why are christians supposed to be god-fearing? [Archive]

Bob

08-08-2004, 06:56 PM

maybe it's all ignorance on my part, but what an unfortunate religion, to have to be scared all the time. jesus seemed like such a nice guy, too, i'm continually amazed at how people choose to worship him. pro-lifers that are pro-war and pro-death penalty? all life is sacred....sort of

why is the religion so fear-centric? i hate to steal another bill hicks quote, but the message seems to be "eternal hellfire awaits anyone who questions god's eternal love". jesus didn't seem like that at all. i guess sometimes the apple falls way the fuck on the other side of the earth from the tree?

i really don't understand the religion. christ preaches all this about blessed are the meek, and stuff about love, but our most prominent christian leaders live in palaces (or at the very least not-so-humble abodes), and have bodyguards, and declare wars, and do all these other confusing things. and we love it! yay for god-fearing leaders like george w. bush! yay for a man who says god told him to destroy people! yay for a born-again christian who supports the death penalty! maybe he needs to be born one more time...third time's the charm

again, maybe this is all ignorance on my part, i'm not the most scholarly christian (i suppose you'd have to be a christian in the first place to be a scholarly one, but you get the idea), but the way some people have chosen to honor christ's sacrifice, and the fact that everyone seems to go along with it is just really confusing to me. and why fear should be at the heart of it all i just don't get one bit. i wish jesus WOULD come back sometimes. if he didn't get crucified again, maybe he'd clear this all up for us (and hopefully not with a firestorm, but that doesn't seem especially jesus-like to me)

mcaismyhero

08-08-2004, 06:59 PM

I'm catholic. I are pro-life but anti-war and anti-death penalty. So go figure.

QueenAdrock

08-08-2004, 07:02 PM

It's like the ants you see when you're walking around your driveway. If they're not afraid of you, you're going to get angry and smash them.

But even the ones that run away get smashed too. But the ones that are really really fast make it to the grass and are safe. So you best live your life in super-eternal fear, or God's going to be angry and come after you. That's why bad things happen to good people. Because even if you're good, you're not terrified of your maker. And that's not right.

Bob

08-08-2004, 07:12 PM

I'm catholic. I are pro-life but anti-war and anti-death penalty. So go figure.

you seem to be better at the whole christian thing than alot of others then, hats off. i think the pope feels the same way (though that doesn't stop him from moving out of the vatican and into a hovel somewhere, but ok, i'm not pope, that decision's not mine to make)

there just seem to be alot of contradictions in the religion (or at least some of the people that follow it) that get me sometimes. what WOULD jesus do?

mcaismyhero

08-08-2004, 07:15 PM

what WOULD jesus do?

He'd probably take one look at all of us and think to himself, "What a bunch of losers." This IS NOT what I had in mind."

Vladimir

08-08-2004, 07:32 PM

He'd probably take one look at all of us and think to himself, "What a bunch of losers." This IS NOT what I had in mind."

I agree. If Jesus could see the condition of Christianity right now, more a force of hate than love, he would be pissed.

EN[i]GMA

08-08-2004, 07:33 PM

I believe in God. It does the same for me.

Here is how MC Frontalot explains it:

and I wish that I could afford the ear of Bush the second
I'd ask is it your favorite philosopher who recommended
invading and exterminating all who defy us,
crying out justice but seeking out triumphs?
wasn't your christ unbeloved of empires?
one nailed his ass to a post; he expired!
a terrorist, as roman evidence showed
put down like a retard on the death row
in texas, I guess "tough luck," right George?
ain't that how every war gets scored?
big gun wins, winner gets a free turn
enemy after enemy burns
are you listening sir? or did your mind drift
to the next country in your axis
to all the cool bombs drops you get to call
delivery fresh from the 4th reich to y'all

God-fearing is in the public lexicon due primarily to the 1st testamanent. Hellfire and Brimstone, Sodom and Gommorah, all that good stuff. Fear God or he'll fuck you up is what that says to people. It really is a shame those bastards would demean the Holiness of God by having him commit these horrible acts. Yet another reason why all revealed religions are false.

Ace42

08-08-2004, 07:37 PM

maybe it's all ignorance on my part, but what an unfortunate religion, to have to be scared all the time.

This comes down to "Gospels vs" IMO.

but the way some people have chosen to honor christ's sacrifice, and the fact that everyone seems to go along with it is just really confusing to me.

The vocal minority do not represent me.

There is very little I can do to fault the words of Jesus, but a lot of the stuff preceding and following I have problems with. I think that is understandable, when you consider that Jesus is supposed to be the son of god with a divine message, and *everything else* is a lot of hokey shit shoved together by a bunch of rebelious Jews.

Bob

08-08-2004, 07:51 PM

i really haven't made up my mind about god (the existence thereof) one way or the other. seeing as how if he does in fact exist, he exists in a realm beyond our mortal perception, i think it's kinda silly for any of us to say beyond a shadow of a doubt "yes he exists" or "fuck you no he doesnt", because you just can't prove it one way or the other. if you believe in him/her/it/them or if you don't, it's faith that drives you.

i still live like an atheist though, and i do it because of logic. i know that seems hypocritical after i just said it's dumb to be an atheist because of a lack of evidence, but i'm serious so i'll elaborate: look at all the forms of worship out there that worship the same god: there's the catholics the protestants the mormons the shiites the sunnis the various types of jews (sorry, ignorance again)...and all of them, to a tee will tell you that they're the only ones doing it right, and several of them will tell you that all the rest of the ones are going to hell. there's so many of them, and logically, they can't all be right, so no matter which one you choose (usually because you were born into it), you're probably going to be completely wrong and you'll waste your life by pissing off god because you're worshipping him wrong. so you're bound for the lake of fire, good guess, but you were wrong. i know, there's no way you could have known, but sorry, rules are rules

now let's assume that you've chosen the right one. and let's assume it's not one that believes in predestination, and you actually CAN get into heaven if you act right. most of these religions require alot of devotion to do it right, so most of their followers fall off the path and go to hell anyway. it's so easy to screw up too, maybe you forget it's friday and you eat a pork sandwich, or you see an advert on TV and accidentally have an impure thought, and get hit by a bus before you can make it to confession: oops! you're going to hell!

so that, on top of the other thing means that in all probability, you're going to hell no matter what you do. i'd say maybe three or four people on this message board aren't going to burn eternally, and i don't consider myself so lucky. so the way i see it, if i'm going to hell no matter what i do, i might as well enjoy life while i've got it, you know? i'll avoid the guilt trip most religions lay on you, suffering can wait, i might as well have 70 years of fun before the bullshit kicks in. i'd hate to live my life as, say, a devout catholic, and abstain from sex, drugs, rock music, and all such earthly delights, then get up to the pearly gates and say "o lord, i've served you in life and now come to take my place at your side", only to have him say "lol i'm allah sucker, you've been a right bastard, now you burn"

or vice versa.

at any rate, if fundamentalists are the only people that get into heaven, i don't wanna be there, those guys piss me right the fuck off.

