Sorry, they don't represent our religious beliefs

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


That's a fair question.

I went back and re read what you've written and referenced.

Interpretation....

Metaphorically speaking, arm yourselves spiritually, gird yourselves mentally and spiritually against what's about to happen..

Suffice it to say, whatever or whoever a person chooses to believe in is nobody's business. Who they perceive as God and how they wish to practice in a place of worship, the privacy of their own homes or in their hearts is nobody's God Damned business. But, when those parts that often get taken out of context [ You know they often do] and used as a rationalization for out right murder I feel strongly that it flies in the face of Gods overall message.

The OPs request from my perspective, and that's what it is, is a request, for believers to either rip out those parts which run contrary to harmony between our fellow man or hopefully focus on the more positive aspects of their teachings.

Not a mandate but a request.

Hopefully some will get the message.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

That's a fair question.

I went back and re read what you've written and referenced.

Interpretation....

Metaphorically speaking, arm yourselves spiritually, gird yourselves mentally and spiritually against what's about to happen..

Suffice it to say, whatever or whoever a person chooses to believe in is nobody's business. Who they perceive as God and how they wish to practice in a place of worship, the privacy of their own homes or in their hearts is nobody's God Damned business. But, when those parts that often get taken out of context [ You know they often do] and used as a rationalization for out right murder I feel strongly that it flies in the face of Gods overall message.

The OPs request from my perspective, and that's what it is, is a request, for believers to either rip out those parts which run contrary to harmony between our fellow man or hopefully focus on the more positive aspects of their teachings.

Not a mandate but a request.

Hopefully some will get the message.

Thanks, Slayer. I couldn't have said it better.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by jiggerj


I'm calling on Muslims and every religion to open up their books and start ripping out anything and everything with a message of hate, intolerance, and violence. These things are utterly in contradiction with love thy neighbor and goodwill toward men.

Jesus said, I didn't come to bring Peace but a Sword Matthew

Can you see how easily this text could be read as promoting violence? And yet, who would disagree that Jesus was a man of peace? So, he couldn't possibly have meant the sword as a means for men to kill men. So, how could this be rewritten to take out the violent implications? Maybe something like, I have come to fill you with so much love, a love that will never leave you even while in the presence of those that would do you harm. Something like that.

That's all I'm asking.

Originally posted by borntowatch
and I want atheists to do the same, you know tear up books on Pol Pot Hitler Mao and Stalin.
Lets pretend history didnt happen and everyone is perfect
Stupid???

edit on 13-9-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

What a stupid retort.

Sure, somebody who chooses not to believe in God all of a sudden goes out and buys Mein Kampf, grows a mustache and starts plotting the massacre of millions.

borntowatch, you sir, are a twat.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph


2) Wrong again. There is evidence to suggest this did in fact happen. (See the findings of David Rohl in "From Eden to Exile"

I find the work of Professor Redford to be superior in this area - therefore, to quote you back to yourself "Wrong again":

There is perhaps no other scriptural tradition so central to the recontruction of Israel's history that Deuteronomy presents us with than the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. It has become a prototype of salvation, a symbol of freedom and the very core of a great world religion. Yet to the historian it remains the most elusive of all the salient events of Israelite history. The event is supposed to have taken place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at the time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effect on Egypt must have been cataclysmic - loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army - yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have had on economics or society. As we have already seen, the Asiatic population in Egypt had lingered during the New Kingdom and a part of it had been assigned construction tasks (p. 221ff.); but the "store-cities" of the Exodus story (1:11) are a purely Israelite phenomenon, and the progressive assimilation of the Asiatic population during the New Kingdom is not reflected in the Exodus at all. Clearly something is wrong. Are we approaching the subject from the proper direction? Have we been reading the primary source in Exodus too naively? Is there evidence we have missed? The almost insurmountable difficulties in interpreting the Exodus narrative as history have led some to dub it "mythology rather than ... a detailed reporting of the historical facts" and therefore impossible to lo-

