belief’?



Now you are complaining that we are being defensive when we simply picked your premise apart because it was incredibly weak.



Asath said:


> The point at hand, here in the ‘nonbelievers’ forum, which is nonetheless constantly and mercilessly besieged by the evangelical screamers, was and is that we still live in a world where the irrational is authored under the broad banner of a ‘belief,’ without regard for anything other than the defense of itself. .



"Mercilessly besieged?"   That sounds AWFUL!

But, to make my point one more time, I will point out that you yourself are proving our point when we say you are making the "guilt by association" link:




Asath said:


> ‘Belief,’ as a word and a concept, extends far beyond Christianity, odd as that may seem to single topic, one-dimensional thinkers, and is the root evil behind every popular movement from the skinheads to the holocaust deniers to the environmentalists to PETA and (yes) to the fundamentalist religions.



Now, I will be more than happy to admit that evil is done in the name of belief, but, even though I am a _one dimensional believer_, I am smart enough to realize that all farmers are not guilty when somebody uses a shovel to kill a chicken.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am smart enough to realize that all farmers are not guilty when somebody uses a shovel to kill a chicken.



I have really been keepin' an eye on these farmers since you have brought these tragedies to light. Thank so much JB.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but can and will are two different things.  Lots of things can cause other things.  My only complaint is this "guilty by association" link attempted by the OP.



I took the OP to be a criticism of belief as a way to determine truth and I agree with the criticism.   I used to admire people that considered themselves "spiritual" or "persons of faith" then I looked closely at what they were saying and tried to understand what it was that they were REALLY saying and it was this:  "I can't explain my view of reality in rational terms but it just feels right."  It's a bad way to approach life and to make decisions.  Even though belief is sometimes benign (like a belief in Unicorns) and sometimes it makes people better citizens, it's still a wrong tool.  And a person that applies that particular way of thinking is susceptible to other irrational thoughts.  

I know you're different, JB but just look.....JUST LOOK at all these very good, very intelligent people, some that I've grown to admire, that believe that donkeys have talked.  What else can they be convinced of?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I took the OP to be a criticism of belief as a way to determine truth and I agree with the criticism.   I used to admire people that considered themselves "spiritual" or "persons of faith" then I looked closely at what they were saying and tried to understand what it was that they were REALLY saying and it was this:  "I can't explain my view of reality in rational terms but it just feels right."  It's a bad way to approach life and to make decisions.  Even though belief is sometimes benign (like a belief in Unicorns) and sometimes it makes people better citizens, it's still a wrong tool.  And a person that applies that particular way of thinking is susceptible to other irrational thoughts.
> 
> I know you're different, JB but just look.....JUST LOOK at all these very good, very intelligent people, some that I've grown to admire, that believe that donkeys have talked.  What else can they be convinced of?



Interesting Chesterton quote comes to mind....

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing— they believe in anything" - G. K. Chesterton


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I took the OP to be a criticism of belief as a way to determine truth and I agree with the criticism.   I used to admire people that considered themselves "spiritual" or "persons of faith" then I looked closely at what they were saying and tried to understand what it was that they were REALLY saying and it was this:  "I can't explain my view of reality in rational terms but it just feels right."  It's a bad way to approach life and to make decisions.  Even though belief is sometimes benign (like a belief in Unicorns) and sometimes it makes people better citizens, it's still a wrong tool.  And a person that applies that particular way of thinking is susceptible to other irrational thoughts.
> 
> I know you're different, JB but just look.....JUST LOOK at all these very good, very intelligent people, some that I've grown to admire, that believe that donkeys have talked.  What else can they be convinced of?



I see your point.  But, I think in most cases belief is a tool and not a cause for the action.  I would think a person who is prone to evil will use whatever tool necessary to accomplish it.  There is no more sensitive area for any individual than their personal worldview.  So, it is easy to use belief to manipulate behavior, rather than belief being the cause of behavior.  It is the responsibility of the believer to seperate the "unicorns" from the "witch-hunts."  Which is the difference between the things that are just there (talking donkeys), and the things which are used for evil (OT punishment systems).

And one might also conclude that belief could lead one to good.  Let's say a person believed a donkey did talk, but they are an upstanding citizen, they are good neighbors, pay their taxes, feed the poor, coach little league, and do all these things because of their faith....I would say it's a good thing, even if they think donkeys talk.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2012)

> ‘Belief,’ as a word and a concept, extends far beyond Christianity, odd as that may seem to single topic, one-dimensional thinkers, and is the root evil behind every popular movement from the skinheads to the holocaust deniers to the environmentalists to PETA and (yes) to the fundamentalist religions. This is a very broad topic, and a very serious and important problem, and I think it bears some serious thought and some thoughtful discussion. Taking it personally, and trying to shout the topic down would tend to disqualify one from any considered participation.



So, then, I take it that you believe in nothing....just to be on the safe side?

If belief causes such issues, one would think it would be best to simply believe in nothing so as not to be swept up in the irrationality of a movement.

Let me remove the descriptives from your post and we'll boil it down to this issue:

"Belief, is the root evil behind every popular movement.  This is a very serious and important problem "

Here is the issue with what you're posting.  "Belief" is not the evil.  "Belief" is not what causes the evil in some movements.  If it were, then all movements would do evil things..and that simply is not the case.  People...people take things that they believe in, twist them and then do evil things.  

To put this in Christian perspective (that's all I've got...sorry), there is no possible way to believe in Christ and follow his example and do any of the evil things you claim "belief" has caused.  

In all cases, it is neither the belief nor the object of that belief that caused the evil.  It is the lunatic person who claims the belief and acts wrongly on behalf of it.  Belief is not evil and belief is not a serious or important problem.  People doing evil stupid things is evil, serious and a problem.  