QueenAdrock

08-08-2004, 07:55 PM

at any rate, if fundamentalists are the only people that get into heaven, i don't wanna be there, those guys piss me right the fuck off.

Exactly. I'm stealing that.

catch a bad one

08-08-2004, 07:57 PM

AHHH all this mumbo jumbo makes my head hurt...

after MANY fierce religious debates and arguments with people and friends over my life I have come to the point where all I can say is TO EACH IS OWN (!) .

To me, religion is dumb, i will NEVER be religious. But for someone who is, respect me for what I believe and I will respect you for what you believe.

EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS (!) No matter how outrageous they may be!

Bob

08-08-2004, 08:05 PM

Exactly. I'm stealing that.

cool

if i get up to the pearly gates and see fred phelps get waved in (of www.godhatesfags.com fame), i'll just save st. peter (or paul, or...something with a P, i'm sure of it) some time and check myself into hell, he doesn't need to bother looking in the book

anyway it's refreshing to hear the things the christians are saying in here, it's nice to know people are actually paying attention to the things jesus said (or at least, the things we're told he said, personally, i wasn't there, i don't know for sure). and now that i think back, the church on my campus was one of the most vocal opponents of the iraq war, so maybe i'm making too much out of it. still, there's a troubling amount of support for this type of thing from the christians. i don't think jesus would be impressed.

mcaismyhero

08-08-2004, 08:11 PM

It's Peter, you were right the first time.

Ace42

08-08-2004, 08:15 PM

look at all the forms of worship out there that worship the same god: there's the catholics the protestants the mormons the shiites the sunnis the various types of jews (sorry, ignorance again)...and all of them, to a tee will tell you that they're the only ones doing it right, and several of them will tell you that all the rest of the ones are going to hell.

Depending on the sect of protestantism that you subscribe to, it could be the case that some fundamentalists (or Catholics, or whatever) are going "beyond the call of duty" so to speak, and thus it is not a case of "they're the only ones doing it right" merely that they understand it the right way. That is quite substantially different, and not as exclusive.

there's so many of them, and logically, they can't all be right, so no matter which one you choose (usually because you were born into it), you're probably going to be completely wrong and you'll waste your life by pissing off god because you're worshipping him wrong. so you're bound for the lake of fire, good guess, but you were wrong. i know, there's no way you could have known, but sorry, rules are rules

That argument does not *logically* prove anything. There mere fact that there is a multiplicity of choices which you think are equally plausible does not mean that they must ALL BE WRONG.

Think of it like this: You are told one road will lead you to a safe destination, but the other X (3, 10, 30) turning will lead you into a boobytrapped mine-field where you cannot help but die. Just because they all look the same, and each one has loads of people wlaking down it convinced their's is the right way, doesn't mean none of them *is* the right way, does it?

now let's assume that you've chosen the right one. and let's assume (...) you actually CAN get into heaven if you act right. most of these religions require alot of devotion to do it right, so most of their followers fall off the path and go to hell anyway. it's so easy to screw up too, maybe you forget it's friday and you eat a pork sandwich, or you see an advert on TV and accidentally have an impure thought, and get hit by a bus before you can make it to confession: oops! you're going to hell!

That is not true, a lot of religions have scope for redemption. In protestantism, merely being penetant and believing in Christ will redeem you. Thus "having picked the right one" (hypothetically, as you point out) you are secured. Likewise, with Judaism, they have the "scapegoat" which holds all your annual sins manifest, and they die with it. Likewise, Catholics with their 'last rites' and confession. These religions just off the top of my head make accomodation for falling short of the standards which all agree are too high for most people to achieve.

i'd say maybe three or four people on this message board aren't going to burn eternally, and i don't consider myself so lucky.

I'm not particularly devout, and I managed to make Purgatorio (highest level) on Dante's purgatoio test. If you don't think you are going to heaven, surely that suggests you should lead your life in a better way?

so the way i see it, if i'm going to hell no matter what i do, i might as well enjoy life while i've got it, you know? I'll avoid the guilt trip most religions lay on you, suffering can wait, i might as well have 70 years of fun before the bullshit kicks in. i'd hate to live my life as, say, a devout catholic, and abstain from sex, drugs, rock music, and all such earthly delights, then get up to the pearly gates and say "o lord, i've served you in life and now come to take my place at your side", only to have him say "lol i'm allah sucker, you've been a right bastard, now you burn"
or vice versa.

That is like saying "I don't think I can do it, so I won't try" - while I sympathise, numerous individuals have furthered mankind here in the transitory and very corporeal world despite not thinking they would achieve anything tangible. If nothing less, they managed to make it possible for future generations to mount on their success. I'd say this is a truism that can be extrapolated to spiritual existence also. "I don't believe in God, so I can have fun bumming children" could be a conclusion drawn from your diatribe. Without a god, all that remains is a Nietzchen morality. What you decide to call good or evil is. - Is this how you'd like to see the world? Nothing good or evil, but what the individual calls as such?

I think there is a universal good, and a universal evil. These are absolute, and not merely the product of what our society or physiology calls as such by concensus. Trust me, you do not want a world where man can decide what is good or evil, because you would not be safe in it, nor reach 70 having a good time.

Tone Capone

08-08-2004, 08:25 PM

We're not really supposed to be God-Fearing... I think the word should be changed to "God-Respecting". For my family is was more about the love of God than the fear of God. It was Mom we were afraid of ;)

ps.
I'm pro-life, pro-war, pro death penalty (in certain cases)... go figure indeed.

Bob

08-08-2004, 08:30 PM

i think you missed a few vital points of my...uh point there.

i'm not saying that NO religion is right, i'm saying that very few of them are (most likely just one since alot of them contradict each other), and we have absolutely no way of knowing which one is right. the most vital determining factor in whether or not we are going to heaven or hell is one beyond our control: "are you worshipping god the right way?". you can't possibly know if you are or aren't until it's too late, and in all probability, you aren't. not your fault, but you aren't. it's neat that so many religions have so many ways to redeem yourself and get into heaven, but if you're not part of that religion, it doesn't matter for you, again, not your fault, but rules are rules.

what my belief system here amounts to, using your metaphor of the minefields and roads is, "i'll probably get blown up, so i think i'll dance"

for the record, i believe in a universal good and evil as well, and i don't believe that god or any kind of religion necessarily's got anything to do with it. you don't need a supernatural power to tell you what's right and wrong, people can come to a concensus about that on their own. for example: kicking children. that's probably wrong, and you don't need god to tell you that. if someone should say to themselves one day "well i don't see any reason why that's not ok" and proceed to kick 50 children, society can say "great, that's your personal choice, now we choose to jail you and i think most would agree with our decision"

basically what i'm saying is, there's no need to base our laws on what god says, because god hasn't said anything in a while. the muslims, the jews, the christians, they based their laws around what god said, and they've got different laws. doesn't seem very universal to me. why do we need a god to figure out what's good and evil? are we that helpless?

