Religious Societies Are More Violent, Dangerous, and Unstable than Irreligious Societies (atheism, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Edit: I watched the video. The problem with the video, is that the author is too close minded regarding interpretation with the Bible (although I do appreciate the method he took in his debate). He chooses to focus solely on the Old Testament and disregards the fact that by fulfilling the messianic prophesies, Jesus supersedes mosaic law. His example with the grenades, is not appropriate, in that the Bible is not akin to the grenades, it's merely a target. South Park did an excellent spoof of this argument with a great point.
But Jesus didn't fulfill any prophecies, because he was not of the bloodline of David... unless Joseph really WAS his father, that is. Pick one, it can't be both.
But Jesus didn't fulfill any prophecies, because he was not of the bloodline of David... unless Joseph really WAS his father, that is. Pick one, it can't be both.
Since Joseph and Mary were married, Jesus would have been born to the house of his legal father. Also, there are many traditions that Mary too was of the bloodline of David. Anyway, if one accepts that Jesus is the Son of God, they accept that he is the messiah and fulfilled the prophecies, and you accept that his word supersedes that of the Old Testament (at least for us Catholics, it appears to be the same with most Christians)
But Jesus didn't fulfill any prophecies, because he was not of the bloodline of David... unless Joseph really WAS his father, that is. Pick one, it can't be both.
If Mary was also of the House of David than Jesus is of the bloodline because a female could be allowed to inherit if there were no sons. (This was in Numbers, I think, as someone asked about it and I showed them the verse.) Mary had no brothers according to tradition and I don't think any brothers for her are mentioned in the Gospels either.
And there's the rest dealt with by the above.
Addendum - I found the verse and it was in Numbers.
"The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter." Numbers 27:7-8
I don't think I need someone to explain my own religion to me, especially someone with such a radical view of it that is nothing like what it teaches. We Catholics DO NOT CONDEMN anyone to hell (granted some wackos with a poor understanding of it do), because we do not know if anyone is even in hell. For all we know, everyone has been allowed into heaven or purgatory. According to our beliefs, the only sure fire way to go to hell, is to completely reject God, in any form. Since we don't really know what happens after death, we admit that it is possible to go to heaven without being Christian, let alone Catholic. We do however state who we believe has gone to heaven, and encourage others to follow in their foot steps. We only do so after much research, and evidence that your type would of course dismiss as "phenomenon" and "coincidence". Understand that we are not all radical fundamentalists like you are currently assuming. You need to stop looking at religion as black and white, and realize that their is A LOT of variety in what people believe. To assume that I believe the same exact things as an Evangelical is EXTREMELY short sighted. Don't go trying to define my religion for me, it's done a very good, very logical, very consistent job in doing so. The only real flaw I can point out with the Church, is that it has men running it, and so automatically there will be people who do not practice what they preach. If you don't believe anything that I've written, please feel free to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will MORE than suffice in showing that we are not a religion that "hates humanity".
Christianity is VERY clear. You can only enter heaven through jesus. So unless you are saying your god is wrong, but you can't do anything to fight it, then I will continue to accept that you agree with the idea, that humanity should be tortured forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknic
I agree that theocracies do not work, but EVERY government that has banned religion in some form has also turned into a human rights disaster (Just look at the issues between the U.K. and Ireland). There is a difference between a secular government, which allows religion and a secular government that forbids religion. One allows people to believe as they see fit, and the other has people being forced into pretending to believe in nothing. They are unhappy and frequently do what they can to show their government that it can never kill the faith. So far, no government has ever been able to kill religion within its borders. If anything, they have only strengthened it by showing the people how truly valuable it is.
Banning religion, is banning freedom of expression, and that is ALWAYS bad.
I'm not impressed by "hey they can be evil too" argument.
I should have been more specific when stating what kind of government I support. A secular democratic republic is the only form of government I support.
No government has been able to kill freedom of expression, yes, I totally agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknic
Also, I'd like to point out that at their very route most governments are, to a certain degree, based on the religion of their founders. The basis for the laws in the U.S. come from the 10 commandments (is this an uncomfortable truth for you?).