To get back to my original point.  Of course you believe in something...we ALL do...lots of things.  If "belief" were the issue, you and I both would have already committed murder.    Your issue is when that "belief" doesn't line up with what you believe.  Then it becomes dangerous in your mind.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Interesting Chesterton quote comes to mind....
> 
> "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing— they believe in anything" - G. K. Chesterton



"There's a sucker born every minute."

                             --P.T. Barnum


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 27, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I take it that you believe in nothing....just to be on the safe side?
> 
> If belief causes such issues, one would think it would be best to simply believe in nothing so as not to be swept up in the irrationality of a movement.
> 
> ...



According to you or according to what it "plainly" says in the Bible?  Jesus believed in OT law.  Did he or did he not think it is OK to suffer a witch to live?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I see your point.  But, I think in most cases belief is a tool and not a cause for the action.  I would think a person who is prone to evil will use whatever tool necessary to accomplish it.  There is no more sensitive area for any individual than their personal worldview.  So, it is easy to use belief to manipulate behavior, rather than belief being the cause of behavior.  It is the responsibility of the believer to seperate the "unicorns" from the "witch-hunts."  Which is the difference between the things that are just there (talking donkeys), and the things which are used for evil (OT punishment systems).
> 
> And one might also conclude that belief could lead one to good.  Let's say a person believed a donkey did talk, but they are an upstanding citizen, they are good neighbors, pay their taxes, feed the poor, coach little league, and do all these things because of their faith....I would say it's a good thing, even if they think donkeys talk.



Wait a second, donkeys can't talk? Someone needs to explain that to my donkey. Well, actually, he sings. He is very fond of the song, "Stewball Was a Racehorse".


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Wait a second, donkeys can't talk? Someone needs to explain that to my donkey. Well, actually, he sings. He is very fond of the song, "Stewball Was a Racehorse".



Why are you so unwilling to discuss how a donkey may have spoken?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why are you so unwilling to discuss how a donkey may have spoken?



You mean logistically? I have no questions about it. Are you going to talk about a donkey's vocal chords or voice box or something? I am not a vet.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> According to you or according to what it "plainly" says in the Bible? Jesus believed in OT law. Did he or did he not think it is OK to suffer a witch to live?



Ever read the story of the prostitute that was brought to him to be stoned?  

What do YOU think he would say about your question.  As I said, there is no way to follow the Jesus of the Bible and do any of the things that are blamed on "belief" in this thread.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> According to you or according to what it "plainly" says in the Bible?  Jesus believed in OT law.  Did he or did he not think it is OK to suffer a witch to live?



What exactly are you asking here, I'm slow this morning


----------



## TTom (Feb 28, 2012)

Burning, hanging, drowning, of witches, is not an activity you see often from people with no religious belief system. Now the question does remain does the system excuse the behavior and as such is it responsible for planting the seed of intolerance and justification for murder. 

The seed of murder is planted in the words. "Thou Shall not suffer a witch to live among you." planted in soil fertilized with fear superstition and politics it lead to thousands of deaths during the middle ages, many under false accusation, but still today it is used to justify murder.

(see Uganda and Nigeria, and several other African nations where Christians today are still murdering people for the crime of being a witch.)

Some non Abrahamic faiths also have systems where their religion justifies and even prescribes death or banishment as the solution to witches. As is the case for this specific incident.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 28, 2012)

Ok ...if you are asking if Jesus would say that it is ok to kill a witch then the answer is no


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

TTom said:


> Burning, hanging, drowning, of witches, is not an activity you see often from people with no religious belief system. Now the question does remain does the system excuse the behavior and as such is it responsible for planting the seed of intolerance and justification for murder.
> 
> The seed of murder is planted in the words. "Thou Shall not suffer a witch to live among you." planted in soil fertilized with fear superstition and politics it lead to thousands of deaths during the middle ages, many under false accusation, but still today it is used to justify murder.
> 
> ...



And there it is.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You mean logistically? I have no questions about it. Are you going to talk about a donkey's vocal chords or voice box or something? I am not a vet.



You know enough about anatomy to be able to postulate.  I'm utterly at a loss as to why believers are so hesitant to discuss how a donkey might have been made to speak.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

_they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]] 
(John 8:1-11 ESV)_


*...and there it is.*




As I said...you cannot follow the Jesus of the Bible and do the things you're assigning to "belief".  Belief is not the issue here.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> You know enough about anatomy to be able to postulate. I'm utterly at a loss as to why believers are so hesitant to discuss how a donkey might have been made to speak.



Natural....meet super-natural.

I'm not hesitant to talk about it.  God made the donkey speak.  What's so tough about that?  Are you actually looking for a natural explanation?  If it were possible for a donkey to speak on his own, they'd all stinking do it!  

If all donkeys could speak without divine influence, do you think it would get anyone's attention when they did?

Is it harder to make a donkey talk or to raise someone who is dead back to life?  A talking donkey is certainly not the most impressive thing God's ever done.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

By definition, the super-natural doesn't exist. If it did, it would just be natural.

Also, if you're worldview is such that god created everything, god making a goat speak would be just as supernatural as god making man, or anything else. 

So a goat speaking wouldn't be supernatural. Just like humans speaking isn't supernatural, these are all things that god made occur.

So if we can explain human speech, why not goats / donkeys or w.e.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> By definition, the super-natural doesn't exist. If it did, it would just be natural.
> 
> Also, if you're worldview is such that god created everything, god making a goat speak would be just as supernatural as god making man, or anything else.
> 
> ...



