Those passages were always blatantly specific to a single instance or act, and as far as I know have never been used to justify Christian violence.



The bloody communist revolutions and regimes of the 20th century are a very good atheist analog to religious extremism.

Nazism doesn't really count though because although Hitler had an unusual religious, atheistic philosophy he did not seek to overturn religious social norms of his country. Ultimately he wanted to see to see people channel their religious instincts through nationalism, and while that's technically atheistic, it wasn't of primary importance and does not bear a close resemblance to non-religious atheism as we think of it today. Either way, most of his followers were christian so you can't really call it an atheistic movement.

Thrawn, I find it interesting that you are so certain that I'm taking passages out of context, when I didn't even tell you any of the texts I was referencing. This says to me that you're just arguing for the sake of playing devil's advocate. I really doubt you know enough about the context of any Qur'an text to do anything other than feel good about yourself for being so "open-minded" because some politically-correct talking head on CNN told you to be.

Also what's your point? There are children all over the world serving in armies and rebel groups. It's sad. What does it have to do with this discussion?

The different "versions" of the Bible may use different wordings of the same information to appeal to different age or social groups. They are not contradictory with each other, and they do not differ in their recommendations of violence.

hah sure. I'm not going to try and justify anything the Catholic church does or has done. I'm Protestant. :p

(In more seriousness, I'd rather keep this discussion focused on what the religious texts say, rather than what they followers do. Because as has been pointed out, people can claim to be acting on behalf of any religious group they choose. Whether or not they can back it up with the religious teachings of that group is a whole different story.)

I'm not exactly going to be quoting you any verses from anything but it's fairly well known that large parts of the qu'ran have been edited over the last century or so, particularly bits to do with suicide and heaven/hell.

Nobody is trying to make themselves feel better just by pointing out your pigheadedness. Also the CNN thing doesn't work on me; I'm not from North America and the news channel talkshow thing doesn't apply.

baco
1. It's Qur'an not Qu'ran, just fyi.
2. That was directed at Thrawn not you. You posted while I was writing my (originally longer) response. I've now edited it for clarification.
3. What does parts of the text being edited have to do with anything?
4. Do you use "pigheadedness" as an antonym for politically-correct or for open-mindedness? I promise you I'm not close-minded. I do not believe that all Muslims are bad or violent. But I will openly admit to not being politically correct.

Yeah, the new Testament is just cotton candy & pillow fights. I would also like to add that there are many Christians, Jews & Muslims that still take the Old Testament very seriously, that there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, that there are various ways to interpret scripture (yours is just one way) & that Christianity, Islam & Judaism all utilize many of the same books (there are slight differences w/ Islamic versions). It can be interpreted that Jesus came along & took a very violent religion & made it less violent but then again, that's dependent on how you interpret things.

The bible supports genocide, slavery, beating your kids, banging your dead brothers wife, polygamy, all kind of things.

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. I'm sure that ~600 years ago, Christianity was just as violent as Islam is today.

Yeah I always get that wrong.

...Large chunks of edited text completely change the ideas of the teachings?
No I use it to reference your general stubborness in arguments.

I don't like doing Joncy style response layouts!

Mentat, the link you just posted is pretty ridiculous. I'm not going to waste my time specifically explaining any of these so-called examples of violence in the New Testament, but from the first few that I read before closing the browser tab in disgust I'll say this. Prophesying about the end times being violent and trying is not the same as recommending violence against people who believe differently than you.
I will post this quote and rebut it, in order to discredit the link you posted:
Yeah that must be it. Or maybe Jesus is criticizing the hypocrisy of religious leaders of the time who chose to misinterpret and pick and choose the Scripture they would follow so they could justify the sinful lives they were living. Hmm.. hard to say.

Anyway, Mentat, I hope you posted that without bothering to read it, but if you did read it and believe it to be a legitimate proof of recommended violence in the NT, then I'm going to have to pretty much ignore anything further you have to say since you seem to lack the background knowledge and/or the intellectual fortitude to take part in this discussion. Here, this is a scripture that is specific, and is in context (how we as individuals should treat those who persecute us).

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36).

Further...

They should. But they should follow it in the context that it's been written. I'm not using "context" as a blanket excuse for why we can pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to adhere to, but I am saying that it's important to understand the context of any religious text and to utilize that text for it's intended purpose. (For example, Old Testament is generally the history and laws of a Nation, whereas New Testament is more specifically personal.)

Relevance?

Agreed. Did I imply otherwise?

Again, relevance?

Yeah ok, I'm pretty set in my ways. But I do take a "Believe and let Believe" policy. I'll argue all day but in the long run, I'm happy to let anyone believe what they want to. But I guarantee that every single person involved in this discussion is the exact same way. Because no matter what any of us say, no one's ultimately going to change their beliefs. I don't argue to change people. I argue to give and get different perspectives on things.

Just look at the Gnostic gospels, Dead Sea scrolls and what have you. There's more than a few versions of the New Testament, and they tell a completely different story, not just minor differences.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the picture he keeps posting is from the Lord's Resistance Army, a Christian group in Uganda notorious for kidnapping children and training them to be soldiers by forcing them to kill each other.