Tone Capone

08-08-2004, 08:32 PM

basically what i'm saying is, there's no need to base our laws on what god says, because god hasn't said anything in a while. the muslims, the jews, the christians, they based their laws around what god said, and they've got different laws. doesn't seem very universal to me. why do we need a god to figure out what's good and evil? are we that helpless?
Yes, we ARE that helpless apparently... look at the world today. I presonally think that even though I'M Christian (though you wouldn't be able to tell) people from every religion will be in heaven because it's more about your personal relationship with God then how you worship.. only an opinion.

EN[i]GMA

08-08-2004, 08:35 PM

Bob, I think Universism is right up your alley. Not a belief but a belief in a belief.

A Universist is defined as an individual who applies personal reason and experience to the fundamental questions of human existence, derives inspiration from the natural uncertainty of the human state, and denies the validity of revelation, faith and dogma. Does this definition fit you? If so, please accept our invitation to take part in the Universist Movement, the fastest growing rational religious movement of the 21st Century.

Universism is the world's first rational religion. Reaching to the heart of humanity's religious impulse, we have uncovered not faith, but mystery. Not complacency, but awe. We have found an essential element of the human experience in harmony with reason - not in spite of it. Universists know the fuller our understanding of the universe, the greater our appreciation for a reality beyond our imagination. We celebrate faith in reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress.

http://universist.org/faq.htm

You are free to believe anything you want. Nothing that does not sit well with you, you don't have to accept.

EDIT: Off topic, but doesn't the dis-existance of God prove the theory that if God does not exist all things are lawful? A higher law has to exist for anything but blind Nihilism to be the correct path, right?

Bob

08-08-2004, 08:37 PM

Yes, we ARE that helpless apparently... look at the world today.

a world largely shaped by religious morality...or something claimed to be

i try to separate myself from isms and ologies whenever i can...which is why i'll die alone in a cave somewhere, but that's ok, it beats a war

it's cool to see there's new isms coming about...the ones we've got now we've had for a long time and i daresay they're beginning to show their age. at least we're not polytheistic anymore though, right? those were some crazy buggers, there has been progress.

Tone Capone

08-08-2004, 08:38 PM

a world largely shaped by religious morality...or something claimed to be

Yeah when people use religion for their own personal gains, bad things happen. Lines get drawn, people pick sides, a lot of people get killed, a lot of people blow themsleves up... all because they were trying to screw around God's words.

Bob

08-08-2004, 08:47 PM

Yeah when people use religion for their own personal gains, bad things happen. Lines get drawn, people pick sides, a lot of people get killed, a lot of people blow themsleves up... all because they were trying to screw around God's words.

which is why i say we ought to forget god's words, that way, there's nothing to screw around with. if we look only to universal patterns of good and evil (whatever those may be, ok, we've got a long way to go) instead of what's written in really really old books and is open to interpretation, there's less potential for corruption and crazy fuckheads gaining popularity...at least there ought to be. probably not actually. who knows.

blasphemy, blasforyou....

it's a big world with a lot of people with a lot of beliefs, i don't know why i think i'd be able to figure out a way for us to all get along. it should be another interesting millenium, at any rate

Tone Capone

08-08-2004, 08:48 PM

which is why i say we ought to forget god's words, that way, there's nothing to screw around with. if we look only to universal patterns of good and evil (whatever those may be, ok, we've got a long way to go) instead of what's written in really really old books, there's less potential for corruption and crazy fuckheads gaining popularity...at least there ought to be. probably not actually. who knows.

blasphemy, blasforyou....

it's a big world with a lot of people with a lot of beliefs, i don't know why i think i'd be able to figure out a way for us to all get along. it should be another interesting millenium, at any rate

interesting.

Ace42

08-08-2004, 09:55 PM

if we look only to universal patterns of good and evil (whatever those may be, ok, we've got a long way to go) instead of what's written in really really old books and is open to interpretation, there's less potential for corruption and crazy fuckheads gaining popularity...at least there ought to be. probably not actually. who knows.

Quite, look at the US. The divorcing of religion from state was supposed to secure just that. How well did that work out?

And dancing in a minefield is stupid.

NakedMoleRat

08-08-2004, 11:37 PM

ps.
I'm pro-life, pro-war, pro death penalty (in certain cases)... go figure indeed.

Do you understand how Contradictory that is??? So let me get this Straight, You Care more about a brainless Fetus More than a fully Developed Human being?

not Picking a Fight But i find your Logic Completely Ridiculous!

I think the Only time it is Logical to be pro-Life is if you are Against both War and The Death penalty(as Shown by mcaismyhero).

I Myself am pro-Choice, anti-Death penalty, and anti war(except for the Civil War, World War II, and maybe a few Others in which War Was Completely necessary)

PEACE

DroppinScience

08-08-2004, 11:41 PM

I've kinda strayed from my Catholic upbringing BUT...

I don't think Christians are "supposed" to be god-fearing. At least not all of them. Understand that there are so many sects of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) and all have their differences in worship throughout. Not all forms of Christianity have this "God-fearing" stuff. I went to Catholic schools my entire life and I know we were taught that God was all loving, all forgiving, yadda yadda yadda, so even when I was a devout Catholic in my childhood, I wasn't really "God fearing." Though at school, we were ONLY taught from the 2nd testament. The first testament was never shown to us (not until junior high and high school) so this whole wrathful, I'm gonna smite you if you eat meat on Friday God was pretty much rejected.

Is the "God-fearing" stuff more of the Protestant persuasion? Or maybe it exists in Catholicism too but my Catholic schools were just choosing to edit out the vision of God as this SOB stuff?

Whatever the case, I find it easier to just cast the religion stuff aside. It's just not for me. Secular all the way. Yet at the same time, I identify myself as Catholic. Heh, go figure. :p

electronegative

08-09-2004, 12:09 AM

Okay....takes a deep breath....God-fearing has to do with having a deep respect for God...a deep love for God. I see it as you are so in awe of God-that you develop this deep love and respect(that is the context of God-fearing in the bible). When you come to know God, then you will realize this deep awe of who He is really is. I follow no other Gods and it not that I am closed minded but rather, I made a choice to believe God and the bible. I searched and tested and found it to be true over and over. Reincarnation..how does it logically make sense? Mathematically figure out if it is..I wonder. Also, Hitler being made into a fly would not suffice for the murder of millions of Jews. Do we not have a sense of justice in us? Does that not continue after death? Ask yourself-where does it come from? Is it universal from nation to nation? How does it differ dependent upon enculturation and how does it stay the same? You know when you have been violated...do you not get angry and wish for justice?
No, God does not look to punish us all the time but rather to woo us with his love which is demonstrated for us through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I know in whom I have believed so it doesn't matter what anyone says...I strongly believe in Jesus Christ for he revealed himself to me and I searched him...he who searches will find. Be careful to fully understand and take into context that which you pull out of the bible. As a Christian, I am disgusted with those who use and abuse Jesus Christ and if you read the bible, you will find where Jesus warns those who do this and it ain't pretty!!! I am not perfect myself so I pray for this but try not to judge it.
I am pro-life...I have had an abortion and it tore me up emotionally and mentally..I am still healing 11 years later. I find it amusing how many who are pro-choice have never had a fetus ripped out of them because..well, due to the social forces that created a feeling of the lack of choice....if the US made laws and funded programs that created a social force that backed up life...I wonder...I really wonder...back up the talk...
Imagine the loss of life from abortion and why do we talk so much about the loss of life from the Twin Towers but not abortion? Think about that long and hard....
The power of the womb..not just a mass of cells, I assure you..science finds it worthy enough to take the cells from aborted fetuses and use them for stem-cell research. Amazing and fascinating how intricate and powerful those cells are....
-Amelia(Emilia)