[p. 409] cate geographically. This is a curious resort, for the text does not look like mythology (at least on the definition of the latter as a timeless event set in the world of the gods). The Biblical writer certainly thinks he is writing datable history, and provides genealogical material by means of which the date may be computed. He also thinks it is possible to locate this event on the ground, and packs his narrative with topographical detail. That the resemblance in plot pattern and motif (especially in the "Song of the Sea") to the "Hero-god versus the Monster Sea" suggests a mythic basis to the story, which only later underwent historicization, is more ingenious than illuminating. After all, the feats of Ramesses II on the battlefield occasion the abundant use of imagery drawn from the motif Hero-god versus Chaos; but Kadesh was a real battle nonetheless!

Of prior concern here should be the date of the sources in Exodus 1- 14 judged empirically on the basis of datable details. The latter, it must be admitted, are few and most are of a toponymic nature. Research on these place-names, however, has proceeded far beyond the stage of Cazelle's classic article of thirty-five years ago; and we can now genuinely speak of a unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographical information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overlords: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidenced for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramesses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1070 to 725 B.C. (cf. Psalm 78:12, 43), which survives as a metropolis into Roman times; and he mistak-

[p. 410] enly presses into service the adjacent marshy tract "the reed-(lake)" as the "Reed-sea," the scene of Israel's miraculous passage to safety. The route he is familiar with is that which traverses the same tract as the canal of Necho II (610-594 B.C.) from Bubastis to the Bitter Lakes; then he moves north in his mind's eye past the famous fort at Migdol to Lake Sirbonis (Ba'al Saphon) where Horus had already in the mythical past thrown Seth out of Egypt. In short, with respect to the geography of the Exodus, the post-Exilic compiler of the present Biblical version had no genuinely ancient details. He felt constrained to supply them from the Egypt of his own day and, significantly perhaps, cited several places where Asiatic elements and especially Judaean mercenaries resided in the sixth and fifth centuries.

Source: Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1992).

(continued)

There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt (see chapter 5). The memory of this major event in the history of the Levant survived not only in Egyptian sources. It would be strange indeed if the West Semitic speaking population of Palestine, whence the invaders had come in MB IIB, had not also preserved in their folk memory this great moment of (for them) glory. And in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the "Canaanite" version of this event, featuring the great ancestral leader Jacob, the four-generation span, the memory of political primacy, the occupation of the eastern fringe of the Delta, and so on. It became part of the origin stories of all the Semitic enclaves of the area, and from there it even spread to the north and west where It became current among the non-Semites.

Since we have next to nothing by way of textual witnesses to the folklore of the Canaanites of the Levant, traces of an "Exodus" tradition apart from the Hebrew version are difficult to find. But they do exist Strabo preserves the memory of an army drowned in the sea, localized on the Palestinian coast north of Acre, and is aware of similar phenon-lena at Mount Caslus "near Egypt." Legend had it that certain communities in Asla and Mesopotamia had originated in Egypt; and in early Roman times the population of Palestine was considered to have originated from "Egyptian, Arabian and Phoenician tribes."

But the best-preserved non-Biblical memory of the sojourn and Exodus

[p. 413] was that preserved in "Phoenician" legend, and surviving today in classical sources. From at least as early as the fifth century B.C. and perhaps earlier - the details are already a commonplace in Herodotus - Levantine communities remembered a descent to the Nile of one Io, her marriage to the reigning king and the list of her descendants through her son Epafos (Apophis). Io's line ruled over Egypt for four generations, whereupon her great grandson Agenor retired to Phoenicia, where he became a great king, and his brother Belos (Ba'al) to Mesopotamia. Belos's son Danaos, after a contretemps with his brother Aegyptos, fled to Argos. Both the origin and the ultimate settlement, however, of the main elements of the movement are linked with "Phoenicia": Epaphos's brother is said to be "Phoenix" and Epaphos himself at one stage in his career was in Byblos, while Kadmos, son of Agenor, in concert with Danaos, led the foreigners expelled from Egypt.

