# What criteria should any world view address?



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2013)

For the sake of simplicity I would like to divide this into two basic questions?

First:  Do you think the following statement is correct and why?

Any comprehensive "world view" should be able to address origin (where we came from), meaning (what is our purpose), morality (good and evil, pain and suffering), and destiny( what happens after we die)

Second and last:  What other criteria would you include if any?  Examples:  Aesthetics (appreciation of beauty, art,music, etc), Innate Initiatives(  our unavoidable drive toward love, forgiveness, belief/worship, etc.)

Thanks in advance for your input.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 30, 2013)

What do you mean by comprehensive?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes. Another important aspect of these questions, if they are all answered, is that each one must coincide with the other, or be coherent.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 30, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What do you mean by comprehensive?



Here are some synonyms: complete, inclusive, full, all-inclusive, wide-ranging, broad, ample, widespread, far-reaching, across-the-board, thorough, all-embracing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2013)

Sorry TripleX.  I was in the process of editing the original post when you replied.  Maybe now it's more coherent.


----------



## Four (Apr 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For the sake of simplicity I would like to divide this into two basic questions?
> 
> First:  Do you think the following statement is correct and why?
> 
> Any comprehensive "world view" should be able to address origin (where we came from), meaning (what is our purpose), morality (good and evil, pain and suffering), and destiny( what happens after we die)



Worldviews is kinda odd because it seems to be a bit recursive. By that i mean what is important, or apart of an individuals worldview, largely relies on the worldview itself. There are cultures that completely ignore some of the topics that you have highlighted above.

So, i can only answer your question, according to MY worldview, i would answer no. Mostly on the grounds of destiny.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Second and last:  What other criteria would you include if any?  Examples:  Aesthetics (appreciation of beauty, art,music, etc), Innate Initiatives(  our unavoidable drive toward love, forgiveness, belief/worship, etc.)
> 
> Thanks in advance for your input.



Language is certainly an important part of a persons worldview, as is family. I'm not sure What you mean by should address though.. many things are important parts of a worldview, but i see worldview as a perspective, not really answers to questions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For the sake of simplicity I would like to divide this into two basic questions?
> 
> First:  Do you think the following statement is correct and why?
> 
> ...



Do you feel Christianity answers all those questions?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 1, 2013)

Yes.  I think it does, but I'm interested if those with other beliefs feel the criteria is valid, and if not why and what would be better


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

Four said:


> Worldviews is kinda odd because it seems to be a bit recursive. By that i mean what is important, or apart of an individuals worldview, largely relies on the worldview itself. There are cultures that completely ignore some of the topics that you have highlighted above.
> 
> So, i can only answer your question, according to MY worldview, i would answer no. Mostly on the grounds of destiny.
> 
> ...



Not sure we are on the same page with regards to my implied definition of "world view".  Maybe I should have said religion, belief system,or metanarrative.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

Must it only address those or must it do so correctly?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Must it only address those or must it do so correctly?



That's my question, in essence, to you.  I'm just wanting input.  I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer.  There's no hidden agenda and no gotcha moment.  I'm just asking for opinions.  (Man! People are sure defensive round these parts.  Good Grief).


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

Well it isn't what you originally asked. I guess it depends on your definition of comprehensive. Is being correct necessary to being comprehensive? If not, then any world view that addresses whatever list you want to make is comprehensive even if erroneous.

What if a world view doesn't supply answers but is honest enough to admit ignorance where it exists? Can that be considered comprehensive? What if it's not comprehensive?

It all comes back to what you mean by comprehensive which is why you were asked that in the first response. If you mean a world view that answers all questions but that can be erroneous in those answers I would submit a better world view would be one that accepts the limits of human understanding and has the honesty to give admit ignorance over making something up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

Ok for the sake of simplicity lets strike the word "comprehensive" from the question.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

I guess I just don't see the purpose of lumping a bunch of questions together and calling it a world view and the danger in doing that and requiring that all of them be addressed is it doesn't seem to leave room for ignorance.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 3, 2013)

Can world views change?  Mine has and does.  The more I learn, the more the "curtain" is pulled back.  As soon as I think I have some issue or view figured out, I learn something else to challenge that belief.  

What happens when we die?  How about, "where were we before we were born?"  

