Can Christians Do Good For Goodness Sake?

[Atreus21]

Could you provide a guide on to when to use the broad brush and when to use the fine point? Seems like there is a general lack of consistency across the board (<== broad brush, that is).

Yes, in fact I spelled it out when I first got into this argument. If one is going to say that Christians are guilty of raping, murdering, and pillaging, a rather sweeping generalization, I think the standard of proof for that is quite high. You need to demonstrate that a decently large cohort of Christians are engaged in this.

 

[greatnoob]

I'm impressed with the variety of your pejorative personal insults.

Let's see...fuckwit, moron, idiot, retard...did I miss any? I'm sure I did.

BTW...still waiting for your response to Post #330.

You mean the rhetorical questions I made in jest? Well they're rhetorical for a reason because I know YOU (hopefully) aren't lynching Muslims, enslaving Africans or raping kids. The fact I have to explain hyperbole and rhetoric devices to you amazes me. Add imbecile to the list.

 

[greatnoob]

Yes, in fact I spelled it out when I first got into this argument. If one is going to say that Christians are guilty of raping, murdering, and pillaging, a rather sweeping generalization, I think the standard of proof for that is quite high. You need to demonstrate that a decently large cohort of Christians are engaged in this.

Still going strong with the Strawman?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You mean the rhetorical questions I made in jest? Well they're rhetorical for a reason because I know YOU (hopefully) aren't lynching Muslims, enslaving Africans or raping kids. The fact I have to explain hyperbole and rhetoric devices to you amazes me. Add imbecile to the list.

That's not what I asked you. Please answer the question I posed in Post #330. Your logic mystifies me.

BTW...you're embarrassing yourself with all the simple-minded personal insults. Just saying because you don't seem to get it.

 

[Puffnstuff]

People are shaped by their upbringing and experiences which is why we see so many different results and its also why it says in
Proverbs 22:6New King James Version (NKJV)
6 Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Nature and nurture certainly play a role in personal development and people who lacked a positive parental influence tend to propagate the very same behavior as adults. My supposedly liberal textbooks are littered with ethics to drive home the concept of principled behavior into students heads because so many of them lack a proper upbringing. Funny thing is they are also steeped in biblical principles which flies in the face of organized religions' condemnation of the education system which seems to be doing a better job than they are.

 

[Atreus21]

Still going strong with the Strawman?

Strawman argument definition:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

You did advance the argument. Therefore challenging you to support it isn't a strawman.

So answer the question.

 

[greatnoob]

Please answer the question I posed in Post #330.

BTW...you're embarrassing yourself with all the simple-minded personal insults. Just saying because you don't seem to get it.

I just did. Read post #352. You've extrapolated an argument from rhetorical questions I asked. What do you want me to answer?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not Anglo, nice try assuming what you don't know, idiot. You do realise there are Caucasians who migrated here in the mid 1950s who weren't raping and murdering Aborigines like the Christian Anglos (and their Missionaries) were, right?

I don't care if you are Anglo because your government what I said. Now many missionaries were raping in the '50's? One is too many of course. How about the CIA and Churchill? Do you think they overthrew democratically elected leadership, a relatively secular leader, because they were Christians on a Crusade? No, it happened because governments had the power to protect oil from being nationalized. Korea? Vietnam? Not even Iraq. That was a matter of gain and power and perhaps a bit of revenge. How dare Saddam give the finger to the powerful US? Nationalism- Hitler and how many others?

So sure people did and do horrible things for religion. Since you hatred leans towards christians though I suggest you reread my earlier post and compare Christian driven killings to secular government actions. I wonder if Mao slept better because some missionary raped someone.

Being obnoxious isn't a substitute for reality on your part, something you believe the religious cannot understand. You hate religion, especially Christians it seems. We get that, to the point you disregard all that's happened over the last hundred years or so. Yell and curse at people all you like but it's not going to work in your favor.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I thought about your comments regarding slander. and how you demand I take it back. I think not. I have lost patience over the years sad to say, but I think people should not be the target of such hate no matter what they believe about God or politics or whatever but I forgive you because you know not what you do.

The idea was that questions based upon false premises are fallacious, but I suppose it was too much to think that any but a few would be astute enough to get it. Happy for you that it's enough to go ahead and let your slander stand though, because tu quoque is TOTALLY not a fallacy either, and like we all learned in grade school, two wrongs always make it right.

I feel so relieved that YOU'VE forgiven ME, though. So, so much.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I just did. Read post #352. You've extrapolated an argument from rhetorical questions I asked. What do you want me to answer?

No...you called me a hypocrite and substantiated your claim by citing a litany of failures related to historical Christianity. Using your logic, I was asking you to explain why you don't consider yourself a hypocrite when atheists have historically had their fair share of atrocities as well.