In sum, therefore, we may state that the memory of the Hyksos expulsion did indeed live on in the folklore of the Canaanite population of the southern Levant. The exact details were understandably blurred and sub-consciously modified over time, for the purpose of "face-saving." It became not a conquest but a peaceful descent of a group with pastoral associations who rapidly arrived at a position of political control. Their departure came not as a result of ignominious defeat, but either voluntarily or as a flight from a feud, or yet again as salvation from bondage. Nor are we justified in construing as a difficulty the discrepancy between the bondage tradition of Exodus 1:11-14 and the historical reality of the Hyksos expulsion: the Biblical writer has here incorporated another figment of legend for which, in fact, he had Egypt to thank.

Source: Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1992).

There must be some human condition a to why people pick out only certain teachings and ignore others. This goes for ANY faith.

(insert another faith in place of Christianity if one wishes)

there are also several aspects of Christian teaching which, when emphasized to the neglect of other aspects, lend themselves to political and social rightwing interpretations.

there is an authoritarian tendency in religion which meshes well with authoritarian secular structures and with rigid prescriptions for living.

Thus comes into being the judgement and punishment for not following the rules/beliefs. If this attitude goes beyond the individual to permeate the society and government in which the individual lives, we see an upwelling of self-righteousness at best and hate at worst for those who go against these rules/beliefs.

The second area of concern is the rightists’ view that ... morals are being eroded by what they call "secular humanism." They engage in caricatures of this type of humanism, and their attacks indicate no realization that Christian humanism has long been a significant expression of Christianity. Christian humanism, the humanism of some other faiths (especially Judaism), nontheistic religious humanism, and secular humanism have much in common in their commitment to moral values. Usually one finds among all four humanisms greater moral sensitivity about problems of justice and peace, about reconciliation between races and nations...

Th[ey] appeal to the real anxieties of a great many ... about some serious moral issues, but their prescriptions are not likely to help in dealing with those issues; moreover, they threaten other moral values. What is more serious, they either neglect or respond inappropriately to the most fateful moral problems facing all humanity: the problem of economic justice in this country and in others, and the struggle for peace

Finally, this focus on certain teachings, when left unchecked, can lead to

a one-sided impression of the Christian faith and to turn away people who are not aware of other Christian views.

I wish I could say the above quotes come from someone waking up in 2012 to the fact of worldwide dominance of extremist conservative religious views, but, sadly, it is from 1981; and this prophetic voice was drowned out. There are OTHER SIDES to how humans can act.

reply to post by jiggerj


I wish more would consider their actions [In the name of God] before blood is spilled.

reply to post by CodyOutlaw


Your sources are correct. Rohl does indeed have to exercise a liberal amount of revisionism to support his theories, but he IS qualified to do so (being an actual archaeologist and all). It is a hotly debated issue, with one camp saying they can prove the exodus never happened (which they cant) and the other side citing evidence that they claim proves it did (which it doesn't). To throw around statements like "slaves never helped to build the pyramids of egypt" as some sort of claim that the events described in exodus are now proven false is silly. The bible doesn't say specifically what the hebrew slaves were forced to work on. Only that they were under the yoke of the Pharaoh.

No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for the bibles loudest critics, because despite the fact archaeological finds have sometimes corroborated it's contents, it's critics have already drawn the conclusion that it's all nonsense anyways.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

That's a fair question.

I went back and re read what you've written and referenced.

Interpretation....

Metaphorically speaking, arm yourselves spiritually, gird yourselves mentally and spiritually against what's about to happen..

Suffice it to say, whatever or whoever a person chooses to believe in is nobody's business. Who they perceive as God and how they wish to practice in a place of worship, the privacy of their own homes or in their hearts is nobody's God Damned business. But, when those parts that often get taken out of context [ You know they often do] and used as a rationalization for out right murder I feel strongly that it flies in the face of Gods overall message.

The OPs request from my perspective, and that's what it is, is a request, for believers to either rip out those parts which run contrary to harmony between our fellow man or hopefully focus on the more positive aspects of their teachings.