What is truth?  I heard a interesting quote this week.  Trust the man that searches for the truth.  Run from the man that claims to have found it.  

Morality?  We are moral, more or less, because it is necessary for the survival of the species.

Art? Beauty?  Music?  We at our base level are seekers of pleasure.  Art in all it's forms help fulfill that desire.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

Mine has certainly changed over my life and like you the more I learn the more I'm humbled by what I don't know and don't understand.  The "what happens when we die" I'm pretty certain of.  The "where were we before we were born" I'm still pretty fuzzy on as I think most people are.
I agree totally with your statement trust and truth.  I am a Christian and believe without a doubt that Jesus made an accurate statement when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”  That being said, I make no claim what so ever on my ability to begin to fathom the depth and breadth of this statement.  I believe he is the embodiment of truth, but wont even pretend to grasp it except at bassically face value.
Furthermore I, like you, am deeply skeptical of anyone who claims to understand the deep truths of life, particularly those who claim to understand the scriptures to the point of being able to discern those who are going to heaven or not based on their personal interpretation of scripture.  Without a doubt more damage has been done to the name of Christianity by those of this persuasion than by all of the assaults of Satan combined.  

I disagree with you on your belief on morals, but understand the arguement.  It would be interesting to discuss this further.

I disagree with you on aesthetics being base levels of pleasure seeking and don't understand your reasoning but would be interested in hearing more if you care to elaborate.

I also want to say a sincere Thank You for your response.  I have heard some very good Athiest and Agnostic defenses.  I began this post hoping it would prompt a dialog along those same lines here, but sadly that has not been the case.  Isn't it odd that although each claims to hold the truth, Christians as well as Athiest and Agnostics are ill equipted to expound on and make rational defenses of their beliefs, but all are innately expert in castigating, denigrating and stigmatizing the other.  Again, Thanks


----------



## drippin' rock (May 6, 2013)

My stance on the roots of morality are flexible as are my thoughts on art and why it exists.  I admit I was shooting from the hip regarding my statements, so let me add some thought.  

It is possible morality has evolved with man.  I don't meant like splitting off from apes, but rather the evolution of civilization.  As groups of humans got bigger and more complex, the need to learn how to act around each other became more important.  As time marched on, these morals became rules that also became laws.  I see this happening naturally without the need for divine inspiration.


I have never really thought about the "why" of art before now.  I do think art brings pleasure, and that should be reason enough to create.  Man also has a desire to leave an impression behind for posterity.  That could be a hand print on a cave wall, or the Mona Lisa, or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or Debussy's Clare de Lune.  Art is pleasure.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> My stance on the roots of morality are flexible as are my thoughts on art and why it exists.  I admit I was shooting from the hip regarding my statements, so let me add some thought.
> 
> It is possible morality has evolved with man.  I don't meant like splitting off from apes, but rather the evolution of civilization.  As groups of humans got bigger and more complex, the need to learn how to act around each other became more important.  As time marched on, these morals became rules that also became laws.  I see this happening naturally without the need for divine inspiration.
> 
> ...



I'm following along pretty well but one thing I have noticed is that people think we split from apes. That is not the case. Apes and Humans had a common ancestor that was neither. Humans, apes, monkeys, Orangutans, and many  others that branches off but did not survive all took a path from that common ancestor.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'm following along pretty well but one thing I have noticed is that people think we split from apes. That is not the case. Apes and Humans had a common ancestor that was neither. Humans, apes, monkeys, Orangutans, and many  others that branches off but did not survive all took a path from that common ancestor.



yeah, I was just showing that I meant the evolution of morality, not man.  I have no idea what happened in our evolutionary past to get us walking up right.  I am more interested in what happened when we started gathering.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> My stance on the roots of morality are flexible as are my thoughts on art and why it exists.  I admit I was shooting from the hip regarding my statements, so let me add some thought.
> 
> It is possible morality has evolved with man.  I don't meant like splitting off from apes, but rather the evolution of civilization.  As groups of humans got bigger and more complex, the need to learn how to act around each other became more important.  As time marched on, these morals became rules that also became laws.  I see this happening naturally without the need for divine inspiration.