Would it be supernatural for a donkey to speak if he didn't have the correct muscles and tissue to do so?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> By definition, the super-natural doesn't exist. If it did, it would just be natural.


Not if you do not believe everything is contained in the natural, and some things are metaphysical.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Would it be supernatural for a donkey to speak if he didn't have the correct muscles and tissue to do so?



IF the donkey spoke in real life, and we could observe and measure it. It is natural. Even if it didn't have the correct muscles, it happened, so we can study it and figure out how it happened.

Supernatural as a word, is nearly synonymous with non-existence in it's strictest definition. People often use the word to mean things that are seemingly impossible, but obviously if it happened then it is possible.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not if you do not believe everything is contained in the natural, and some things are metaphysical.



So.. the implication is that the donkey is metaphysical? It's some sort of abstract thought of a speaking donkey?

If we're talking about a real live speaking donkey, it exists, and is not supernatural, and is not metaphysical.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> So.. the implication is that the donkey is metaphysical? It's some sort of abstract thought of a speaking donkey?
> 
> If we're talking about a real live speaking donkey, it exists, and is not supernatural, and is not metaphysical.



That what happened to the donkey is metaphysical. A reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, labcoat or not.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> IF the donkey spoke in real life, and we could observe and measure it. It is natural. Even if it didn't have the correct muscles, it happened, so we can study it and figure out how it happened.


You think we can figure out_ everything_?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> _they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]
> (John 8:1-11 ESV)_
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, Belief was the issue in the OP.  As Asath pointed out, Christians joined in on the discussion to defend their PERSONAL brand of belief.  Most of the "discussion" being: "My belief is good and their belief is bad.  My belief would NEVER cause me to do anything like that."  all the while missing the point that belief can, does, and will give otherwise reasonable people license to abandon their good sense.

If God told you to tie up and cut open your child would you do it?  Do you have the faith of Abraham?




Huntinfool said:


> Natural....meet super-natural.
> 
> I'm not hesitant to talk about it.  God made the donkey speak.  What's so tough about that?  Are you actually looking for a natural explanation?  If it were possible for a donkey to speak on his own, they'd all stinking do it!
> 
> ...



How would God do it?  Do you think he would change the physical structures in the donkey's mouth and throat temporarily?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You think we can figure out_ everything_?



I don't think I can figure out everything.

I do believe everything has the ability to be figured out.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If God told you to tie up and cut open your child would you do it?  Do you have the faith of Abraham?


Why would God ask me,HF or anyone else to do that? It's already been done, by God Himself.

There were a lot of "gods" being worshiped during that time, this was an act of God to show Abraham and the rest of us that He is not like those "gods" God stopped the axe from falling at Abrahams hand, and said that He would provide, 2000 years ago the axe did not stop He did provide.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't think I can figure out everything.
> 
> I do believe *everything* has the ability to be figured out.



What then, is unknowable?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> _they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
> (John 8:1-11 ESV)_
> 
> ...and there it is.
> ...



Highlighted in red...X1,000!!!...this story is very important to understanding Christianity, and why folks who harm other folks in the name of belief are not practicing accordingly.  If I claim to be a Christian, that implies that I at least attempt to follow the teachings of Christ.  I cannot claim one, and do something else, otherwise, the intitial claim is false.

Jesus repeated "the golden rule," so, I cannot burn somebody alive because I do not want to be burned alive, and if I did, I would not be following Christ, and as such would not be a Christian.

Great point HF!!


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> By definition, the super-natural doesn't exist. If it did, it would just be natural.



This is quite possibly the funniest thing ever posted on the forums.




> I do *believe* everything has the ability to be figured out.



Careful my friend.....belief causes people to do some pretty evil things according to this thread.  At the very least, I think we've established that what we "believe" can sometimes make us look stupid...right?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What then, is unknowable?



What doesn't exist.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> If God told you to tie up and cut open your child would you do it? Do you have the faith of Abraham?



He won't.....and you know why.

There is no more sacrifice required...but you already know that.



> How would God do it? Do you think he would change the physical structures in the donkey's mouth and throat temporarily?



I would not presume to tell you how he would do it.  God does not have to alter anything to make a donkey speak.  He does not have to fit his miracles into the possibilities of the natural.  If he can speak things into existence, then he can will a donkey to speak.  As I said, a talking donkey is not the toughest thing he did in the pages of scripture.  Why focus on that?  He raised many people from the dead!  




> Actually, Belief was the issue in the OP. As Asath pointed out, Christians joined in on the discussion to defend their PERSONAL brand of belief.



If belief causes evil, then it will do so all the time.  It is not belief that causes the evil you see.  I showed you that belief in Jesus does not cause it because that's my own personal brand.  That fact shows that belief is not the issue.  It is people and their stupidity.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> This is quite possibly the funniest thing ever posted on the forums.



Aww you edited your post to be nicer <3 



Huntinfool said:


> Careful my friend.....belief causes people to do some pretty evil things according to this thread.  At the very least, I think we've established that what we "believe" can sometimes make us look stupid...right?



Yup, I claim no absolute truth to that position. It seems like a reasonable position given how many phenomena we as a species have come to understand, things that were once thought to be unknowable. I'm amazed at scientific discovery. The position seems to be confirmed so far by the evidence. 

More importantly the position that everything is understandable / knowable is a position that preserves the desire to discover, to know, to increase knowledge, to search for truth. To assume something is unknowable is to give up, to stagnate intellectually.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> Aww you edited your post to be nicer <3



The word I was thinking of might have gotten me in trouble and, since "ridiculous" didn't even get close to it, I decided to go the comical route.  It was, indeed, comical...at best.