Not a mandate but a request.

Hopefully some will get the message.

If this is jigger's intent, then I would have to agree. I don't believe we should destroy parts of any religious scripture that we find offensive, however.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I get positive impact in my daily life, as a result of my practice of personal prayer and recital of the "Liturgy of the Hours", as well as spending a fair amount of time reading a variety of scripture and philosophy, in order to refute moronic statements like "God is evil".

No fear there, sorry.

What role does fear play in your life?

Fear does not play a "role" in my life. I simply live it with the knowledge that I have but one and intend to enjoy it.

However I will respect your need to deflect the main points and simply make personal or anecdotal references. let us consider this a closed exchange as we are simply not viewing the same canvas.

Be well.

P.S. I will actually agree the statement "God is evil" is moronic.
Simply because if I am right there are no gods.
But what if I am wrong?
Then by definition they would so far beyond humanity that the concept of good and evil as used by us would be to all intents and purposes meaningless.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by CodyOutlaw

 

Your sources are correct. Rohl does indeed have to exercise a liberal amount of revisionism to support his theories, but he IS qualified to do so (being an actual archaeologist and all). It is a hotly debated issue, with one camp saying they can prove the exodus never happened (which they cant) and the other side citing evidence that they claim proves it did (which it doesn't). To throw around statements like "slaves never helped to build the pyramids of egypt" as some sort of claim that the events described in exodus are now proven false is silly. The bible doesn't say specifically what the hebrew slaves were forced to work on. Only that they were under the yoke of the Pharaoh.

No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for the bibles loudest critics, because despite the fact archaeological finds have sometimes corroborated it's contents, it's critics have already drawn the conclusion that it's all nonsense anyways.

Yes, Rohl is an archaeologist, Professor Redford is a renowned Egyptologist, and I am a professor of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. So, let's say we are ALL qualified. Having considered both sides, I find Professor Redford's work far more compelling, and do not agree with the liberties raken by Rohl. And I'm not the only one:

"the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

Source: Professor Ze'ev Herzog, from his 1999 article "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho" which was published in Haaretz magazine.

And HERE is a link to Israel Finkelstein ( Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (contributing editor for Archaeology Magazine) agreeing with the above statements.

Your original post, which I answered, was couched in terms that reeked of fact ("Wrong again"). Your next post backed off a little, stating there was no fact on either side. Yes, it is hotly debated, and the tipping of the scales lies in which side has the better research, theory and proof. In my qualified opinion, the professors above do.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by borntowatch
and I want atheists to do the same, you know tear up books on Pol Pot Hitler Mao and Stalin.
Lets pretend history didnt happen and everyone is perfect
Stupid???

edit on 13-9-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

What a stupid retort.

Sure, somebody who chooses not to believe in God all of a sudden goes out and buys Mein Kampf, grows a mustache and starts plotting the massacre of millions.

borntowatch, you sir, are a twat.

Its not a stupid retort, its your inability to comprehend.
The ancient texts are historical documents, to suggest they be burned and destroyed is insanity, child like insanity.
Might as well burn everything that talks about death, destruction, segregation, violence or politics, anything ever written that could influence people to do stupid things.


Darwinism evolution book encouraged eugenics
www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com... Burn it???

Mein Kampf encouraged WW2
en.wikipedia.org...(Nazism) Burn it as well???

Communism. little red book inspired millions of deaths
www.conservapedia.com... Off to the fire????

Its not the books silly, its the twats who cant comprehend logic. I can show you an example happening in this thread if you like???


Just because I dont think you can engage your logic with your thought process, I will explain as if I am talking to a child.

Its not the books that cause the problem, its the people reading them. If they dont have the books to inspire stupidity they will probably misunderstand something else and be stupid anyway

The list of books included, naturally, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Rage by Stephen King, The Catcher in the Rye by Salinger, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. Each had solid examples of actual violence that the books had inspired; there’s no doubt that people have based terrible acts on these fictional works. The saddest thing that I read in the article was that Stephen King asked for Rage to be taken out of print because of the school shooters who had read the novella and, presumably, followed suit. I thought that Rage was a striking piece of work, especially for such a young novelist; indeed, I think his relative youth, being only 30ish at the time, helped him tap back into the mindset of the tortured adolescent–although, this isn’t a review of that story so I won’t delve too deeply into it.

insatiablebooksluts.wordpress.com...