Tone Capone

08-09-2004, 01:19 AM

Do you understand how Contradictory that is??? So let me get this Straight, You Care more about a brainless Fetus More than a fully Developed Human being?

not Picking a Fight But i find your Logic Completely Ridiculous!

I think the Only time it is Logical to be pro-Life is if you are Against both War and The Death penalty(as Shown by mcaismyhero).

I Myself am pro-Choice, anti-Death penalty, and anti war(except for the Civil War, World War II, and maybe a few Others in which War Was Completely necessary)

PEACE

Yeah I figured some might think that but, hey it's a free country... (think)

I personally think life begins at conception so I am against an INNOCENT baby being brutally murdered... in MY opinion.

I do however think that a convicted serial rapist murdering pedophile deserves the death penalty when there is TOTAL evidence like DNA...

And as for war... it sucks I know, but sometimes it is what has to be done, just like the Civil War (thank you for bringing that up, that was a just war)

cookiepuss

08-09-2004, 12:29 PM

I spent 8 years of my life in catholic school and I beleive the answer to your question lies in the Catolic Church's history as a ruling power. Before the separation of church and state, the catholic church was a powerful ruling entity. Most people can agree that fear is one very effective way of controling a large number of people. So it was through fear and guilt that the catholic church converted people to thier religion and held the power for centuries. That is the most logical explanation I can give you for "god-fearing" among christians.

What is amazing is this that the god-fearing attitude has perservered all of these years even though the church no longer rules us. I suppose that's one of the reasons I'm not a practicing catholic. I find it to be an archaic institution whose ideals have changed very little over tha last thousand years. I am much keener on concepts of spirituality which allow for evolution and change.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:01 PM

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:07 PM

I do however think that a convicted serial rapist murdering pedophile deserves the death penalty when there is TOTAL evidence like DNA...

An interesting and controversial article in New Scientist stated that a lot of forensic sciences the police relies on is of questionable validity.

It cited indepth statistical analysis which showed that both finger-printing and DNA typing were not as reliable and conclusive as formerly thought, and that the fact that juries (being of nature unqualified in these fields) are blinded by science, and thus more likely to convict if they are told there is "irrefutable scientific evidence" - even though the evidence is far from certain.

If this proves to be the case (and there are rumours circulating that police forces, etc are desperately trying to disprove this, due to it meaning that numerous convicted criminals may have been jailed on unreliable evidence) then "total evidence" can not realistically be obtained.

I'd be in favour of a death penalty if it could be reliably ascertained (and I do not believe it can be at present, so this is purely hypothetical) that the person in question would be likely to reoffend if released - people who are so psychologically damaged, it would be impossible to rehabilitate them.

The problem with this is that if people are that mentally unwell, where do you draw the line? What if the mentally ill individual was dangerous and liable to reoffend due to having a learning disorder causing them to have a sub-adult mental age? It could be argued that their illness is not their fault, even though they are still dangerous.

In such a case, do you: Keep them locked up forever, so they cannot harm ohters, but let them die of natural causes when their misfortunate life is over; or kill them humanely because it costs a lot to keep them, and they are never going to get any better?

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:10 PM

The only good war is one where it is clearly a just war. Some wars straddle that line a bit (Vietnam being the biggest). This was also does but it is becoming more clear to me that it was a mistake. But I also think that we need to finish what we started and if we move out now it will be an even bigger failure than it is.

As for abortion, I don't understand how anyone could be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Either way, you have someone dying, be it an unborn baby or a living person. I don't think that you can straddle this issue. Either you're for death or for life at all costs. At least, that's how I see it.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:13 PM

The fear of the Lord is basically a reverent respect to God as the supreme Creator.

Proverbs 2:6
For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs 3:5-7
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: Fear the Lord, and depart from evil

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:16 PM

The only good war is one where it is clearly a just war.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." - Hemingway

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:17 PM

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." - Hemingway

So if North Korea were to attack us right now (hypotheticaly) and we were to attack them beck, then it would still be a crime to attack them back?

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:19 PM

So if North Korea were to attack us right now (hypotheticaly) and we were to attack them beck, then it would still be a crime to attack them back?

Of course. Your "justified" retaliation would result in innocent Koreans dying. How would that not be criminal?

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:26 PM

Of course. Your "justified" retaliation would result in innocent Koreans dying. How would that not be criminal?

When a country's military attacks you, you are at war with that country. So any subsequent loss of life is war related, no crime just common sense.

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:26 PM

Of course. Your "justified" retaliation would result in innocent Koreans dying. How would that not be criminal?

OK, I understand where you are coming from. But it wouldn't it be just as bad to not retaliate and let even more innocent American citizens die?

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:34 PM

When a country's military attacks you, you are at war with that country. So any subsequent loss of life is war related, no crime just common sense.

That is nonsensical. I think you need to clarify. "Any subsequent loss of life" - to what?

What you are saying there (and I do not think you mean) is that ifa country attacks you, you are defacto at war with them (this is not necessarily the case, although I will concede that no-one would go down without a fight, even if retaliation is not morally acceptable) and as such, any deaths resulting from war are "justified"

This is not the case. Where do you think the term "war crimes" comes from? To assume that it is ok to kill people just because there is a war going on makes no sense.

Targeting (or failing to prevent the collatoral damage, *within reason*) civillians is against the geneva conventions, and thus technically a *war crime* - these are casualties "subsequent" to the outbreak of hostility, and are not legitimate even by the most conservative of stances.

To go further - "two wrongs don't make a right" the law (both UK and US) is quite clear on this, and it is "common sense" as you say.

Thus retaliation (thus making an attack into a full-fledged war) can be seen to be a crime, thus supporting Hemingway.

war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.

OK, I understand where you are coming from. But it wouldn't it be just as bad to not retaliate and let even more innocent American citizens die?

It depends. Disregarding the country (as it stirs up too many irrelevant issues) - instead we'll call it country A and country B.