Now I'm shooting from the hip.  That make a lot of sense and is certainly rational, but if this was the case it would seem to me that all cultures, specifically all modern cultures would have developed along the same moral lines.  How then do we explain a Germany under Hitler where the entire nation except a few bought into genocide.  To me the absence or presence of morality better fits on an individual level and not a societal one for that very reason, and it just so happens its on this level that Christianity focuses.





drippin' rock said:


> I have never really thought about the "why" of art before now.  I do think art brings pleasure, and that should be reason enough to create.  Man also has a desire to leave an impression behind for posterity.  That could be a hand print on a cave wall, or the Mona Lisa, or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or Debussy's Clare de Lune.  Art is pleasure.



It's not just art, its beauty, love and in my opinion the hardest to explain outside of God 'Forgiveness'.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Now I'm shooting from the hip.  That make a lot of sense and is certainly rational, but if this was the case it would seem to me that all cultures, specifically all modern cultures would have developed along the same moral lines.  How then do we explain a Germany under Hitler where the entire nation except a few bought into genocide.  To me the absence or presence of morality better fits on an individual level and not a societal one for that very reason, and it just so happens its on this level that Christianity focuses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All you need to do is create an "Us vs. Them".


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> It all comes back to what you mean by comprehensive which is why you were asked that in the first response. If you mean a world view that answers all questions but that can be erroneous in those answers I would submit a better world view would be one that accepts the limits of human understanding and has the honesty to give admit ignorance over making something up.



Agreed.. I believe there are NO "comprehensive" world views... No one has it RIGHT, not matter how much anyone believes they do.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> All you need to do is create an "Us vs. Them".



Which is happening right now.. you don't have to look back to a WW... It is currently Us Vs. Them. MOST of the people in the US are perfectly fine with terrorizing the terrorists... I for one AM IN FAVOR OF IT... because it's defending US in a way... but not everyone sees it that way. We are fighting a war of terror... WAR IS TERROR when we fly out troops to other countries. No matter how justified we feel we are. That doesn't mean that everyone sees it that way.. nor that history will see it that way.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> All you need to do is create an "Us vs. Them".



If I understand dripping rock correctly, his point is that morals came about as a result of a societal need because its beneficial.  If you explain the atrocities of Nazi Getmany to something as simple as create an us versus them, I think that also would go against his theory, because an us vs. them situation wound tend to be detrimental not beneficial.
Tell me what I'm missing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Agreed.. I believe there are NO "comprehensive" world views... No one has it RIGHT, not matter how much anyone believes they do.



There are those that are decidedly more comprehensive than others.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

Give me an example of a world view that is less comprehensive than yours.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

All of them.  If I found one that was more comprehensive I would believe in it, but I haven't.  And it's not based on blind faith.  I looked around before I decided on Christianity. I realize how condescending that sounds, but truth by definition is exclusive and I believe that Christianity best answers the truly big questions in life like where did we come from, why are we here, where are we when we are no longer here, what is good and how do I know, why do I think, love, forgive, recognize beauty and have a undeniable urge to think that there is something more is to existence than what is tangible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

So to everyone, their own world view is more comprehensive... While I think I would argue mine is less comprehensive which means more realistic, honest and less supersititious. Again, this all has to do with how we're defining things.


----------



## stringmusic (May 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So to everyone, their own world view is more comprehensive... While I think I would argue mine is less comprehensive which means more realistic, honest and less supersititious. Again, this all has to do with how we're defining things.



What makes a less comprehensive worldview more "realistic, honest and less superstitious"?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

Because most of those questions can't be answered with any bit of certainty. As stated and agreed to above - run from someone who claims to have all of the answers.


----------



## stringmusic (May 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Because most of those questions can't be answered with any bit of certainty. As stated and agreed to above - run from someone who claims to have all of the answers.



None of the questions can be answered with full knowledge, but having a worldview that coherently answers these questions doesn't skew reality for the holder of that worldview, nor does it make them dishonest or superstitious.

Sitting on the fence and denouncing any answer to these questions as not credible because we can't know 100%  may be the more intellectually palatable thing for some, but the majority of people throughout history want coherent and reasonable answers to life's most pressing questions.


----------



## stringmusic (May 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> As stated and agreed to above - run from someone who claims to have all of the answers.



I take it your speaking of this quote? "Trust the man that searches for the truth. Run from the man that claims to have found it."

