Originally posted by whodeyI don't think he was waging a war on religion per se; he did not tolorate any opposition whatsoever.
Who needs a banner when one sees him closing down church's and waging war with those who are religious. Are you denying that such activities took place? If you were so much as caught with a Bible in the former USSR you were in bad shape.
As usual when you look into it there are many and complex facets that cannot really be reduced to yes or no answers. Nasty piece of work any way you look at it.
ps I have read accounts of religious repression in the ussr.
Originally posted by jaywill"Now that the horrible facts of Soviet communism are known—40 million people killed—the major media don’t talk about the Jewish involvement in Soviet crimes. Nonetheless, the bulk of the history of Soviet communism and its genocidal terror is a story dominated by Jews."
Nazi and Marxist persecution of Christians:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0215-christian_holocaust.htm
have you actually read all this site?
I have never thought that relative body-counts made a very convincing argument one way or t’other. People who commit such atrocities are likely to justify them by ascribing them to a god, or to a philosophical or sociological ideal, or to unfortunate practical necessity. It was righteous to kill the Midianites because God commanded it; it was righteous to kill the heretics because they were polluting the faith of the faithful; it was righteous to kill the faithful because they were polluting the minds of reason—whatever.
Everybody can find a way to justify their killing, or the killing done by their God.
First decide what you think are justifications for killing; then apply those justifications across the board—to men and to gods, without exception.
Originally posted by vistesdDo you think there is ever a justification for killing?
I have never thought that relative body-counts made a very convincing argument one way or t’other. People who commit such atrocities are likely to justify them by ascribing them to a god, or to a philosophical or sociological ideal, or to unfortunate practical necessity. It was righteous to kill the Midianites because God commanded it; it was righteous to ...[text shortened]... illing; then apply those justifications across the board—to men and to gods, without exception.
Originally posted by whodeyYes: personal self-defense, and in defense of those I love—both from immediate and credible threat of harm. Actually, however, I admit that I do not seek justification in such cases. By that I mean that if I thought you were going to harm, say, my wife, I would do everything in my power to stop you, including killing you. And I would do that without any consideration of whether such action conforms to any moral theory at all. I cannot answer further in general terms, because the decision for me would be situation-specific (e.g., what constitutes immediate and credible threat?).
Do you think there is ever a justification for killing?
My point, however, was that whatever one sees as a justification—or none at all—can’t simply be amended because of who is doing the killing under similar circumstances. It can be no more right or wrong for religionists (any religionists) to kill in support of the ideals of their religion, than for non-religionists to kill in support of their philosophical ideals. If, for example, genocide is immoral, it’s immoral whether God commands it or not. If torture is immoral, it’s immoral regardless of who’s doing it. What I mean is, the “who’s doing it” does not change whether or not it is moral or immoral.
It would be hypocritical of me to say that I am justified in killing to prevent the rape of my wife, but you are not.
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdSo we can agree that killing at times is justifiable. However, if there be a God, self defese is not on the table seeing that we cannot threaten him, but what of killing to save those that he loves? What if God does so in a similar vein?
Yes: personal self-defense, and in defense of those I love—both from immediate and credible threat of harm. Actually, however, I admit that I do not seek justification in such cases. By that I mean that if I thought you were going to harm, say, my wife, I would do everything in my power to stop you, including killing you. And I would do that without any ...[text shortened]... cal of me to say that I am justified in killing to prevent the rape of my wife, but you are not.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIndeed. The question then becomes, save those he loves from what? Is God's goal to save us from dying? If so, he has failed miserably. However, if his goal is to save us from sin that causes us to die spiritually, he has had success.
I thought God loved everybody.
Put another way, it is my view that God's ultimate plan was to bring Christ into the world to save mankind. This "road" to the Messiah was a long and painful journey that involved killing. In fact, it involved killing people he loved. Would you say that God did not love his own Son yet God made him a living sacrifice?