Where in the US constitution is the 10 commandments written?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknic
P.S. I didn't watch the video, because my speakers are currently being used to supply music to my studio, so could you kindly tell me what is said? If they are referring to Mosaic Law, or how the Bible says to stone certain people, remember that all of this was rendered obsolete by the coming of the messiah. Also, remember that everything must be taken in context, and certain passages are for times of war, peace, famine, prosperity, etc. and many are meant as metaphors (take for instance the book Job).
The reason why I posted the video, is because I didn't want to type thousands of words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknic
P.P.S. You are still baffling me. How can a religion centered around a man who's main teaching was to love your neighbor as yourself be evil?
Christianity is VERY clear. You can only enter heaven through jesus. So unless you are saying your god is wrong, but you can't do anything to fight it, then I will continue to accept that you agree with the idea, that humanity should be tortured forever.
That is the Christianity that you know, remember there are many different denominations with different beliefs. We Catholics admit that we do not know what happens after death and that we can only go on faith that what we believe is true. We believe that the best way to get to heaven, is through Jesus, but do not deny that that is the only way. Research about the Marian apparitions. She is always asking the world to repent from their evil ways. Her focus is getting people to act Christian, not be Christian. Those that are possibly condemned are not condemned solely for not believing in Christ, but for rejecting God and living abhorrent lifestyles that offend God.
Quote:
Banning religion, is banning freedom of expression, and that is ALWAYS bad.
I'm not impressed by "hey they can be evil too" argument.
I should have been more specific when stating what kind of government I support. A secular democratic republic is the only form of government I support.
No government has been able to kill freedom of expression, yes, I totally agree.
I'm glad we've found some common ground.
Quote:
Where in the US constitution is the 10 commandments written?
Remember to keep holy the Lord's day
Okay, there's none on this one today, but we used to have blue laws. Still, to celebrate national events, we take the day off. Close enough
The reason why I posted the video, is because I didn't want to type thousands of words.
Here's my comments from earlier on it.
Quote:
I watched the video. The problem with the video, is that the author is too close minded regarding interpretation with the Bible (although I do appreciate the method he took in his debate). He chooses to focus solely on the Old Testament and disregards the fact that by fulfilling the messianic prophesies, Jesus supersedes mosaic law. His example with the grenades, is not appropriate, in that the Bible is not akin to the grenades, it's merely a target (or more accurately, what is used to determine the target). South Park did an excellent spoof of this argument with a great point.
Then you have much to learn from the Jesus and the saints, especially Saint Maximilian Kolbe and other martyrs. If you think Christians would want to kill you, you are VERY, VERY, VERY wrong my friend. That is the last I want for someone like you, to die rejecting God or even the possibility of a god.
If Mary was also of the House of David than Jesus is of the bloodline because a female could be allowed to inherit if there were no sons. (This was in Numbers, I think, as someone asked about it and I showed them the verse.) Mary had no brothers according to tradition and I don't think any brothers for her are mentioned in the Gospels either.
And there's the rest dealt with by the above.
Addendum - I found the verse and it was in Numbers.
"The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter." Numbers 27:7-8
Yes, but as I pointed out before, this was evidently a special exemption in order to avoid a family line dying out. It did not mean that the female line was just as valid as the male line. It certainly would not mean that Jesus could inherit the line through his mother since there were other sons.
Succinctly, if Jesus was not Joseph's son, he would not have the bloodline reckoned through him but through Joseph's other sons. Unless one tries to explain them as 'cousins'.
In addition, if one of the lines is correct through Joseph why does the person who knew the Marian line not also give the othger one? You can't tell me he didn't know it. Again, both genealogies end up with Joseph. The gloss that he was the husband of Mary is an impudent addition to scripture by some apologists in order to get over one of those pesky discrepancies.
This is how the discrepancies are 'explained' - with explanations which do not work but will do well enough for believers who don't trouble about the actual facts too much.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2010 at 04:40 AM..