If country A attacks country B and wipes out 3 million people - what would be the "better" solution:

1. Country B retaliates and kills another 3 million innocent people, the war continues
2. Country B does what the bible tells them to (turn the other cheek) and the remaining *1* million people die, but it ends there with country B being eradicated

If we are going to base this on rational judgement, then clearly 2 is the better solution - 4 people die instead of 6 million.

If we want to slant this further, we can bring nukes into this (very relevant as the US still maintains a MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy)

If country A nukes country B causing massive damage and horrendous loss of life, which is the better solution:

1. Country B turns the other cheek and risks being annhilated
2. Country B nukes country A and doubles the amount of suffering

Bearing in mind that 1. Will *possibly* lead to the annhilation of B, whereas 2. will certainly lead to the annhilation of both, plus countries C,D,E,F and every other living human on the planet.

Sometimes the "best for us" is not "for the best"

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:40 PM

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:43 PM

If you target civilians intentionally, then yes it would be a war crime. That isn't the just thing to do. But if a civilian dies unintentionally during a war when you are trying to kill a military unit then it isn't considered a war crime.

That is like saying "drink-drivers don't intentionally want to run over people, so it shouldn't be considered a crime"

Wars result in the death of innocent people, this is unavoidable. Anyone starting a war can be in NO DOUBT about this. To know this, and say "we are going to do it anyway - the suffering is a by-product not the intention" is NOT a justification.

robofoo76

08-09-2004, 01:46 PM

Psalms 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Psalms 103:13
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.

Psalms 145:19
He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
Here's one answer for you. I will qoute this from 100% ILL
"Psalms 145:19
He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them"
This is your answer.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:46 PM

My reply was based on your statement, that said it would be a crime to attack any other nation that attacked us, because to do so would cause innocent civillians in said country to die. To elaborate I will say that of course I agree that "War Crimes" are wrong, however I feel that when a country attacks another with extreme prejudice, then the government of that country is making a statement to the affect of We are going to take you over. If their leader(s) decided it was worth it for whatever reason, then they would be ignorant to assume the opposing country would not retaliate. Thus factoring in a certain percentage of civillian casualties. It is not possible to wage war without having non-combatants killed. Such is the way of war. Subsequently it could be argued that the demoralization of losing the civillian percentage can be directly factored into winning/losing the war. He who attacks wtihout provocation had better be willing to accept the concequences.

The common sense aprroach to waging war by Dr. ILL :D

Ace42

08-09-2004, 01:48 PM

The common sense aprroach to waging war by Dr. ILL :D

And the fact that the leader of a country counts the death of the civilians under him "an acceptable loss" makes retaliating against those people legitimate?

robofoo76

08-09-2004, 01:51 PM

Also if you are to go to war, I'll have to look it up but it says, to destroy everything. If I am mistaking let me know.

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:52 PM

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 01:54 PM

Also if you are to go to war, I'll have to look it up but it says, to destroy everything. If I am mistaking let me know.

All it says is defeat the enemy. That doesn't mean bombing the shit out of everything just because you won already. That IS a war crime.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:55 PM

And the fact that the leader of a country counts the death of the civilians under him "an acceptable loss" makes retaliating against those people legitimate?

It in no way negates the fact you were attacked. If the people in the next town were bombing people in my town say and they just happened to hit my kid's school bus on the way home, I would not say Well I guess that's unfortunate and let the powers that be deal with it. I would join whatever Forces were actively involved in subdueing the next town. It's an age old paradigm. I don't hate my enemy personally but I feel the gov't that sent him to kill me must be stopped. But of course when you're the one getting shot at you don't have time to ponder all of these things

robofoo76

08-09-2004, 01:55 PM

Alright. Thanks. I wasn't sure exactly what I had read thanks for the input!

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 01:59 PM

All it says is defeat the enemy. That doesn't mean bombing the shit out of everything just because you won already. That IS a war crime.
What "It" are you referring to, just to clarify.

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 02:03 PM

What "It" are you referring to, just to clarify.

The definition of war. It doesn't mean to blow your enemy back to the stone age just because you can. It just means "to invade or attack a state or nation with force of arms." To win, all you need to do is defeat the enemy as quickly and simply as you can.

Ace42

08-09-2004, 02:04 PM

So you are saying that World War Two was an unjust war? I understand that US soldiers no doubt killed civilians. But we were trying to kill other soldiers. But Hitler killed more innocent civilians then we did. But you are saying that either way, they are both the same crime? We inadvertantly killed those civilians while trying to stop Hitler and his army of terror. He killed people for the fun of it.

It was "just" (in that it was justifiable) but still a crime, is what the Hemmingway quotation was getting at.

Would a police officer shooting you down to get at the mass-murderer behind you be "just" and "legal" ?

"But he killed more people, he needs to be stopped!" - that's not a comfort to any innocent bystander. No more comfort than "I was aiming for the guy directly behind him!"

Vigilantism is illegal, irrespective of the "jutification" offered.

And Hitler didn't kill anyone, he had soldiers to do that. The soldiers (the grunts) were no more evil than any other soldier. The German army was no more "evil" than any other army.

This is why I chose to use "country A and Country B" - when people start giving countries names, they start labelling the people as "evil" this or "justified" that.

It in no way negates the fact you were attacked. If the people in the next town were bombing people in my town say and they just happened to hit my kid's school bus on the way home, I would not say Well I guess that's unfortunate and let the powers that be deal with it. I would join whatever Forces were actively involved in subdueing the next town. It's an age old paradigm. I don't hate my enemy personally but I feel the gov't that sent him to kill me must be stopped. But of course when you're the one getting shot at you don't have time to ponder all of these things

See, this is why we think about it now. Ponder things in advance so that base instincts don't take over and you do something unconscienable when caught up in the moment.

"You were attacked" - So the aggressor is always in the wrong? That makes the US deserving of attacks on its soil, as they have attacked arab nations when unprovoked.

People use that as a justification for doing all sorts of horrible things. Infact numerous nations use (either staged or merely alleged) attacks to do just that. By letting yourself get caught up in the finger-pointing, you lose sight of the real issue. Call me an intellectual, but I grew out of "you started it" as a method of attributing blame / responsibility when I was, oooh, 8.

Look at how the "we were attacked on our own soil!" rigmarole of Sept 11th has been subverted to legitimising the patriot act, etc, etc.

"My son got bombed, that gives me every reason to act as badly as the bombers. But because *I* am the one who is wronged, that makes me fucking over other people perfectly ok!"

Pshaw.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 02:09 PM

The definition of war. It doesn't mean to blow your enemy back to the stone age just because you can. It just means "to invade or attack a state or nation with force of arms." To win, all you need to do is defeat the enemy as quickly and simply as you can.

That is a debateable issue. So if what you're sayin is true, What should have happened to the U.S. for the genocide of the Native American tribes?

What if they refuse to co-operate? Kill all of them? Utterly destroy them from the face of the earth? Or live with a thorne in your side, should you try to educate(indoctrineate them) ?