 

[greatnoob]

I don't care if you are Anglo because your government what I said. Now many missionaries were raping in the '50's? One is too many of course. How about the CIA and Churchill? Do you think they overthrew democratically elected leadership, a relatively secular leader, because they were Christians on a Crusade? No, it happened because governments had the power to protect oil from being nationalized. Korea? Vietnam? Not even Iraq. That was a matter of gain and power and perhaps a bit of revenge. How dare Saddam give the finger to the powerful US? Nationalism- Hitler and how many others?

So sure people did and do horrible things for religion. Since you hatred leans towards christians though I suggest you reread my earlier post and compare Christian driven killings to secular government actions. I wonder if Mao slept better because some missionary raped someone.

Being obnoxious isn't a substitute for reality on your part, something you believe the religious cannot understand. You hate religion, especially Christians it seems. We get that, to the point you disregard all that's happened over the last hundred years or so. Yell and curse at people all you like but it's not going to work in your favor.

Alright, point partially taken.

Strawman argument definition:



You did advance the argument. Therefore challenging you to support it isn't a strawman.

So answer the question.

I haven't advanced your strawman at all, I've been calling you out for it for the last one or two pages. If you really want to start an argument over the atrocities Christians have committed, you're either really stupid or overconfident.

 

[Atreus21]

Alright, point partially taken.

I haven't advanced your strawman at all, I've been calling you out for it for the last one or two pages. If you really want to start an argument over the atrocities Christians have committed, you're either really stupid or overconfident.

Advanced it? You stated in the first place! I already quoted it directly.

Good gravy just answer the question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It seems to me all be delicate religious flowers that are triggered by the tones of the conversation could easily refocus it with some good reasons to believe that their religion is true.

I keep asking and yet nobody has offered anything, and then you all seem baffled that people keep pointing out that you're a bunch of credulous idiots. Actually substantiating your silly beliefs would be an excellent rebuttal to those charges, but nobody seems to be able to do that.

How could that be??

 

[greatnoob]

Advanced it? You stated in the first place! I already quoted it directly.

Good gravy just answer the question.

You're too much of a fucking idiot to understand what a strawman is, you've made that very clear with the last two posts of yours.

Let me explain it to you, retard:
I wrote this "Great, like you I'm also tolerant to a certain point. I don't like it when adults believe in a non-existant being who apparently has a religion and followers who spread "peace, happiness, love, tolerance and unity" by raping, murdering and pillaging people who don't look like them. I also don't like it when they try to take the moral high-ground like the delusional fuckwits you might've seen posting here. Lastly, I don't like it when a tolerant Christian (some, with very tolerant and love-inducing avatars of a certain other religion's prophet) is very intolerant towards non-Christians yet expects everybody to worship them and their retarded opinions. I think those people are fucking idiots who don't understand what the word 'hypocricy' means and because of that I'm intolerant towards them, just like you!"

You replied with "Where, right now, are Christians doing this? If you're going to impugn all of Christianity with this charge, the standard of proof needs to be pretty high. Therefore I think you'll have to demonstrate at sizeable cohort of Christendom is presently engaged in these acts."

Bolded parts are arguments made and tge non-existing argument you posted a rebuttal to

Original argument: your hypocrisy as a Christian (avatar)
Your strawman: general Christians murdering and raping people (extracted from one of the sentences and twisted to fit your narrative of "where are they doing this now?")

Here is the entire conversation (once again)

I was asking if you were Christian because of your avatar. Boy, you sure are a "tolerant" and "loving" Christian, aren't you?

Tolerant to an extent, like every other reasonable person. I don't like that Islam seeks to impose its standards of speech (any depiction of Muhammad) on non-Muslims.

You don't need to worship us. You should respect us, just as we are asked to respect (and do respect) non-Christians.

I offer this in good faith - you should relax and stop insulting people because you don't agree with them or can't convince them against their positions.

It's glad to see you're respecting others with your very respectable, totally-not-inflammatory-to-anybody avatar. Hypocrite. *** yourself

 

[Kaido]

That goes completely against what the Bible says.

God is love? You kidding me? Let's just pretend that whole flood thing never happened, that Soddom and Gomorrah never happened, that the Garden Of Eden never happened, that the whole hell thing doesn't exist, that Leviticus is a myth, that Deuteronomy isn't scripture, etc. etc.