Since Joseph and Mary were married, Jesus would have been born to the house of his legal father. Also, there are many traditions that Mary too was of the bloodline of David. Anyway, if one accepts that Jesus is the Son of God, they accept that he is the messiah and fulfilled the prophecies, and you accept that his word supersedes that of the Old Testament (at least for us Catholics, it appears to be the same with most Christians)
Adoption is not a valid admission to the Davidic line.
Traditions based on nothing other than ancient attempts to explain away this problem.
That son of godship somehow validates Jesus' Davidic descent is one of those old explanations. It does not. I assert that the claim that God can make children of abraham out of stones is false. He can magic up as many humans as he likes but they are not seed of abraham just because he says so. Thus a cuckoo in the BarJoseph (or perhaps bar-Heli) house would not be a son of David just because God says so.
But that is what the gosepls argue. That Jesus was son of David because God said so, he worked miracles and that proved that he had God's endorsement and that made him Son of David, as the gospels show by having healed persons acclaiming Jesus as Son of david.
That is also the point behind the puzzling 'How can they say the Messiah is David's son?' question which seems to be arguing that Jesus can't be. It is saying that the messiah was in heaven and David is his son and therefore Jesus (incarnated messiah) is the originator of the line of David...in a divine sort of way, though a moment's thought will show there's no bloodline there anyway.
All this makes one very suspicious that Jesus wasn't of the line of David at all and some nifty apologetic footwork had to be done to get over this, such as prophecy fullfillment by being born in Bethlehem, which i am pretty sure now, he wasn't.
I note that Paul says Son of David according to the flesh which does argue that he thought Jesus was of Davidic decent. I do wonder since there is so much work done to prove a Davidic decent by various doubtful means, but sure, that is what Paul says.
Sorry - this is indeed off - topic, but the claims can't be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Also, I'd like to point out that at their very route most governments are, to a certain degree, based on the religion of their founders. The basis for the laws in the U.S. come from the 10 commandments (is this an uncomfortable truth for you?).
Sorry, but no. Our laws are not based on the ten commandments. Not one iota. That's a common revisionist lie & pipe dream which I see posted all too often by the "Christian nation" mythers. And actually almost all of the ten commandments are illegal or unconstitutional under our legal system.
Our laws are in fact based on the secular principles of The Enlightenment and the Common Law, which traces its origins back to the laws of ancient (pagan) Rome and Greece. No Bible or Christianity involved. Sorry!
One of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
So no, our laws are not based Christianity, The Bible or the ten commandments. At least not the ten found in The Bible. If anything they would be based upon those of Solon of Greece:
Sorry, but no. Our laws are not based on the ten commandments. Not one iota. That's a common revisionist lie & pipe dream which I see posted all too often by the "Christian nation" mythers. And actually almost all of the ten commandments are illegal or unconstitutional under our legal system.
Our laws are in fact based on the secular principles of The Enlightenment and the Common Law, which traces its origins back to the laws of ancient (pagan) Rome and Greece. No Bible or Christianity involved. Sorry!
One of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
So no, our laws are not based Christianity, The Bible or the ten commandments. At least not the ten found in The Bible. If anything they would be based upon those of Solon of Greece:
Either way, it is easy to see why it looks like they're based on the 10 commandments, and that goes back to my basic point, which was that every law structure can always trace its most basic principles to religion. I just made the assumption that the U.S. based its laws on the 10 commandments (which I still think may have played a role in deciding which laws to keep), because the founders where Christians and wanted little to nothing to do with England or anything English.
Either way, it is easy to see why it looks like they're based on the 10 commandments, and that goes back to my basic point, which was that every law structure can always trace its most basic principles to religion. I just made the assumption that the U.S. based its laws on the 10 commandments (which I still think may have played a role in deciding which laws to keep), because the founders where Christians and wanted little to nothing to do with England or anything English.
The founders were for the most part Deists, not Christians. Read the Treaty of Tripoli
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Conservatives who claim that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" sometimes dismiss the Treaty of Tripoli because it was authored by the U.S. diplomat Joel Barlow, an Enlightenment freethinker. Well, then, how about the tenth president, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions.
Quote:
George Washington in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island in 1790: "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support ... May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."
Or see the quotes here from various founding fathers:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