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 02:11 PM

Would a police officer shooting you down to get at the mass-murderer behind you be "just" and "legal" ?

If you ran in the way as he was shooting at him it would be.

And Hitler didn't kill anyone, he had soldiers to do that. The soldiers (the grunts) were no more evil than any other soldier. The German army was no more "evil" than any other army.

Hitler ordered the killings, but those soldiers could have not done it. They would have died, but it would have been the right thing to do. They were still killing innocent people weather they liked it or not and the allies had to stop them from doing it. And you never answered my question as to weather it would be better to sit back and let your country's civilians die at the hands of the agressor or to attack the agressor but face the possibility of killing their civilians.

mcaismyhero

08-09-2004, 02:13 PM

That is a debateable issue. So if what you're sayin is true, What should have happened to the U.S. for the genocide of the Native American tribes?

What if they refuse to co-operate? Kill all of them? Utterly destroy them from the face of the earth? Or live with a thorne in your side, should you try to educate(indoctrineate them) ?

The genocide of Native Americans was NOT a just war. It wasn't really even a war. It was just us blowing the shit out of them and killing all of them. We were wrong. I don't know what else to say about it other than I wish we hadn't done it. Maybe we should be punished for it.

Ace42

08-09-2004, 02:23 PM

And you never answered my question as to weather it would be better to sit back and let your country's civilians die at the hands of the agressor or to attack the agressor but face the possibility of killing their civilians.

Well, not the most popular of courses of action, but I'd personally turn the other cheek. However, as you cannot make that decision for other people (It is not my right or place) I'd not, as a ruler / governor, make the decision. I'd probably turn it over to referendum or abdicate. Either way, I'd not have thousands of lives on my conscience, nor be arrogant enough to assume that I have the faculties to determine who deserves to live, and who deserves to die.

And when you fight in a war, either as aggressor or retaliator, that is what you are doing, deciding who lives and who dies. Is "they deserve to die more than we do, because they aren't US" a good enough reason?

those soldiers could have not done it. They would have died, but it would have been the right thing to do. They were still killing innocent people weather they liked it or not and the allies had to stop them from doing it.

Like US soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam to name three? Why are German soldiers killing innocent people worse (to the point where they should not fight, where the Allies in all of these wars would not be "right to lay down their weapons" in your opinion) than the Allies doing it?

Because the allies were the winners, and on "our side" and thus automatically right?

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 02:28 PM

I was enjoying this conversation Ace42 until you felt necessary to compare me with an 8yr old child pointing fingers and placing blame. However I will ignore you're attempt to draw me into an angry E-fight and continue.

How do you feel our attack was unjustified? The U.N. gave Iraq ample time to stand down. Saddam would not relent. And Afghanistan, I mean if Binladen is there what can't we hunt him down for being the mastermind/leader of Alquida? Why is it that the U.S. cannot defend it's interests and everyone else can?

Ace42

08-09-2004, 02:39 PM

I was enjoying this conversation Ace42 until you felt necessary to compare me with an 8yr old child pointing fingers and placing blame. However I will ignore you're attempt to draw me into an angry E-fight and continue.

I think it is a perfectly valid comparison. I can't think of any adult who honestly would think "they started it!" is anything but juvenile. Not that I think you are, merely, that argument is. There is no need to take it personally.

How do you feel our attack was unjustified? The U.N. gave Iraq ample time to stand down. Saddam would not relent. And Afghanistan, I mean if Binladen is there what can't we hunt him down for being the mastermind/leader of Alquida? Why is it that the U.S. cannot defend it's interests and everyone else can?

The war was unjustified because it was not inline with international law. Infact it was indirect breach of it.

The most interesting feature of the debate over the Iraq crisis is that it never took place. True, many words flowed, and there was dispute about how to proceed. But discussion kept within rigid bounds that excluded the obvious answer: the U.S. and UK should act in accord with their laws and treaty obligations.

That is about the *former* Iraq war, and is as true about this one as it was about that one.

There are legitimate ways to react to the many threats to world peace. If Iraq’s neighbors feel threatened, they can approach the Security Council to authorize appropriate measures to respond to the threat. If the U.S. and Britain feel threatened, they can do the same. But no state has the authority to make its own determinations on these matters and to act as it chooses; the U.S. and UK would have no such authority even if their own hands were clean, hardly the case.

The Constitution does happen to provide such mechanisms, namely, by declaring valid treaties "the supreme law of the land," particularly the most fundamental of them, the UN Charter. It further authorizes Congress to "define and punish...offenses against the law of nations," undergirded by the Charter in the contemporary era. It is, furthermore, a bit of an understatement to say that other nations "have not assigned Washington the right"; they have forcefully denied it that right, following the (at least rhetorical) lead of Washington, which largely crafted the Charter.

Reference to Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions was regularly taken to imply that the two warrior states have the right to use force unilaterally, taking the role of "world policemen"—an insult to the police, who in principle are supposed to enforce the law, not tear it to shreds. There was criticism of Washington’s "arrogance of power," and the like, not quite the proper terms for a self-designated violent outlaw state.

One might contrive a tortured legal argument to support U.S./UK claims, though no one really tried. Step one would be that Iraq has violated UN Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which declares a cease-fire "upon official notification by Iraq" that it accepts the provisions that are spelled out (destruction of weapons, inspection, etc.). This is probably the longest and most detailed Security Council on record, but it mentions no enforcement mechanism. Step two of the argument, then, would be that Iraq’s non-compliance "reinvokes" Resolution 678 (29 Nov. 1990). That Resolution authorizes member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" (2 August 1990), which calls on Iraq to withdraw at once from Kuwait and for Iraq and Kuwait "to begin immediately intensive negotations for the resolution of their differences," recommending the framework of the Arab League. Resolution 678 also invokes "all subsequent relevant resolutions" (listing them: 662, 664); these are "relevant" in that they refer to the occupation of Kuwait and Iraqi actions relating to it. Reinvoking 678 thus leaves matters as they were: with no authorization to use force to implement the later Resolution 687, which brings up completely different issues, authorizing nothing beyond sanctions.

There is no need to debate the matter. The U.S. and UK could readily have settled all doubts by calling on the Security Council to authorize their "threat and use of force," as required by the Charter. Britain did take some steps in that direction, but abandoned them when it became obvious, at once, that the Security Council would not go along. But these considerations have little relevance in a world dominated by rogue states that reject the rule of law.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

The US cannot do "the same" because its own constitution, plus the treaties it not only helped draft, but imposes on other nations, and has fully ratified forbid it.

Invading a country because someone from another country is seeking sanctuary is a joke. The US has given sanctuary to numerous despots and refused extradition. By YOUR argument, the US would have been deserving of invasion by Iran when you sheltered the Shah.