On that tangent, what's wrong with those things happening, in light of the definition of love? Are love & discipline mutually exclusive concepts in religion? In most cultures, discipline is a required part of love. If you're a loving parent, then part of your job is to discipline your kids when they do things wrong that will get them in trouble or violate your rules. In society, if you kill someone & get caught, you go to jail. Why wouldn't the same set of rules apply in religion? If you violate the rules, then you don't get the same rewards as people who keep the rules do. I don't think being a God of love means being a pushover or preventing bad things from happening or overlooking errors in behavior because if you love your kids, then you have to discipline them because otherwise you're shortchanging their growth experience. Biblical stories (however accurate the translations may be through the years) are also dealing with entire cultures at times, rather than just individuals, so the punishments & rewards are different because they are applied to the group as a whole due to the wickedness or righteousness of the group as a whole. Like in the story of Noah & the ark (side note, a version of this story is also in the Quran!), the bulk of the people were engaging in bad behavior, so they had to reset the game to start with a blank slate again because people didn't want to change.

 

[greatnoob]

the bulk of the people were engaging in bad behavior, so they had to reset the game to start with a blank slate again because people didn't want to change.

Is "reset the slate" the kid-friendly version of "drown everybody and everything with a violent flash flood"? Sure sounds like Christianity's definition of love.

 

[Atreus21]

You're too much of a fucking idiot to understand what a strawman is, you've made that very clear with the last two posts of yours.

haha. Okay, so continuing down this rabbit hole, how is my definition of strawman wrong?

Let me explain it to you, retard:
I wrote this "Great, like you I'm also tolerant to a certain point. I don't like it when adults believe in a non-existant being who apparently has a religion and followers who spread "peace, happiness, love, tolerance and unity" by raping, murdering and pillaging people who don't look like them.

You said it. I challenged you to support it. Everything since then has been you contorting and evading to avoid answering it.

 

[greatnoob]

haha. Okay, so continuing down this rabbit hole, how is my definition of strawman wrong?



You said it. I challenged you to support it. Everything since then has been you contorting and evading to avoid answering it.

You are one dense fucker, no surprise you're a Christian. You didn't even bother to read my post did you? Fuck off with your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Atreus21]

You are one dense fucker, no surprise you're a Christian. You didn't even bother to read my post did you? Fuck off with your intellectual dishonesty.

Whereas you have no sense of irony.

You going to answer the question?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But tell me, are you somehow responsible for the murders and massive human suffering of millions and millions of people at the hands of atheists throughout history? Your superior "logic" eludes me.

Atheism, in contrast to religion, does not prescribe any behavior. Atheism just describes a person who doesn't believe in a god. We might as well ask you why you don't answer for the behaviors of Hitler or Stalin because, like them, you don't collect stamps.

 

[bshole]

On that tangent, what's wrong with those things happening, in light of the definition of love? Are love & discipline mutually exclusive concepts in religion? In most cultures, discipline is a required part of love. If you're a loving parent, then part of your job is to discipline your kids when they do things wrong that will get them in trouble or violate your rules. In society, if you kill someone & get caught, you go to jail. Why wouldn't the same set of rules apply in religion? If you violate the rules, then you don't get the same rewards as people who keep the rules do. I don't think being a God of love means being a pushover or preventing bad things from happening or overlooking errors in behavior because if you love your kids, then you have to discipline them because otherwise you're shortchanging their growth experience. Biblical stories (however accurate the translations may be through the years) are also dealing with entire cultures at times, rather than just individuals, so the punishments & rewards are different because they are applied to the group as a whole due to the wickedness or righteousness of the group as a whole. Like in the story of Noah & the ark (side note, a version of this story is also in the Quran!), the bulk of the people were engaging in bad behavior, so they had to reset the game to start with a blank slate again because people didn't want to change.

.... and a few rules are:

18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones;

20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

95% of the 500+ rules in the Old Testament Christians completely ignore. The parts they tend to like are those that bash gays.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It seems to me all be delicate religious flowers that are triggered by the tones of the conversation could easily refocus it with some good reasons to believe that their religion is true.

I keep asking and yet nobody has offered anything, and then you all seem baffled that people keep pointing out that you're a bunch of credulous idiots. Actually substantiating your silly beliefs would be an excellent rebuttal to those charges, but nobody seems to be able to do that.

How could that be??

The God you don't believe in clearly doesn't exist. And being the credulous idiot that I am, I see that there is no "proof" that anyone could give you that would meet your standards. You know that, I know that. The curiosity here is your apparent need to legitimize your personal beliefs using condescension towards others who don't happen to share your perspective.

Anyway, do me a favor and read my sig. Einstein obviously perceived something incredible..whether one calls it God or not. It's manifestations of these kinds of experiences throughout humankind that has shaped our "religious" nature. I personally believe that religions are a essentially constructs (or paradigms if you will) created by highly fallible human beings to explain the unexplainable. I understand that one who has never glimpsed what I'm talking about can easily deny such perceptions as fiction. But for those who haven't been quite as "fortunate" as you...the experience is incredibly compelling and requires one to intellectually cope (rightly or wrongly) with it...typically through various religions in a way they can make sense of it. It's so, so easy to ridicule...it's like shooting fish in a barrel for highly "intelligent" people like you. The religious don't see their folly any more than you see yours.