The speaker here is talking about truth, not answers, answers can be untrue.

However, I still find a logical problem with the quote. 

In the first part of the quote "Trust the man that searches for the truth." the speaker assumes that truth exists, otherwise, one would not search for it.

In the second part of the quote "Run from the man that claims to have found it." the speaker assumes that truth cannot be found, because if someone claims to have found it, that person should not be listened to.

The entire quote is paradoxical.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If I understand dripping rock correctly, his point is that morals came about as a result of a societal need because its beneficial.  If you explain the atrocities of Nazi Getmany to something as simple as create an us versus them, I think that also would go against his theory, because an us vs. them situation wound tend to be detrimental not beneficial.
> Tell me what I'm missing.



You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end.



That is exactly what Hitler did, but he was a nihilist, not a Christian.  The Church in Germany was for all practical purposes a State Church and largely impotent.....much as the Church in the U.S. is today. Contrary to your statement, what voice the Church did have was muzzled just as all opposition to the Nazis was muzzled.

Also on a side note. your statement "You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end." seems to imply that religion is a means of denigrating one class of people and you are partially correct.  The caste system of India is without question an implied doctrine of Hinduism and also the primary reason Bhudda rejected Hinduism.
The tenents of Islam teach subjugation of infidels, so again your point is correct.  There still exists a slave trade today and according to a recent report the number of people in slavery today is approximately 27 million if memory serves me correctly.  Care to guess which religions are represented in the regions where this slavery exists.  That's right, Hinduism and Islam.  
Here's the contrast.  Our  Declaration of Independence says something to the effect that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.  That is irrefutably a Doctrine born out of Christianity.  Hinduism will never say that.  Islam will never say that.  Only Christianity.
What's my point?  Simply this:  Not all religions are the same.  You can't lump them all together and pass judgement.  Each must be judged individually.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is exactly what Hitler did, but he was a nihilist, not a Christian.  The Church in Germany was for all practical purposes a State Church and largely impotent.....much as the Church in the U.S. is today. Contrary to your statement, what voice the Church did have was muzzled just as all opposition to the Nazis was muzzled.
> 
> Also on a side note. your statement "You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end." seems to imply that religion is a means of denigrating one class of people and you are partially correct.  The caste system of India is without question an implied doctrine of Hinduism and also the primary reason Bhudda rejected Hinduism.
> The tenents of Islam teach subjugation of infidels, so again your point is correct.  There still exists a slave trade today and according to a recent report the number of people in slavery today is approximately 27 million if memory serves me correctly.  Care to guess which religions are represented in the regions where this slavery exists.  That's right, Hinduism and Islam.
> ...



Nevermind that the Declaration of Independence did not include black slaves......


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is exactly what Hitler did, but he was a nihilist, not a Christian.  The Church in Germany was for all practical purposes a State Church and largely impotent.....much as the Church in the U.S. is today. Contrary to your statement, what voice the Church did have was muzzled just as all opposition to the Nazis was muzzled.
> 
> Also on a side note. your statement "You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end." seems to imply that religion is a means of denigrating one class of people and you are partially correct.  The caste system of India is without question an implied doctrine of Hinduism and also the primary reason Bhudda rejected Hinduism.
> The tenents of Islam teach subjugation of infidels, so again your point is correct.  There still exists a slave trade today and according to a recent report the number of people in slavery today is approximately 27 million if memory serves me correctly.  Care to guess which religions are represented in the regions where this slavery exists.  That's right, Hinduism and Islam.
> ...



Christians are sill burning witches.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If I understand dripping rock correctly, his point is that morals came about as a result of a societal need because its beneficial.  If you explain the atrocities of Nazi Getmany to something as simple as create an us versus them, I think that also would go against his theory, because an us vs. them situation wound tend to be detrimental not beneficial.
> Tell me what I'm missing.



That is your opinion. The typical Nazi at that time believed what they were doing was beneficial to their society. Turns out they were mistaken. I'm sure we all as fallible beings have learned in hindsight that something we thought was good for us, our family or our society was actually harmful.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What makes a less comprehensive worldview more "realistic, honest and less superstitious"?



What makes a realistic, honest, and less superstitious world view less comprehensive?