> To assume something is unknowable is to give up, to stagnate intellectually.



I gave up trying to figure out my wife a long time ago.  Does that make me intellectually stagnant?  Or is it just that I realized my intellectual efforts would be better spent working on understanding the things that are knowable?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I gave up trying to figure out my wife a long time ago.  Does that make me intellectually stagnant?  Or is it just that I realized my intellectual efforts would be better spent working on understanding the things that are knowable?



Yes, maybe more appropriate would be emotionally stagnant, since it's your wife.

That being said I don't claim to totally understand my wife, but I still try all the time. I enjoy gaining understanding of her bit by bit.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

I guess what I'm saying is that accepting the fact that certain things are just bigger than us does not require that we stop thinking.  It changes our perspective a bit maybe.  But faith does not require a labotomy.


----------



## TTom (Feb 28, 2012)

No but faith lead many to commit murder. Preachers, students of the word, men of faith, learned men, tried and convicted people for the crime of witchcraft, sentenced them to death and carried out the sentence. THOUSANDS of times over several centuries. All the while using scripture to justify their actions.

The difference between those "Christians" in Africa today who are doing it and the "Shaman" in Nepal who did it is only in who they expressed their faith in while committing murder.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> No but faith lead many to commit murder. Preachers, students of the word, men of faith, learned men, tried and convicted people for the crime of witchcraft, sentenced them to death and carried out the sentence. THOUSANDS of times over several centuries. All the while using scripture to justify their actions.
> 
> The difference between those "Christians" in Africa today who are doing it and the "Shaman" in Nepal who did it is only in who they expressed their faith in while committing murder.



There is no way to have faith in and follow the Jesus of the Bible and do those things.  That is an irrefutable fact.  



> students of the word



Those men were not students of the Word.  If they had been, they would not have murdered in the name of Christ.


----------



## TTom (Feb 28, 2012)

Tell it to the dead women.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> There is no way to have faith in and follow the Jesus of the Bible and do those things.  That is an irrefutable fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Those men were not students of the Word.  If they had been, they would not have murdered in the name of Christ.




No true Scotsman fallacy.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 28, 2012)

> No true Scotsman fallacy.



You may be right in a sense.  I suppose it is possible to be a student of the word and not follow it.  You guys prove that every day.

However, this statement is 100% true and irrefutable:
You cannot follow the Jesus of the Bible and commit murder.


----------



## TTom (Feb 28, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> However, this statement is 100% true and irrefutable:
> You cannot follow the Jesus of the Bible and commit murder.




That standard of, following Jesus, eliminates millions of folks who have and do claim to be Christians.

Might wanna clue them in on it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 28, 2012)

TTom said:


> That standard of, following Jesus, eliminates millions of folks who have and do claim to be Christians.
> 
> Might wanna clue them in on it.



Most of em probably already know


----------



## Asath (Feb 28, 2012)

“If belief causes evil, then it will do so all the time. It is not belief that causes the evil you see.”   

Nobody made the contention that belief causes evil.  That would be a logical sequence of If: A, then: B.  The contention on the table short-circuits that sort of rationalizing, and simply states aloud that Belief IS Evil.  This way we cut out the middle-man, and go directly to the wholesaler.  And, frankly, any Belief that predicates itself upon Forgiveness for its Believers rather admits ahead of time that there is no need to dither around in the middle ground – the Belief Systems THEMSELVES accuse their adherents of being evil, and purport to show those poor, lost, wayward souls the WAY to Forgiveness for the Evil that is themselves.    

I’m merely agreeing with their premise.

(Aside -- “God does not have to alter anything to make a donkey speak.”  Of course not.  Disney/Pixar does it all the time.  Heck, they can even make parrots, monkeys, mice, chipmunks, and crickets speak – and they say the cutest things . . . Plus, they can even make them sing and dance . . .) 

“There is no way to have faith in and follow the Jesus of the Bible and do those things. That is an irrefutable fact.”  Since you insist – um, no, that is far from irrefutable.  Perhaps you meant to say, “ . . . follow the Jesus of (MY interpretation of) the Bible . . . “  But even that much separates you from your own faith as an individual, causing you to deny any complicity in, or support of, any implicit or explicit acts of violence committed in the name of your own Faith, now or in the past.  The fact is, far from irrefutable, that acts of violence ARE authored in the name of Jesus, and in the name of Christian Faith, even today – from Sectarian Christian wars in Ireland and other places to the murder of abortion doctors – and if the sanction for such things was not given by YOUR Jesus, then just WHOSE Jesus is behind this stuff even now?  They are still using Jesus as their justification.  

Remember here that I did not pick out Christians in this thread – Believers of every stripe seem to feel that killing infidels is entirely justified by their particular scripture, and the non-murderous members of each Belief recoil in faux horror and try to separate themselves from the more radical and/or strictly literal elements who carry out such things.  But can one do that, really?  Seems to us that contributing to Collective Group X, going to meetings, reciting and defending the dogma of that Group, then washing one’s hands of the acts that are then authored by that Group is little more than cowardly hypocrisy.  You are either in or out, not a little of both.  

If your individuality, and your intellect, and your personal sense of morality rejects the strictly literal reading of the Written details of the Belief System you were born into, then it would seem rational to reject the System as a whole, and look for another explanation.  Picking out this part and that one that might make sense, even though this part and that other one don’t make sense, just to have something to cling to, seems a little like hanging on desperately to a sinking ship, looking all the while for the parts that might still float.

If you cannot support something, wholeheartedly and completely, warts and all, then you do not Believe in it.  You believe ALL of it, as indisputably true, or it is no longer a Belief – it is then a personal construction made out of your own mind and your own experiences and your own interpretations . . .  OOPS.  Darn.  You accidentally became your own person . . .