 

[Kaido]

Is "reset the slate" the kid-friendly version of "drown everybody and everything with a violent flash flood"? Sure sounds like Christianity's definition of love.

Theologically-speaking, it's actually a story that spans multiple religions & cultures, not just Christianity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) by which God spares Noah, his family, and a remnant of all the world's animals from the flood.[1][2] According to Genesis, God gave Noah instructions for building the ark. Seven days before the deluge, God told Noah to enter the ark with his household and the animals. The story goes on to describe the ark being afloat for 150 days and then coming to rest on the Mountains of Ararat and the subsequent receding of the waters.[3] The story is repeated, with variations, in the Quran, where the ark appears as Safina Nuh (Arabic: سفينة نوح‎‎ "Noah's boat"). The Genesis flood narrative is similar to numerous other flood myths from a variety of cultures. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[4]

So partly, it depends on what perspective you want to approach the story with. The wiki entry isn't very long, but is worth a read about the significance of the recorded event in different cultures. If you're looking at it from a Christian definition, then you have to look at it in context: if you, as God, set the ground rules, which everyone but a small group ignores & refuses to change, then how do you deal out punishment? It's easy to reduce a lot of religious stories to simplistic, binary interpretation that leaves it open for swift judgement, but there's usually some deeper meanings & themes in them, just like in parables. But that's getting pretty off-topic for the thread OP, haha.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The God you don't believe in clearly doesn't exist.

I don't believe in ANY god. Is it then your confession that, for any putative god, you agree that it doesn't exist? I'm guessing not, so perhaps you want to put a bit more thought into your statement instead of just trying to come up with a catchy "gotcha".

And being the credulous idiot that I am, I see that there is no "proof" that anyone could give you that would meet your standards. You know that, I know that.

But you don't know that because it's completely false. Here's an example: 1 million digits of pi at the beginning of the original manuscript of genesis and a 256-bit checksum of that string at the end of the original manuscript of Revelations would be a powerfully persuasive bit of evidence that the Bible is true.

Is that too hard for your god?

The curiosity here is your apparent need to legitimize your personal beliefs using condescension towards others who don't happen to share your perspective.

No, the curiosity is why you're all too fucking pussy to really challenge your beliefs.

Anyway, do me a favor and read my sig. Einstein obviously perceived something incredible..whether one calls it God or not...it's manifestations of these kinds of experiences throughout humankind that has shaped our "religious" nature.

Bullshit equivocation. I can feel awe and wonder at the universe, and I do all the time. Einstein was a brilliant man surrounded by religious people, so it's no surprise he would try to express strictly endogenous feelings in religious terms. That has fuck-all to do with any gods actually existing.

I personally believe that religions are a essentially constructs (or paradigms if you will) created by highly fallible human beings to explain the unexplainable. I understand that one who has never glimpsed what I'm talking about can easily deny such perceptions as fiction. But for those who haven't been quite as "fortunate" as you...the experience is incredibly compelling requiring them to intellectually cope (rightly or wrongly) with it through various religions in a way they can make sense of it. It's so, so easy to ridicule...it's like shooting fish in a barrel for highly "intelligent" people like you. The religious don't see their folly any more than you see yours.

It is no folly to challenge others to experience their feelings individually and directly instead of dressing them up in the language of somebody else's dogma because they lack the courage to stand apart, nor is it folly to call out the systematic and oppressive manner in which the religious compel others to surrender the integrity of their individual experiences to the tyranny of religious dogma.

 

[MajinCry]

Theologically-speaking, it's actually a story that spans multiple religions & cultures, not just Christianity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

So partly, it depends on what perspective you want to approach the story with. The wiki entry isn't very long, but is worth a read about the significance of the recorded event in different cultures. If you're looking at it from a Christian definition, then you have to look at it in context: if you, as God, set the ground rules, which everyone but a small group ignores & refuses to change, then how do you deal out punishment? It's easy to reduce a lot of religious stories to simplistic, binary interpretation that leaves it open for swift judgement, but there's usually some deeper meanings & themes in them, just like in parables. But that's getting pretty off-topic for the thread OP, haha.

So much for that love.

God commands rape. Slaughter. Genocide. Sex slavery. Murder. Slavery. The people Yahweh drowned, suffered that because they did not follow the commandments he set. Didn't stone the silenced rape victim to death? Sounds like somebody needs waterboarded.

The whole world progresses morally? Kids that talk back aren't being stoned to death? Rural rape victims aren't being bought by their rapists? Other cultures aren't victimized through genocidal sex slavery? What degeneracy.

Painting evil as love is the act of a tyrant.