Furthermore, merely refusing to hand Bin laden over is not a justification in itself. If Bin Laden had somehow managed to make it to the UK (in a plane, on a boat, swimming, no matter how) and landed on this soil, the UK government would NOT have been able to hand him over to the US. It is against our law to extradite prisoners to countries where they may face the death penalty. Would that justify the invasion of England? If your country was being fair and just, it would've been as obligated to attack us as it was to do so to Afghanistan. I find this unnacceptable, and so should you.

And "US interests" is a euphemism for "other country's business" - remember that next time you feel needed to use that phrase, as it is practically Orwellian.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 03:00 PM

The US cannot do "the same" because its own constitution, plus the treaties it not only helped draft, but imposes on other nations, and has fully ratified forbid it.

Invading a country because someone from another country is seeking sanctuary is a joke. The US has given sanctuary to numerous despots and refused extradition. By YOUR argument, the US would have been deserving of invasion by Iran when you sheltered the Shah.

Furthermore, merely refusing to hand Bin laden over is not a justification in itself. If Bin Laden had somehow managed to make it to the UK (in a plane, on a boat, swimming, no matter how) and landed on this soil, the UK government would NOT have been able to hand him over to the US. It is against our law to extradite prisoners to countries where they may face the death penalty. Would that justify the invasion of England? If your country was being fair and just, it would've been as obligated to attack us as it was to do so to Afghanistan. I find this unnacceptable, and so should you.

And "US interests" is a euphemism for "other country's business" - remember that next time you feel needed to use that phrase, as it is practically Orwellian.[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't know much about the shah and Iran, but they didn't invade us so I guess that's on them.
I'm sure that if binladen made it to the U.K. the C.I.A would find a way to get him out. But if not I seriously doubtwe would invade England. We could justifiably demand that you turn him over and propose you vote on it, and look upon your refusal as an act of agression. This is all hypothetical of course.
Did we have any justifiable reason to enter the second world war against Germany? They didn't attack us. Had we waited any longer would there be a U.K. today? Now I'm not saying the U. S. is the savior of the free world but look at the facts and use common sense. Binladen desrves swift justice. His hate group killed thousands of innocent people in New York without cause. I will never forget those images on my television screen. Our country is sacred to me and we were attacked without provocation. Hundreds of rescue workers lost their lives trying to save people and you say we aren't justified in defending our interests. I'm sorry I cannot agree with you I feel we (U.S.) should hunt him down to the ends of the earth. War comes about when one of the two parties wants something more than peace. Osama Binladen does not want peace.

Ace42

08-09-2004, 03:21 PM

I honestly don't know much about the shah and Iran, but they didn't invade us so I guess that's on them.

That sounds like you are saying they should've attacked you? As the first Islamic state, they have a close ideological bond with Bin Laden. You could then consider Al Qaeda's attack "cashing the cheque" and thus totally justified. While tortuous and immoral, it is only following your professed rational.

the C.I.A would find a way to get him out. But if not I seriously doubt we would invade England. We could justifiably demand that you turn him over and propose you vote on it, and look upon your refusal as an act of aggression. This is all hypothetical of course.

Indeed, but do you think this would be *just* ? I assume the fact you are desperately trying to wrangle the argument that this is the case.

And the CIA if they tried mounting and unauthorised operation here would have their asses handed to them, and I'd imagine diplomatic ties would be put under a severe strain. The net result would be the US manages to secure itself yet another enemy, illustrating concisely the point that as in Afghanistan, wherever and whoever it deals with, US foreign policy is clearly antagonistic.

Did we have any justifiable reason to enter the second world war against Germany? They didn't attack us. Had we waited any longer would there be a U.K. today?

Undoubtably. America likes to think it "bailed the allies out" of the war. This is not the case, the UK had weathered the worst of WW2 alone, and had actually stepped up operations in Africa, etc before the US joined. Furthermore, the US was making a mint out of the UK. We still have a massive national debt due to munitions bought from our subsequent "allies" - so if we want to talk about fighting tyranny, the UK didn't get paid to do it.

The reason you "fought against germany" in WW2 was, and I quote:

"Germany declared war on the United States following the Attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan" [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/World-War-II]

So you probably would've waited longer had the decision not been taken out of your hands.

His hate group killed thousands of innocent people in New York without cause. I will never forget those images on my television screen. Our country is sacred to me and we were attacked without provocation.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Yeah, right, no provocation. Two thousand innocent people, killed in retaliation for the US's imperialist war-mongering policies. And they deserved to die less than the hundred thousand Iraqi children killed in the former war BEFORE SEPT 11th! Because they belong to a country that is sacred to you, and the Iraqis don't. How dare some Moslems kill a fraction of the number of casulaties inflicted upon countries that are (literally) sacred to them!

Hundreds of rescue workers lost their lives trying to save people and you say we aren't justified in defending our interests. I'm sorry I cannot agree with you I feel we (U.S.) should hunt him down to the ends of the earth. War comes about when one of the two parties wants something more than peace. Osama Binladen does not want peace.

He wants revenge, as do you. Why is he worse? Because he is an Arab? Because his people deserve worse than yours? Because the hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent people who lost their lives due to US actions are not as important as 50 times LESS people than died in Sept 11th?

See, this is what it comes down to "we are always legitimate in whatever we do because when they do it it's bad, and when we do it, it is justifiable"

Double standards and hypocrisy, which is exactly why numerous nation have a problem with the US.

100% ILL

08-09-2004, 03:33 PM

You are an excellent politician, you should be a lawyer
*takes hat off* I concede this debate to you. I suppose you will only be satisfied when the United States is destroyed for it's "war mongering"
Because by your tally Binladen still owes us a few

EN[i]GMA

08-09-2004, 03:38 PM

Nice.

Reminds me of some thinking/talking to myself I was doing last nite. What's the point of fighting? We've tried it for 4000 or so years and it manages to accomplish NOTHING. It never has and it never will. There has never been a single case where war was truly justified. Someone else on the forum had the sig "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity". It seems to be the truth.

Ace42

08-09-2004, 03:44 PM

Because by your tally Binladen still owes us a few

Not by *my* tally - this is exactly why I am in favour of letting bygones be bygones and working forward to a progressive compromise.

Look how far "tit for tat" warfare has got Israel.

I do not condone Sept 11th, but because of that, I cannot condone the US actions which are quantifiably worse either.

When King Alfred (The only English monarch to be given the title of 'The Great') was betrayed after making peace with the Danes, rather than using it as an excuse to wage a bloody "total war" - he gave them a second chance. Although he did fight a battle, he didn't execute / imprison the viking leader and say "This is a warning to invaders and truce-breakers alike!" - he sat back down at the table, and said "Look, we can resolve this"

The viking leader converted on the spot to Christianity (with Alfred acting as his godfather, curiously enough) and they forged the final and only lasting peace of the Viking invasions.

Likewise, showing compassion and understanding to ones enemies is the only way to foster the same in them.

100% ILL

08-10-2004, 10:04 AM

Likewise, showing compassion and understanding to ones enemies is the only way to foster the same in them.