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Four said:


> IF the donkey spoke in real life, and we could observe and measure it. It is natural. Even if it didn't have the correct muscles, it happened, so we can study it and figure out how it happened.
> 
> Supernatural as a word, is nearly synonymous with non-existence in it's strictest definition. People often use the word to mean things that are seemingly impossible, but obviously if it happened then it is possible.



Definition of SUPERNATURAL from Dictionary.com



1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 


2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) 

Pick one I guess?

I'll take 2a!


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “If belief causes evil, then it will do so all the time. It is not belief that causes the evil you see.”
> 
> Nobody made the contention that belief causes evil.  That would be a logical sequence of If: A, then: B.  The contention on the table short-circuits that sort of rationalizing, and simply states aloud that Belief IS Evil.  This way we cut out the middle-man, and go directly to the wholesaler.  And, frankly, any Belief that predicates itself upon Forgiveness for its Believers rather admits ahead of time that there is no need to dither around in the middle ground – the Belief Systems THEMSELVES accuse their adherents of being evil, and purport to show those poor, lost, wayward souls the WAY to Forgiveness for the Evil that is themselves.
> 
> ...



Anybody read this?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Anybody read this?



I did,twice...I always read Asath's post!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I did,twice...I always read Asath's post!!!



Yeah, I read them at least twice. I usually end up looking up a couple of words, but his lexicon does not add any clarity.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 29, 2012)

I've never personally met a Christian that feels its appropriate for any other Christian to murder another person.

Has anyone else personally known one??

.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Four said:


> No true Scotsman fallacy.



I am a Scot, but I do not know what this means. Can you explain? Thanks!


----------



## TTom (Mar 1, 2012)

@ Ronnie, The problem is they (whoever the believer is and whatever they beleive) never consider it as murder, they will rationalize it away as they were convicted of a crime, and that justifies the killing. However when the crime is a religious crime the execution can only be considered a religiously motivated murder.

@ Ted BSR The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is simple to google up, but that would be too easy.

It goes like this.

Angus puts milk in his tea
Charles says "No True Scotsman" puts milk in his tea
ergo Angus is not a true Scotsman 
and since he is not a "TRUE" Scotsman he cannot be used as an example to refute the idea that no true Scotsman puts milk in his tea.

It's a nice little dodge, a bit of circular logic, that allows folks to disassociate from the act their group is accused of.

No Real, true, Christian/ follower of Jesus, is an exact example of this logical fallacy.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 1, 2012)

TTom said:


> @ Ronnie, The problem is they (whoever the believer is and whatever they beleive) never consider it as murder, they will rationalize it away as they were convicted of a crime, and that justifies the killing. However when the crime is a religious crime the execution can only be considered a religiously motivated murder.
> 
> @ Ted BSR The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is simple to google up, but that would be too easy.
> 
> ...



Whatever your point was to me, I didn't get it at all.
Maybe it's cause I've been up all night.


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 1, 2012)

TTom said:


> However when the crime is a religious crime the execution can only be considered a religiously motivated murder.



Those people are called whack jobs.Ive never heard of a Christian getting off a murder charge scot free because they done it in the name of God...Theres a lot of unbalanced people in this world ,Christian or not!!!the only people i can think of off hand that gets away with murder in the name of there religion would be Muslims!!!The Shaman was arrested along with the village idiots.


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I am a Scot, but I do not know what this means. Can you explain? Thanks!



It's basically when you make a claim about something, generally universal, and when someone brings up a valid counter argument, you respond with saying "oh well that's not a REAL x,y,z"

for example

claim: "Police help people"
counter: "but this police officer beat an innocent woman"
fallacy: "well that's not a true/real police officer"

It really doesn't have anything with Scotsman 

HOWEVER, here's a picture of me in a kilt, taken last night!

http://imgur.com/CAZef


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Those people are called whack jobs.Ive never heard of a Christian getting off a murder charge scot free because they done it in the name of God...Theres a lot of unbalanced people in this world ,Christian or not!!!the only people i can think of off hand that gets away with murder in the name of there religion would be Muslims!!!The Shaman was arrested along with the village idiots.



priests get away with rape / pedophilia all the time because of the religion


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> It's basically when you make a claim about something, generally universal, and when someone brings up a valid counter argument, you respond with saying "oh well that's not a REAL x,y,z"



I follow what you are getting at, but the problem here is that "Christian" is defined for anybody in the world to see.  "True Scottsman" is an individual's opinion of what a Scottsman would do.  Interpretation of the Christian definition varies, as this forum indicates, but certain principles are universal.  Anybody who ever killed in the name of Jesus never read John 8.

As HF said, you cannot burn people alive and be a Christian.  That X elliminates Y from being Z.

Christian would be "follower of Christ."  As such, one would adhere to his teachings and principles.  Love your neighbor, love God, do unto others, feed the poor, don't throw stones.....etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> priests get away with rape / pedophilia all the time because of the religion



Not sure if you and I discussed this, but religion may do things, but that does not mean it has anything to do with being a Christian.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow what you are getting at, but the problem here is that "Christian" is defined for anybody in the world to see.  "True Scottsman" is an individual's opinion of what a Scottsman would do.  Interpretation of the Christian definition varies, as this forum indicates, but certain principles are universal.  Anybody who ever killed in the name of Jesus never read John 8.
> 
> As HF said, you cannot burn people alive and be a Christian.  That X elliminates Y from being Z.
> 
> Christian would be "follower of Christ."  As such, one would adhere to his teachings and principles.  Love your neighbor, love God, do unto others, feed the poor, don't throw stones.....etc.