No. Those regimes were atheistic but their actions were not in the name of atheism.

Oh, and cannibalism.

Or because I have muslim friends, who have read the Koran, and have on numerous occasions pointed out to me the many passages advocating NONviolence.

The point is, Bible, Koran, Torah, are all archaic self-contradictory texts, written in times when people did horrible things, that tell people to be nice to each other and also to commit horrible atrocities. Pretending Islam's ~inherent violence~ is the reason for modern Islamic terrorism instead of, say, the fact that the Middle East has been gang-raped by various forms of Western imperialism from the 1800s until right now is pretty myopic, especially given the practical reversal of roles in the Dark Ages.


He's part of the Lord's Resistance Army, a Christian terrorist group. Clearly a product of social conditions, rather than Christianity's inherent savagery, right?

Don't forget the Persian Empire, too! Also the Ottoman Empire! Well, their history is all just a big mishmash anyway.

fyi, Vin, you're completely wrong. The Bible does not support any of those things. Feel free to argue why it does if you'd like, but keep in mind before you try, someone depicted in the Bible doing those things is not justification for or support of that act.

CarpKing, if that's the case, then I guess my previous quote is more than adequate to address that:

I haven't heard of the Lord's Resistance Army engaging in cannibalism. That was more of a thing in the Congo. A Christian country (the people doing the eating moreso than those getting eaten), but I don't think any of the various sides in that conflict justified themselves with Christianity. That conflict, of course, was sparked by the spillover from the events in Rwanda, Africa's most Christian nation.

I'm pretty sure he was amending his previous post, not adding to yours.

I never said that it was. I'm simply showing that Jesus & the New Testament could easily be interpreted to be less peaceful than you claim.


Your interpretation of those particular scriptures doesn't discredit anything. You can pick & choose which scriptures to reply to or not but that doesn't hide the possibility that there's plenty of scriptures w/in the New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament) that could incite violence (just like w/ Islam). All it takes is someone that's capable of violence & a little bit of cherry picking (similar to how you're cherry-picking non-violent scripture).


You're welcome to create whatever fantasy you wish. I was a fundamentalist Christian for most of my life & am quite familiar w/ the bible (KJV).


That's your opinion. I'm not interested in debating about what the religious should or shouldn't do. I only know what I would like them to do.


I suppose that I brought up the fact that there are over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity to show that there are probably at least 30,000 different ways to interpret your holy book & that your point of view isn't necessarily universal (e.g. not all Christians see Jesus as being this Buddha/Ghandi figure that you seem to allude to). Many of his prophecies include threats of violence.

It doesn't really matter which religion is more violent. What matters is that they all have the potential for inciting violence because they teach their followers to believe that belief w/o reason is a virtue (all it takes is a few orders from a pope or a Fallwell). We can claim that those that carry out atrocities in the name of their religion didn't really understand what their religious text meant or that they were taking things out of context but the fact of the matter is that if that type of context wasn't anywhere in their holy text they'd have a hell of a difficult time justifying it w/ scripture. Surely a deity would be intelligent enough to know that people would be confused by the contradictions between the Old & New Testaments.

Let's go with Vin's list.

genocide - "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2

slavery - "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus 25:44

beating your kids - "Withold not discipline from the child, for if you strike and punish him with the (reed-like) rod, he will not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23:13-14

banging your dead brothers wife - "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife" Deuteronomy 25:5

polygamy - "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." Exodus 21:10

You're forgetting something though. God changed his mind. Jesus came & said "Sike! Nevermind all of that Old Testament mess, it was actually meant to be symbolic. My dad has such a great sense of humor. Our bad for all of those generations of beatings, slavery, genocide, etc. I'll catch you guys top-side. Laterz."

This is all the reason why I fled from organized Religion, it has been responsible for the lost of many lives. religion should be a personal and private matter to only oneself and that it should not infringe upon another persons rights and his or her own well beings. I was a member of the Mormon Church of about 20 some years ago and I dont regret one ****ing bit that I left. I feel liberated and relieved from this forcefull theocracy. Im not trying to influence or discourge anyone from their religion because I will respect you of what you believe as long as you dont harmfully infringe upon my rights from what I believe. Im sick and tired of radical christians (westboro baptists muther****ers), Islamonazis, thinking that all from the western world should die. MORMONS and their spiritual and economical dominating efforts and how that they think that Adam is God, the Garden of eden was in Missouri, give me a ****ing break. Have you seen their track record of being these saintly saints? The Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, (I live about 40 miles from that location) And food for thought, Nowhere, but nowhere in SouthAmerica gives actuall archaelogical proof of immigrant Hebrews that sailed to the continent of south america and gives no discovery of articfacts pertaining to Hebrew origin. Joseph Smith was a very very eccentric individual that became a self proclaimed prophet. Any idiot can see that that psychotic little boy of 16 that saw angels and god and Jesus and this personage called moroni (supposedly a Toltec or Aztec Warrior) visited the bedside of little joe and realizes this MYTH and says whoa! this **** is nothing but mythology. I apologize to anyone here if they find this offensive, but i have been and still am a victim of this mormon society and I am moving far from their dominating power.