Should we censor everything that could cause violence, video games....movies....comics.....tom and jerry, guns cause violence, lets stop selling guns


and you called me a twat, thats funny, thats irony.


As for the fella who penned this thread

Originally posted by jiggerj

Gloves are off. For years I've donated my free time to driving handicapped veterans to where they needed to go, so don't go pulling that 'only religious people do good' crap.

What you seem determined to deny to yourself is that certain religious texts KILL people. Are you such a moron that you can't see that??? Go ahead, tell me you're a christian or muslim, and then say, "OH! Those people that kill in the name of MY god and MY religion have nothing to do with ME!!! They are not MY responsibility. After all, am I my brother's keeper?"

No need to respond. I've had enough of you.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, but you DO need religion in order to KILL in the name of god or allah, or whichever make believe god you worship.

edit on 9/14/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Certain secular texts cause mass deaths but hey, that doesnt support your inane bigotry does it, certain secular texts KILL people, but lets ignore them and blame only religion.
Tear them religious texts up, burn them, but why are secular teachings exempt??? Secular examples exempt???

Are you such a moron that you can't see that??? Go ahead, tell me you're a atheist, and then say, "OH! Those people that kill in the name of atheism/secularism, whatever? MY beliefs have nothing to do with ME!!! They are not MY responsibility. After all, am I my brother's keeper?"

No need to respond. I've done enough on you.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, and you dont need religion to kill millions either. Secular teachings have inspired that as well. Ask Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin, Darwin even.

Gloves off or on you wont get up off the canvas
Your argument is pathetic.

Originally posted by MastaShake

Originally posted by borntowatch
and I want atheists to do the same, you know tear up books on Pol Pot Hitler Mao and Stalin.
Lets pretend history didnt happen and everyone is perfect
Stupid???

edit on 13-9-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

sorry but since when do athiests worship these books? you are obviously just some backwards ass religious nut that thinks god created the earth in 7 days

Hey look some backwards ass atheist secularist nut that thinks Christians worship a book.

Look this thread inspires stupidity. I think the OP is a dangerous influence and should be banned from the whole internet, his computer ripped up and burned


This is just so pathetic.

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by CodyOutlaw

 

Your sources are correct. Rohl does indeed have to exercise a liberal amount of revisionism to support his theories, but he IS qualified to do so (being an actual archaeologist and all). It is a hotly debated issue, with one camp saying they can prove the exodus never happened (which they cant) and the other side citing evidence that they claim proves it did (which it doesn't). To throw around statements like "slaves never helped to build the pyramids of egypt" as some sort of claim that the events described in exodus are now proven false is silly. The bible doesn't say specifically what the hebrew slaves were forced to work on. Only that they were under the yoke of the Pharaoh.

No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for the bibles loudest critics, because despite the fact archaeological finds have sometimes corroborated it's contents, it's critics have already drawn the conclusion that it's all nonsense anyways.

Yes, Rohl is an archaeologist, Professor Redford is a renowned Egyptologist, and I am a professor of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. So, let's say we are ALL qualified. Having considered both sides, I find Professor Redford's work far more compelling, and do not agree with the liberties raken by Rohl. And I'm not the only one:

"the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

Source: Professor Ze'ev Herzog, from his 1999 article "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho" which was published in Haaretz magazine.

And HERE is a link to Israel Finkelstein ( Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (contributing editor for Archaeology Magazine) agreeing with the above statements.

Your original post, which I answered, was couched in terms that reeked of fact ("Wrong again"). Your next post backed off a little, stating there was no fact on either side. Yes, it is hotly debated, and the tipping of the scales lies in which side has the better research, theory and proof. In my qualified opinion, the professors above do.