That IS the problem! There are so few ACTUAL Christians that adhere to those principals. There are PLENTY that claim to. There are plenty that think they are "close enough" and judge everyone else. You can sift through the posts made on here and see right away who is or is not adhering to the teachings and principals. They are usually the ones with the quick pointer finger. According to your standards....


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow what you are getting at, but the problem here is that "Christian" is defined for anybody in the world to see.  "True Scottsman" is an individual's opinion of what a Scottsman would do.  Interpretation of the Christian definition varies, as this forum indicates, but certain principles are universal.  Anybody who ever killed in the name of Jesus never read John 8.
> 
> As HF said, you cannot burn people alive and be a Christian.  That X elliminates Y from being Z.
> 
> Christian would be "follower of Christ."  As such, one would adhere to his teachings and principles.  Love your neighbor, love God, do unto others, feed the poor, don't throw stones.....etc.



You're letting your interpretations get in the way. We could argue back and forth about a "true" christian, but you opinion of what a true christian is isn't universal. It's not like saying X is a duck, we can identify if something is a duck or not genetically. 

Someone can read the bible, call themselves a christian, and believe wholeheartedly in dealing out there own personal divine justice. You might say that this person is "no true christian" but who are you to make that decision? In your worldview, I believe only one person can make that  decision.


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure if you and I discussed this, but religion may do things, but that does not mean it has anything to do with being a Christian.



again, no true scotsman. Historically, religion has had a great bit to do with being christian. If it was a pagan instead of a catholic that was raping children, they wouldn't be so lucky as to get away with it.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> You're letting your interpretations get in the way. We could argue back and forth about a "true" christian, but you opinion of what a true christian is isn't universal. It's not like saying X is a duck, we can identify if something is a duck or not genetically.
> 
> Someone can read the bible, call themselves a christian, and believe wholeheartedly in dealing out there own personal divine justice. *You might say that this person is "no true christian"* but who are you to make that decision? In your worldview, I believe only one person can make that  decision.



They may very well be Christian, just not following Christs' teachings correctly. So, the assumption shouldn't be made that the person is not a Christian, only that the person is not following what is taught in the Word of God, at least the black and white things.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> They may very well be Christian, just not following Christs' teachings correctly. So, the assumption shouldn't be made that the person is not a Christian, only that the person is not following what is taught in the Word of God, at least the black and white things.



I think you just made our point. Yes they are Christians and Christians do bad things just like others.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think you just made our point. Yes they are Christians and Christians do bad things just like others.



Is this like some kind of revelation for everyone?


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is this like some kind of revelation for everyone?



For some perhaps. The point is, just because someone interprets the bible differently, or does something that you think is un-christian like doesn't stop them from being a christian.


----------



## TTom (Mar 1, 2012)

Actually when you specifically name the qualifications for a "True Christian" you have gotten away from the True Scotsman fallacy, which is a good thing.

The True Scotsman fallacy depends on the fact that the definition of True Scotsman is nebulous and not a hard and fast definition and thus the person can shift the definition to suit their argument.

Follower of Jesus  doesn't quite make the cut. However follow the tenants of Love your neighbor, love God, do unto others, feed the poor, don't throw stones.....etc. starts to get away from the Scotsman fallacy, and leaves room for debate in good faith.

The debate then returns to 1650-1690 when some 200+ people were tried as witches in courts, judged, and prosecuted by Puritan and other Christian ministers many of them sentenced to death and hanged. 

RonnieT this is where I am coming from in part. Many Christians today excuse their 17th century Christian predecessors in this and fail to call these deaths Church Sanctioned murders. This was not singular individuals, this was whole communities participating in the trials and failing to act to stop it, or even in most case to try to stop it.

The prosecutors were graduates of seminaries and other ordained men, the judges were upstanding members of the church when they were not ministers themselves. So ignorance of the scripture is not really a defense for them. 

Magically brought face to face out of the past, I can assure you that they would consider anyone not willing to send to trial and convict and execute a witch to be not a "true" Christian

The same can be said for slavery in the US, in many places the lesson that slavery was right and good and the natural order was preached from the pulpits on Sundays. Relying on Paul's prescription that slaves were to obey their masters, as proof that it was not sinful.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> They may very well be Christian, just not following Christs' teachings correctly. So, the assumption shouldn't be made that the person is not a Christian, only that the person is not following what is taught in the Word of God, at least the black and white things.



I should add to this post that following the black and white teachings of Jesus Christ should be a good indication as to whether a person is a close follower of Him, i.e. Christian. Take do unto others for example.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is this like some kind of revelation for everyone?




Not for me but some would have us believe that the Priests, Hitler, rapists, robbers, adulterers etc are not "true" Christians because of their actions. A true Christian is incapable of doing those things. We all know different, even the ones that argue against it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I should add to this post that following the black and white teachings of Jesus Christ should be a good indication as to whether a person is a close follower of Him, i.e. Christian. Take do unto others for example.



Heck I follow "do unto others"...
I bet there are as many non Christians that follow those principals that do not follow Christ as Christians that do not follow those principals yet follow Christ.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not for me but some would have us believe that the Priests, Hitler, rapists, robbers, adulterers etc are not "true" Christians because of their actions. A true Christian is incapable of doing those things. We all know different, even the ones that argue against it.



I can't make a judgement on anyones soul, I can make a judgement on Christs teaching about how to live in this life.

Hilter killed 6 million Jews, I would imagine that he himself would not have wanted to be put in a gas chamber, therfor, he is not following the teaching of Christ in that regard.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Heck I follow "do unto others"...
> I bet there are as many non Christians that follow those principals that do not follow Christ as Christians that do not follow those principals yet follow Christ.