Actually, Jesus made it very clear that we were still to follow all of the previous laws; we just got to go to heaven now. Before Jesus, even the most pius jews went to hell. Moses was in hell. Abraham was in hell. So, no. The old testament is still relevant.

You know, I'm kind of looking forward to dying, so I can find out who was right. Although, if I simply cease to exist, I guess I'll never know.

I hope I don't reincarnate as a Canadian or something!

I skipped most of this thread to reply to this.



I do know there's a difference, as I am familiar with the Bible. I think I'm the only other Protestant in this part of the Internet.



I agree with this.

I agree. My sarcasm was directed at apologetics & Christians that move the goal post in order to stay relevant in a scientific world. How many generations of people went to their graves believing that Genesis was to be interpreted literally? Almost all of them & many still do.

Exactly. EXACTLY.



Again, exactly. Social conditions are the number one cause for terrorism anywhere in the world. To think that terrorism happens because Islam is inherently more violent, is just veiled xenophobia and closing your eyes to reality.

Happy ostrich day.

THIS. We learned this in school even, high school AND ethics class 8 years later in college it still hadn't changed. The third world countries are in the condition they are in because of the West.

But really, I want to know. I'm not from the States, so I have no idea. Do people really drive around with 9-11 bumperstickers like that?

Sadly, yes. I've seen them all over Niagara falls area and even in Toronto I've seen a lot of them. Actually, I just seen one the other day from Massachusetts. I can't speak for the actual USA though but if they're up here on US driven vehicles then I'm positive they're definitely on display down there.

9/11 = America's Hiroshima. It's just sad they seem to think it's the worst thing that's happened in the history of mankind. (i.e driving around with bumper stickers and still talking about it as if it happened yesterday when it happened 9 years ago). I know that's flamebait but in all seriousness, as tragic an event as it was, there's far worse things that are going on in the world on a daily basis (aids epidemic, poverty in third world countries CAUSED by the US and other western dominance), other forms of terrorism, and other countries fully committing genocide's on their own people (Rawanda, Iraq, etc)..The list goes on. I'm just sick of hearing about all this 9/11 crap and the conspiracy theories, what it caused and other bull**** on the entire topic. Seriously, get over it. It happened. It was a terrible terrible thing, that nobody should ever have done and nobody should ever have to go through either victim or family member. That's not arguable nor should it be. That day changed the world, yes, but there have been many days since that changed it in equal ways and there will be many days to come that will do the same. How many people is America guilty of killing/murdering/assassinating? Hiroshima vs 9/11.....GO.


Regarding South Park...Way to let the bullies win Comedy Central. Trey and Matt left a message on southparkstudios regarding the bleeping of the episode:



I've got 200 bucks saying they make total asses of Comedy Central in the next episode. Dear God I hope they do.

Woah wait, the final speech wasn't bleeped as a joke?
You can't even say that terroristic threats are uses of intimidation?
That's pretty pathetic

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_violence.html

• Extreme Violence
• Murders & Shootings
• Arsons & Bombings
• Butyric Acid Attacks
• Anthrax Threats

Almost all of these terrorists (in the cases that have been solved) have something in common & it's not just that they were crazy. Scott Roeder is a perfect example of someone that justified murder w/ what his ex-wife called "his old testament beliefs". We can pretend that the bible is all about peace & love or we can call a spade a spade. The fact is that crazy Christians can justify heinous acts w/ their religious text just like Muslims. We can claim that those that do are simpletons & that they didn't really grasp the true nature of the scripture but all of the monotheistic religions have this problem.

They were in the name of an egalitarian, specifically atheistic philosophy. It's like the difference between a religious person doing something in the name of there being a god vs. doing it in the name of the god that they believe in.

Fanatics don't need to believe in a God to do terrible things. Atheists who blame religious violence on religion are exactly like the conservative religious types who blame the travesties committed under communism on atheists.

I'm technically a non-practicing Protestant; do I count?

Well, it certainly includes them. Not all or even most instances are meant to be lauded..

Thanks Free. I wouldn't have had time to respond to all that myself, but that sums it up.. All of those "examples" are not commandments from God to us as Christians. They're either 1) instructions for fighting a war, specific to the Israelites and that time, or 2) acts of history being recorded indifferently. It doesn't say "Then the israelites BOUGHT SLAVES, AND IT WAS AWESOME!" (btw, the definition of slave back then is not what it is today).

The only exception is "beating your kids." The Bible recommends physical discipline when dealing with your children to teach them right from wrong. If you want to over-exaggerate and use the phrase "beating your kids" then yes, I guess the bible tells us to "beat our kids."

Uh... Yes? So you agree with Emon, then.

See my post. I'll give you the genocide one, as all the genocides Yahweh ordered were specific events targeted at historical ethnic groups that no longer exist (wonder why...). But the rest are part of the Law, which followers of the Law are supposed to live by. Apart from beating kids and marrying your brother's wife in certain situations, it doesn't saw you *have* do do those things, but it does provide provisions for how they are supposed to be done.

I wonder why Thrawn[numbarz]'s post is still being ignored.

Probably because he's right, so the discussion moves to what the bible does or does not say.