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What makes a realistic, honest, and less superstitious world view less comprehensive?



It doesn't. I apologize if I've implied differently. I'm sure you would agree, though we probably differ on the definitions of realistic, honest and less superstitious.


My question was based on an implication by Drippin' Rock, so this question may be better suited for him.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> That is your opinion. The typical Nazi at that time believed what they were doing was beneficial to their society. Turns out they were mistaken. I'm sure we all as fallible beings have learned in hindsight that something we thought was good for us, our family or our society was actually harmful.



Can you think of an example of an "us v. them" situation where genocide happened that was beneficial to humanity.


Please don't use the flood as an example.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Nevermind that the Declaration of Independence did not include black slaves......



Actually they had slaves in mind when they wrote that very statement, if I recall correctly from my History class.
They simply could not address the issue of slavery any further at that time because it would have divided the colonies.  That's something they couldn't afford to do.  They needed unity in their upcoming confrontation with England.  They knew in essence with regards to slavery that they were just kicking the can down the road.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Christians are sill burning witches.



Proof please?


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Proof please?



Google: christians burn witches alive in kenya

It ain't pretty.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Google: christians burn witches alive in kenya
> 
> It ain't pretty.



The event actually occurred.  No doubt.  That being said, if you actually read past the headlines what you will find is that a land grab is going on and is being done under the auspice of Christianity.  No one who understands the message of Christianity could HONESTLY say that burning witches is either taught or condoned by the Christianity.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually they had slaves in mind when they wrote that very statement, if I recall correctly from my History class.
> They simply could not address the issue of slavery any further at that time because it would have divided the colonies.  That's something they couldn't afford to do.  They needed unity in their upcoming confrontation with England.  They knew in essence with regards to slavery that they were just kicking the can down the road.



I was going to retort with Jefferson's hypocrisy of owning 100 slaves when he wrote the Declaration.  But then I read further and saw that he was in debt all his life and paid some of that debt with labor from his slaves, so he could not free them.  Apparently he was kind to them and prepared them for the eventuality of their freedom.  

Still iffy though.  Essentially they are saying we disagree with slavery, but we are not willing to let our economy falter.


----------



## Four (May 8, 2013)

Very rarely were alleged witches burnt in early america, the death of choice was usually drowning...

There were vastly more Anabaptists and Lutherans burnt at the stake in europe by catholics then there were witches in america.

In general europe was way bigger into the whole burnt at stake thing.


----------



## Four (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is exactly what Hitler did, but he was a nihilist, not a Christian.  The Church in Germany was for all practical purposes a State Church and largely impotent.....much as the Church in the U.S. is today. Contrary to your statement, what voice the Church did have was muzzled just as all opposition to the Nazis was muzzled.
> 
> Also on a side note. your statement "You have to get people to believe that "they" are less than human or just plain evil.  Religion is a good tool to that end." seems to imply that religion is a means of denigrating one class of people and you are partially correct.  The caste system of India is without question an implied doctrine of Hinduism and also the primary reason Bhudda rejected Hinduism.
> The tenents of Islam teach subjugation of infidels, so again your point is correct.  There still exists a slave trade today and according to a recent report the number of people in slavery today is approximately 27 million if memory serves me correctly.  Care to guess which religions are represented in the regions where this slavery exists.  That's right, Hinduism and Islam.
> ...



Are we talking only today's world? After the collapse of western europe when the church more or less was forced to take over governance for many areas, it very much enforced the class segregation. It was conventional wisdom at the time that it was gods will what class you were born into and any person that isn't white male blood blooded catholic was a lesser being.

Admittedly, much of this broke down during the reformation.


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The event actually occurred.  No doubt.  That being said, if you actually read past the headlines what you will find is that a land grab is going on and is being done under the auspice of Christianity.  No one who understands the message of Christianity could HONESTLY say that burning witches is either taught or condoned by the Christianity.



"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

Seems like they read it as plainly as I do.  

Are they bad Christians or good Christians according to the Bible?  Were the hijackers that flew into the towers good Muslims or bad Muslims according to the Koran?

Don't worry, I don't really expect that you are the only one that REALLY understands what god would want ( turns out each and every one of you think you have the inside info) but I do agree with Atlas that you, like most level headed Christians follow all the loving sweet parts of the Bible and dismiss the naughty nasty bits; to your credit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
> 
> Seems like they read it as plainly as I do.
> 
> ...