OK, that doesn't really mean anything. A lot of people help the poor that do not follow Christ as well.

These are ways to live your life according to Christ, but is not the reason He came here. 

You follow something that Jesus said ought to be done.


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> herfor, he is not following the teaching of Christ in that regard.



It's hard to say things like this though. Since we're talking about the supernatural, what's to say he wasn't divinely inspired? Do you think that IF, Christ spoke to him and told him to do something, it would overwrite what the bible says? It wouldn't be the first time that the position of god was changed. I know that the current christian position is that god / christ wouldn't do those things, but god can do anything, and have changed in the past, you just can't prove that he doesn't have a very personal relationship with christ, and christ decided that he's going to hold a grudge with jews after all these years.

Just like the women that murdered her children because god told her to, you might scoff and say that god wouldn't do that, but you cant rely so heavily on your personal relationship with christ, but brush off someone else's as nonsense.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

I am having a tough time believing a person cuold read the book of John without prejudice, go out and burn somebody alive, and claim to be doing it in the name of Jesus.  They could do it, but it would be dumb.

Some folks are just crazy.  They commit crazy acts with whatever justification they need.  But, crazy is the driver, faith is the excuse.


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am having a tough time believing a person cuold read the book of John without prejudice, go out and burn somebody alive, and claim to be doing it in the name of Jesus.  They could do it, but it would be dumb.
> 
> Some folks are just crazy.  They commit crazy acts with whatever justification they need.  But, crazy is the driver, faith is the excuse.



The book is a lot bigger than John, I'm sure you recognize as much as the next person that Christians generally read the book in bits and peaces, and easily ignore one part for another.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> It's hard to say things like this though. Since we're talking about the supernatural, what's to say he wasn't divinely inspired? Do you think that IF, Christ spoke to him and told him to do something, it would overwrite what the bible says? It wouldn't be the first time that the position of god was changed. I know that the current christian position is that god / christ wouldn't do those things, but god can do anything, and have changed in the past, you just can't prove that he doesn't have a very personal relationship with christ, and christ decided that he's going to hold a grudge with jews after all these years.
> 
> Just like the women that murdered her children because god told her to, you might scoff and say that god wouldn't do that, but you cant rely so heavily on your personal relationship with christ, but brush off someone else's as nonsense.



I don't think God has changed. I don't believe God to be in the realm of time as we see it, so "changing" is out of the question. I don't completely understand it, and I can't completely explain it, doesn't help either that I am not very articulate.

I have a guide to go buy in my life that I believe was divinely inspired by a one and only God. From what I have gathered in reading the bible, it is not ok to murder someone, thats really all I have to go by. I don't think God would contradict what is a guide for everyone else to serve the purpose of one person, particularly a crazy lady who wants to kill her kids.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> The book is a lot bigger than John, I'm sure you recognize as much as the next person that Christians generally read the book in bits and peaces, and easily ignore one part for another.



Yes, I recognize that, but it is the Gospel of John where you can see a lot about Jesus' character.  It is my favorite book of the Bible.  But, I have met a few Christians who love the OT hsitory.



TTOM said:


> Follower of Jesus doesn't quite make the cut. However follow the tenants of Love your neighbor, love God, do unto others, feed the poor, don't throw stones.....etc. starts to get away from the Scotsman fallacy, and leaves room for debate in good faith..



This is what I was getting at.  You cannot "do unto others" while burning folks alive.

The folks in the 1600's that you brought up were crazy murderers.  Lots of evil has been done in the name of God.  I hate it, but it is true.  That does not mean it is "ordained."  That's why I put zero faith in religion.  Religion is man's twist on God.  I put my faith in Jesus.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, I recognize that, but it is the Gospel of John where you can see a lot about Jesus' character.  It is my favorite book of the Bible.  But, I have met a few Christians who love the OT hsitory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> OK, that doesn't really mean anything. A lot of people help the poor that do not follow Christ as well.
> 
> These are ways to live your life according to Christ, but is not the reason He came here.
> 
> You follow something that Jesus said ought to be done.



Those things were being done long before Jesus came along.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> The book is a lot bigger than John, I'm sure you recognize as much as the next person that Christians generally read the book in bits and peaces, and easily ignore one part for another.



That is QUITE an assumption.


----------



## Asath (Mar 1, 2012)

I think it was already stipulated that the folks who burned the poor woman alive in Nepal were not ‘True Followers of Jesus’ --  whatever that means.

But merely repeating time and again that a ‘True Follower of Jesus’ would never do such a thing glosses over a few things – the first, of course, being that they have -- but that is also not germane to the topic here, since it isn’t meant to be a discussion of ancient history and all of the atrocities authored therein by every nutball and his brother over the millenniums.  

The point is that this particular atrocity happened right here – in modern times – and goes directly to the superstitions, the absurdities, the infantile and bankrupt thoughts, the rituals, and the screamingly violent nature of Belief itself.  The shamans in this case Believed, as did the perpetrators of the Inquisitions, that they were serving a higher purpose by purging humanity of one member of it who in their view represented ‘Evil,’ as only they define it.  

Why?  If Believers actually serve a Higher Purpose, which all purport to do in the rhetoric, what is it that has continually compelled them to threaten and punish others in the here and now?  The daily reality of it, in practice, seems to refute all of the glad words that are offered, also daily.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> Why?  If Believers actually serve a Higher Purpose, which all purport to do in the rhetoric, what is it that has continually compelled them to threaten and punish others in the here and now?  The daily reality of it, in practice, seems to refute all of the glad words that are offered, also daily.