Originally posted by whodeyWho does God not love?
So we can agree that killing at times is justifiable. However, if there be a God, self defese is not on the table seeing that we cannot threaten him, but what of killing to save those that he loves? What if God does so in a similar vein?
This has been at the crux of a lot of our recent discussions—and those I’ve been having with Epiphinehas as well. Such a God is as limited in his options (and perhaps his discernment?) as I am. Let me put it this way: if I had the option of instantly and perfectly healing the person who was threatening my wife, and could remove the threat thereby, I would do so. And I would not consider it an unwarranted violation of his “free will” (whatever that is); it is certainly no more a violation than is killing him. If your God is not capable of doing such a thing, then say so.
You guys keep talking about your God not being willing (or able) to violate our free will—except in cases where he does so.
I don’t think that your God is real. But if he is real then, according to many, I will be condemned to eternal hell for that disbelief—a hell that I also do not believe is real. Your God is unwilling to violate my free will in order to heal my illusion, but it quite willing to violate when, after death, I suddenly realize the awful truth of my mistake. And don’t tell me that it is I, and not your God, who condemns me to hell: I did not create such a hell (whether that is a place or a tormentuous quality of being) in order that people might end up there.
Nice guy, your God: I’m glad he’s only a figure of religious mythology.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey1. Who is “us”? (In that “success” part.)
Indeed. The question then becomes, save those he loves from what? Is God's goal to save us from dying? If so, he has failed miserably. However, if his goal is to save us from sin that causes us to die spiritually, he has had success.
Put another way, it is my view that God's ultimate plan was to bring Christ into the world to save mankind. This "road" ...[text shortened]... loved. Would you say that God did not love his own Son yet God made him a living sacrifice?
2. I thought that the “son” was in fact God incarnate himself. (You may not be a Trinitarian Christian, however.)
3. Mankind isn’t saved; only believers.
I’ve asked this question before (though maybe not of you): In your religion is the wages of sin death; or is the wages of sin eternal living misery?
Originally posted by vistesdIt is my view that God hates sin because it is contrary to everything that he stands for, namely the law of love. For example, God loved Adam and Eve. However, they partook of the fruit and sinned, thus they died. One then has one of two options. Either God stopped loving them, thus he caused them to die, or God had to respect their free will to sin because he loved them, thus allowing them to die.
Who does God not love?
This has been at the crux of a lot of our recent discussions—and those I’ve been having with Epiphinehas as well. Such a God is as limited in his options (and perhaps his discernment?) as I am. Let me put it this way: if I had the option of instantly and perfectly healing the person who was threatening my wife, and could remove t ...[text shortened]... might end up there.
Nice guy, your God: I’m glad he’s only a figure of religious mythology.
As I have said before, a mutually loving relationship demands free will to love the other back. For God, this means the ability to have a mutually loving relationship with him, thus one must have the ability to reject him or, put another way, the ability to sin.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo. God did not violate their free will when he kicked them out of the garden? God does not violate free will of sinners when he has them killed?
It is my view that God hates sin because it is contrary to everything that he stands for, namely the law of love. For example, God loved Adam and Eve. However, they partook of the fruit and sinned, thus they died. One then has one of two options. Either God stopped loving them, thus he caused them to die, or God had to respect their free will to sin becau ...[text shortened]... with him, thus one must have the ability to reject him or, put another way, the ability to sin.
Once again, your God sees things from the perspective of wanting to be the beloved, not from the perspective of being the lover. I love; I do not think that your God is real. That is hardly a sin against love.
Over and over again, you simply dismiss God’s ability to heal; hence I can only conclude that your God cannot heal, only pardon or punish. Or that your God, unlike the Samaritan in the parable, is only willing to heal those who are conscious enough to ask for it—otherwise it might constitute a violation of free will.
EDIT: As I said above, you guys keep talking about your god not being willing to violate our free will--except when he does.