I stand by my statement.  You are either ignorant of the precepts of Christianity, blatantly attempting to mislead in order to disparage Christianity or a bit of both.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I stand by my statement.  You are either ignorant of the precepts of Christianity, blatantly attempting to mislead in order to disparage Christianity or a bit of both.



What did the bible _really_ mean to say with that verse? It seems pretty unambiguous to me and I would think an all knowing being could communicate in a way that wouldn't require the interpretations of those who claim to understand better than us simpletons what it really meant to say. But what would I know? I'm a mere mortal that doesn't have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe occurring in my mind.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can you think of an example of an "us v. them" situation where genocide happened that was beneficial to humanity.
> 
> 
> Please don't use the flood as an example.




What is beneficial to humanity on the whole is in the eye of the beholder. Beneficial to the tribe committing the genocide? I think there are plenty of historical examples of that.


----------



## stringmusic (May 9, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What is beneficial to humanity on the whole is in the eye of the beholder. Beneficial to the tribe committing the genocide? I think there are plenty of historical examples of that.



Objectionably beneficial.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What is beneficial to humanity on the whole is in the eye of the beholder



Based on this statement, you have just shot down all your criticisms of God which are based on " There's not enough evidence.,  God would not have done it that way., etc  because in essence what you are saying is what is beneficial to God as the beholder shouldn't be necessarily beneficial to you.  If God exists it shouldn't even matter if you can understand it, or its fair, after all its in the eye of the beholder right.  But that's not the God of Christianity now is it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What did the bible _really_ mean to say with that verse? It seems pretty unambiguous to me and I would think an all knowing being could communicate in a way that wouldn't require the interpretations of those who claim to understand better than us simpletons what it really meant to say. [QUOTE/]
> 
> He did.  It's called the Bible.  If you are illiterate there's an audio version.  Ignorance is no excuse.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Based on this statement, you have just shot down all your criticisms of God which are based on " There's not enough evidence.,  God would not have done it that way., etc  because in essence what you are saying is what is beneficial to God as the beholder shouldn't be necessarily beneficial to you.  If God exists it shouldn't even matter if you can understand it, or its fair, after all its in the eye of the beholder right.  But that's not the God of Christianity now is it.



I was specific about what I said was in the eye of the beholder. Some things are. Some things aren't.

The bible asserts a god and makes claims about that god. Those claims don't hold up under scrutiny.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> atlashunter said:
> 
> 
> > What did the bible _really_ mean to say with that verse? It seems pretty unambiguous to me and I would think an all knowing being could communicate in a way that wouldn't require the interpretations of those who claim to understand better than us simpletons what it really meant to say.
> ...




You haven't answered the question. The bible says you shall not suffer a witch to live. You say christians don't kill witches, only ignorant people who call themselves christians but don't understand the bible do.

This is typical christian behavior. Deny and obfuscate but whatever you do don't dare admit that the bible commands adherents to kill certain other groups of people.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You haven't answered the question. The bible says you shall not suffer a witch to live. You say christians don't kill witches, only ignorant people who call themselves christians but don't understand the bible do.
> 
> This is typical christian behavior. Deny and obfuscate but whatever you do don't dare admit that the bible commands adherents to kill certain other groups of people.



If you read the New restament, in fact just the book of Acts in the New Testament, you would realize how ignorant a statement you are making.  I've suggested this to you before, but yet you continue making the statement which leaves me with only one conclusion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I was specific about what I said was in the eye of the beholder. Some things are. Some things aren't.
> 
> The bible asserts a god and makes claims about that god. Those claims don't hold up under scrutiny.



I find it hard to believe you have truly scrutinized the Bible based on some of the statements you have made.  It actually reminds me more of my kids saying they hate math, because they don't understand it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

The original question remains unanswered.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The original question remains unanswered.



Only to you Sir.  Only to you.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Only to you Sir.  Only to you.



All you've done so far is attack me. You haven't even attempted to explain why Christians shouldn't kill witches or why the bible doesn't actually mean what it says when it says thou shall not suffer a witch to live.


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Only to you Sir.  Only to you.