Asath, I can only speak for myself, and the believers I know.  None of us has ever killed in the name of God.   None of us has ever burned anybody alive.

If I wake up one day to voices telling me to commit atrocities I will know it is time to get on some medication, and that those voices aren't God.

So, you can count me among the believers out there who will not allow my faith to lead me to burn people alive.  That's a start anyway.......


----------



## Asath (Mar 1, 2012)

Again, JB, I wasn’t speaking to anyone in particular, but simply to the phenomenon.

Absolving oneself – personally, of having killed in the name of belief is all well and good -- nobody accused you of having personally done so, so you needs not defend yourself, personally --  but when a radical ‘Christian’ walks into a Church and guns down an ‘abortion doctor,’ or a radical ‘Islamic’ straps a bomb to themselves and kills dozens of innocents, or a radical ‘Shaman’ burns a woman alive, one must see clearly that all of these things were done in the name of the Beliefs that each held.

Endless claims of personal innocence do nothing to further the discussion – what, exactly, causes certain ‘Believers’ to go to extreme lengths in the defense of their Belief?  

It is correctly pointed out that many ‘Political’ systems, outside of the God industry, similarly fall prey to this radical Belief syndrome, and kill in the name of their Belief in one abstractly constructed system of government or another.  I did not exempt that sort of Belief from the discussion either.  

There is something fundamentally human about this sort of behavior – not religious, ordained, supernatural, nationalistic, God-ordered, Pharaoh-ordered, or abstractly Faith-guided about it.  Killing other people because they do not believe the same things you do has, historically, been the norm, not the exception.  The thought here is that the sooner we can get to the bottom of this problem, and somehow solve it, the better off everyone will be.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> There is something fundamentally human about this sort of behavior – not religious, ordained, supernatural, nationalistic, God-ordered, Pharaoh-ordered, or abstractly Faith-guided about it.  Killing other people because they do not believe the same things you do has, historically, been the norm, not the exception.  The thought here is that the sooner we can get to the bottom of this problem, and somehow solve it, the better off everyone will be.



I think I am starting to follow a little better now, when we include politcal, national, religious zealotry.

One might think it is a natural way to achieve dominance, to kill the opposition.  It happens in the animal kingdom a good bit.  Maybe folks killing each other over beliefs is a a failure to control primitive instincts.

Again, though, I would think it has more to do with the individual than the system.  Many muslims would never harm anybody, I think Buddhists are pretty peaceful folks, Many Christians actually follow the teachings of Christ and as such would not commit such atrocities.  For each of these systems there are exceptions to the rule.  That exception, I think, would be the crazy folks, those who lack the ability to reason in a civilized manner.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> Again, JB, I wasn’t speaking to anyone in particular, but simply to the phenomenon.
> 
> *Absolving oneself – personally, of having killed in the name of belief is all well and good -- nobody accused you of having personally done so, so you needs not defend yourself, personally --  but when a radical ‘Christian’ walks into a Church and guns down an ‘abortion doctor,’ or a radical ‘Islamic’ straps a bomb to themselves and kills dozens of innocents, or a radical ‘Shaman’ burns a woman alive, one must see clearly that all of these things were done in the name of the Beliefs that each held.*
> 
> ...



Is there a direct opposite fallacy to 'no true scotsman'?

This is a general question for anyone to answer.


----------



## TTom (Mar 2, 2012)

I watched a documentary on "Hate" last night for a short bit last night while nothing else was on.

Clarification of the issue for me a least was this.

Transposing the darkness in ourselves onto an external enemy and developing hatred and dehumanization for them as a result, allows us to ignore and excuse the darkness in ourselves. It also leads to the ability to kill the enemy because they are "THE" personification of "evil".

I'm not saying that we should be pacifists. I am saying that we should work hard to not dehumanize the enemy, we should keep killing any human being tough to do on a personal level. It should hurt your heart no matter who the person is that their death was necessary. Celebration of the death of an enemy shouldn't exist for us. When we find ourselves doing such things, we should take stock of why, and evaluate our own hearts. 

The simple idea that anyone should be hated or their rights limited should be  so unthinkable that we knee jerk in the direction of NEVER and then have to be logically persuaded that the limitation is necessary.


----------



## Asath (Mar 4, 2012)

While I agree that most members of every society and every ‘belief’ --whether that belief is in their god, government, tribe, king, or favorite soccer team -- is generally interested in living a peaceful and unmolested life, it is also impossible not to observe how quickly the ‘peaceful masses’ throughout history have been whipped into a murderous mob by the rhetoric of their leaders, and have taken up arms to join the rank-and-file against any opposition.

The ‘enemy’ in nearly every case, consists of an angry mob of normally ‘peaceful’ people who have similarly been whipped into such a frenzy by THEIR leaders.

So how do the ‘peaceful’ people, who end up drafted into action in this way, time and time again, go about putting an end to this sort of nonsense?  

Wouldn’t (with an eye to all of history) openly doubting the sincerity and veracity and motivations of these purported ‘Leaders’ and enforced ‘Beliefs’ be a good start?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> It's basically when you make a claim about something, generally universal, and when someone brings up a valid counter argument, you respond with saying "oh well that's not a REAL x,y,z"
> 
> for example
> 
> ...



Looks similar to my Clan's Tartan.
McDonald of Clan Ranald.

The fallacy seems weak. A religion, title, claim about one's self does not make one that thing, or good at that thing.

Just because I stick a feather in my hat, it doesn't make me a chicken.


----------



## Buck Trax (Mar 22, 2012)

Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under communist atheistic regimes.[1] It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[8] Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error. 

Link to entire article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder


----------