I appreciate your opinion. I've read up on both sides of the argument and while I'm certainly not as qualified as you are, I do believe there is not enough archaeological evidence yet to draw some of the conclusions you are making. I know its a tired and old cliche, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many things in the bible that were previously considered myth until new discoveries shed further light on the stories there in and lent some validity to what was written. Sodom comes to mind as being one such location that was previously considered a nonsensical fable until discoveries corroborated some of the bibles claims.

I do apologize for coming off as stand offish. I've been involved in many of these types of threads lately where people make sweeping statements that don't take into account evidence that is contrary to what they already believe.

Given your credentials, I was wondering if you could comment on the peculiar outbreak of "monotheism" (if we can call it that), during the reign of Akhenaten, and if you feel there might be a chance this is somehow related to the hebrews? I've read some compelling evidence that seems to suggest there might be a link there, and I was hoping you would comment in this regard (given your credentials).

Regards,

-DS

Edit to add: I have also sent you a U2U to get your opinion on the subject matter in another thread. Hope to hear from you soon.

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by jiggerj

Gloves are off. For years I've donated my free time to driving handicapped veterans to where they needed to go, so don't go pulling that 'only religious people do good' crap.

What you seem determined to deny to yourself is that certain religious texts KILL people. Are you such a moron that you can't see that??? Go ahead, tell me you're a christian or muslim, and then say, "OH! Those people that kill in the name of MY god and MY religion have nothing to do with ME!!! They are not MY responsibility. After all, am I my brother's keeper?"

No need to respond. I've had enough of you.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, but you DO need religion in order to KILL in the name of god or allah, or whichever make believe god you worship.

edit on 9/14/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Certain secular texts cause mass deaths but hey, that doesnt support your inane bigotry does it, certain secular texts KILL people, but lets ignore them and blame only religion.
Tear them religious texts up, burn them, but why are secular teachings exempt??? Secular examples exempt???

Are you such a moron that you can't see that??? Go ahead, tell me you're a atheist, and then say, "OH! Those people that kill in the name of atheism/secularism, whatever? MY beliefs have nothing to do with ME!!! They are not MY responsibility. After all, am I my brother's keeper?"

No need to respond. I've done enough on you.

I forgot my point: You don't need religion to do good deeds, and you dont need religion to kill millions either. Secular teachings have inspired that as well. Ask Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin, Darwin even.

Gloves off or on you wont get up off the canvas
Your argument is pathetic.

edit on 16-9-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

What is wrong with you people??? Not one atheist in the entire history of mankind has killed because of the fact that there is NO god. Why are you people so blind???

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I get positive impact in my daily life, as a result of my practice of personal prayer and recital of the "Liturgy of the Hours", as well as spending a fair amount of time reading a variety of scripture and philosophy, in order to refute moronic statements like "God is evil".

No fear there, sorry.

What role does fear play in your life?

Though I won't be around when it happens I honestly fear that Muslims will populate every nation (as they are doing now) and bring them all to ruin with their fanatical beliefs. I can see it happening in just 100 years.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Given your credentials, I was wondering if you could comment on the peculiar outbreak of "monotheism" (if we can call it that), during the reign of Akhenaten, and if you feel there might be a chance this is somehow related to the hebrews? I've read some compelling evidence that seems to suggest there might be a link there, and I was hoping you would comment in this regard (given your credentials).

Isn't Akhenaten the one that decided on one god that he named Amen-Ra? And, isn't that where we learned to say Amen at the end of each prayer?

Originally posted by jiggerj

What is wrong with you people??? Not one atheist in the entire history of mankind has killed because of the fact that there is NO god. Why are you people so blind???

Precisely, they kill because they dont have a God, they are their own Gods, no moral standard. Animals surviving as best they can, everything else is in their way.
What is wrong with you that you cant see that???

You blame books, how churlish, how foolish, how blind.

Get off the canvas

Your argument is to blame the book, wake up and grow up. Its ridiculous.