I'd be thankful if you could use your discerning powers and interpret the meaning for me too.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> All you've done so far is attack me. You haven't even attempted to explain why Christians shouldn't kill witches or why the bible doesn't actually mean what it says when it says thou shall not suffer a witch to live.





ambush80 said:


> I'd be thankful if you could use your discerning powers and interpret the meaning for me too.



It's friday and I'm about to leave work, so no time for a conversation now, but both of you look up the original translation of the word "witch". If you don't want to do it, I'll look it up and post it sometime Monday.

We can discuss it then .


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> All you've done so far is attack me. You haven't even attempted to explain why Christians shouldn't kill witches or why the bible doesn't actually mean what it says when it says thou shall not suffer a witch to live.



I've pointed you to a reference, Acts, if you care to read it. That way you don't have to take my word for it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's friday and I'm about to leave work, so no time for a conversation now, but both of you look up the original translation of the word "witch". If you don't want to do it, I'll look it up and post it sometime Monday.
> 
> We can discuss it then .



Did it last week but thanks


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'd be thankful if you could use your discerning powers and interpret the meaning for me too.



You honestly don't know?  If you don't, I will but I figured it had been beat like all the other dead horses around here.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Did it last week but thanks



I figured you probably knew. When I said "you two" I was talking to Ambush and Atlas, that's why I quoted them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

Four said:


> Are we talking only today's world? After the collapse of western europe when the church more or less was forced to take over governance for many areas, it very much enforced the class segregation. It was conventional wisdom at the time that it was gods will what class you were born into and any person that isn't white male blood blooded catholic was a lesser being.
> 
> Admittedly, much of this broke down during the reformation.




Sorry I'm so late on this reply.  I believe you are correct on both points.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've pointed you to a reference, Acts, if you care to read it. That way you don't have to take my word for it.





Roger that. Allowing us to answer your questions with book recommendations will make our job so much easier.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

Post 50.  Your question.
"What did the bible really mean to say with that verse? It seems pretty unambiguous to me and I would think an all knowing being could communicate in a way that wouldn't require the interpretations of those who claim to understand better than us simpletons what it really meant to say. But what would I know? I'm a mere mortal that doesn't have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe occurring in my mind."

Yours to answer, but its easier to make false accusations than it is to study and understand what you're talking about before making a logical critique, much less offer a reasonable defense of your own position.  Right?


----------



## mtnwoman (May 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you feel Christianity answers all those questions?



Absolutely...beautiful flowers, beautiful mountains, springs, waterfalls, beaches, skies, butterflies, birds, pets...peace and joy that will meet with Christ midair, and go with Him to glory. None of that beauty evolved..or banged into existance.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 11, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'd be thankful if you could use your discerning powers and interpret the meaning for me too.



I'm pretty sure that someone else in your family has interpreted that to you....and you still don't get it....or they didn't explain it to you correctly....could that be it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Roger that. Allowing us to answer your questions with book recommendations will make our job so much easier.



Actually it was your questions.

Originally Posted by atlashunter  
"All you've done so far is attack me. You haven't even attempted to explain why Christians shouldn't kill witches or why the bible doesn't actually mean what it says when it says thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

,but don't let the truth get in the way of your dodge toward intellectual laziness.


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually it was your questions.
> 
> Originally Posted by atlashunter
> "All you've done so far is attack me. You haven't even attempted to explain why Christians shouldn't kill witches or why the bible doesn't actually mean what it says when it says thou shall not suffer a witch to live."
> ...



You're one to talk. Rather than answering the question you gave a book recommendation. Well my friend we can play that game too. Nobody should bother with your questions when _you_ are too lazy to bother with theirs.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You're one to talk. Rather than answering the question you gave a book recommendation. Well my friend we can play that game too. Nobody should bother with your questions when _you_ are too lazy to bother with theirs.



Oh please Br'er Atlas, Please?  Don't throw me in that briar patch.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2013)

If I become a Christian am I supposed to kill witches or not because frankly, that might be a selling point.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 19, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> If I become a Christian am I supposed to kill witches or not because frankly, that might be a selling point.



Depends on if they float.


----------



## TTom (May 19, 2013)

Looks like my l,ast post went to the wrong thread this is to correct that issue.

Appollogies


----------