Very interesting Ace42
Matthew 6:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Proverbs 14:29
He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly

lil richard

08-10-2004, 06:05 PM

This is why I have no religion
God is just a non-realistic character.
God is made up for the people with weak beliefs in them selves and others
And sometimes religion can destroy other people and their beliefs
The Bible reads so many different laws and stories from other religous bibles
And will God really let you go to Hell if he "loves you" just cause you are his "creation"?
Your Parents made you not God

Ace42

08-10-2004, 06:27 PM

Tone Capone

08-10-2004, 06:50 PM

And basically, it's not that Christians have to fear God. The thing that's most important is that Christians believe that Jesus the son of God, died for our sins.

EN[i]GMA

08-10-2004, 07:31 PM

I thought the same thing Ace. Especially since Christians don't own the concept of "God". I believe God for reasons completely different than what you posted. I find it insulting that you think your so fucking smart and everyone else is stupid and believes in some fairy tale due to their own weakness.

lil richard

08-10-2004, 07:49 PM

I'm not saying that having a religion is a bad thing
or that that people are weak for believing in God...in fact I think
its great to believe in God.

All I'm saying is that I don't need a religion to have faith so I could be strong.
(And ofcourse I'm saying this to the people who Knock on my door (every day at 7:40a.m.) and annoy me on trying to convince me into becoming a christian

not that Christians are bad or anything!

Bob

08-11-2004, 02:53 PM

being anywhere near minefields in the first place is generally stupid in my book. you'll probably die, so have fun living, shrug the guilt trip.

i dunno, i just think it's silly to get too headstrong in any particular belief, because it's just how you were raised and what you learned growing up. if you were born somewhere else, you'd be a devout something else, but you'd still think you were right, one or both of these yous is way off base, and you don't know which one, so lighten up

it's a big universe

Ace42

08-11-2004, 03:19 PM

i dunno, i just think it's silly to get too headstrong in any particular belief, because it's just how you were raised and what you learned growing up. if you were born somewhere else, you'd be a devout something else, but you'd still think you were right, one or both of these yous is way off base, and you don't know which one

That arguement, condensed, means you think people only subscribe to a belief because it is how they are indoctrinated.

What if they convert as an adult? That would completely refute your "its how you were brought up" point. Does this mean that your argument doesn't apply to them? Or that you might actually acknowledge their point of view, and they could be right?

Need to apply socratic method here. Tighten up your argument.

Bob

08-12-2004, 02:04 PM

That arguement, condensed, means you think people only subscribe to a belief because it is how they are indoctrinated.

What if they convert as an adult? That would completely refute your "its how you were brought up" point. Does this mean that your argument doesn't apply to them? Or that you might actually acknowledge their point of view, and they could be right?

Need to apply socratic method here. Tighten up your argument.

i acknowledge all points of view, they could all be right, but not at the same time. that was my argument from the beginniiiiiing. if it's how you were raised, or if you picked it out on your own later on down the road, it doesn't matter, you still don't know that it's right, you just believe it is, usually because someone or something else tells you that. you can indoctrinate a person later in life, too. hell, my own belief system is just the product of everything i've learned in my 20 years here, i'm not going to pretend that these are 100% new and original thoughts i'm putting out there, and i'm not going to pretend that there's no chance they could be completely detached from reality, since i, nor anyone else has full perspective of what reality actually is, everyone percieves it through their own filter, and their beliefs are generally only based on their perceptions. i'm just trying to look at things from a more universal perspective (which is hard to do, not being omniscient, but i can try)

100% ILL

08-12-2004, 02:28 PM

i acknowledge all points of view, they could all be right, but not at the same time. that was my argument from the beginniiiiiing. if it's how you were raised, or if you picked it out on your own later on down the road, it doesn't matter, you still don't know that it's right, you just believe it is, usually because someone or something else tells you that. you can indoctrinate a person later in life, too. hell, my own belief system is just the product of everything i've learned in my 20 years here, i'm not going to pretend that these are 100% new and original thoughts i'm putting out there, and i'm not going to pretend that there's no chance they could be completely detached from reality, since i, nor anyone else has full perspective of what reality actually is, everyone percieves it through their own filter, and their beliefs are generally only based on their perceptions. i'm just trying to look at things from a more universal perspective (which is hard to do, not being omniscient, but i can try)

Might I offer you a proposal? If you are interested, try reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament. Just like you would read any novel. preferably the King James version.
The only reason I say this is being iquisitive myself this is how I was introduced to the Bible, and it made a profound impact in my life. I figured I had tried just about everything else to no satisfaction, so I read the four Gospels. Only a suggestion.

peace.

EN[i]GMA

08-12-2004, 02:31 PM

On a similair note, everyone read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. It's regarded as the Deistic manifesto and is a great read by a great man.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Ace42

08-12-2004, 02:34 PM

If you are goin to read the Bible, the four gospels are certainly the way to go.

mcaismyhero

08-12-2004, 06:27 PM

Well, not the most popular of courses of action, but I'd personally turn the other cheek. However, as you cannot make that decision for other people (It is not my right or place) I'd not, as a ruler / governor, make the decision. I'd probably turn it over to referendum or abdicate. Either way, I'd not have thousands of lives on my conscience, nor be arrogant enough to assume that I have the faculties to determine who deserves to live, and who deserves to die.

That would be utterly stupid. If you turn the other cheek, you make your country come off as weak. Then other countries will walk all over you. Appeasement doesn't work. Take a hint from WW2-Europe tried to appease Hitler. It didn't work. He just ate up the rest of Europe until the US intervened.

Because the allies were the winners, and on "our side" and thus automatically right?

Well, the Allies were right but that's beside the point. If we had been on the side of the Axis then the Allies still would have been right. Innocent people were dying at the hands of the Axis. They were the agressors. The rest of Europe did nothing to provoke them.

Ace42

08-12-2004, 06:35 PM

That would be utterly stupid. If you turn the other cheek, you make your country come off as weak. Then other countries will walk all over you. Appeasement doesn't work. Take a hint from WW2-Europe tried to appease Hitler. It didn't work. He just ate up the rest of Europe until the US intervened.

Nonsense. Hitler was contained by the UK and the USSR before America joined. He was at a Standstill. The US came along and helped RECOVER ground, not prevent him gaining some.

Furthermore, the Swiss managed to stay totally neutral for two world wars, so it is not like it is not a viable course of action.

Also, it was the reluctance of the UK government to play ball with General Nasser of Egypt (who they and the French considered to be the next Hitler) that cost them control of the Suez canal, and consequently dominance over the middle-east, and marked the end of the empire.

So you "history for school kids" arguement proves nothing.

Innocent people were dying at the hands of the Axis. They were the agressors. The rest of Europe did nothing to provoke them.

Sorry, haven't you heard of the treaty of Versailles? You do know that Hitler's initial invasions were *RECLAIMING* German territories lost in WW1?

Do some research.