The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5
=> Re: Pancho will like this!
| Re: Pancho will like this! |
|
Posted by
Arrow
(Guest)
- Tuesday, November 1 2011, 12:58:24 (UTC) from 80.239.242.30 - v01-15.opera-mini.net  Network -  Linux -   OperaWebsite: Website title: |
Clear enough... If you ask the church on what scriptural basis it used violence in the middle ages, it will not be able to respond because there are none. This is what I meant by the Gandhi example. On the other hand, there are religions that contain clear and explicit instructions for the use of violence under certain circumstances. Apostates must be killed. Those who draw insulting cartoons must also be killed. A thief's hand must be chopped off. Adulteresses must be stoned or lashed. Female captives of war can be raped and inobedient wives can be beaten. If you ask the followers of those religions “why did you do this or that?”, they will then point out specific verses that overtly endorse and sanction such behavior. So if we conduct a comparative analysis between religions based solely on what is written in their religious texts, then wouldn't one deem Christianity to be relatively more peaceful? > The thing that is truly peculiar to Christianity, and only Christianity, is the notion that by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus we can be cleaned of our own sins..."he died for you" is literal....and yet that is the most immoral thing of all. = The bible is rich with symbolism and philosophical concepts. Its messages are far from literal. I am sure there is a deeper and non-literal explanation to this. I do not know what it is but I will try to find it get back to this point (this and the cannibalism thing). > If you owe a fine for some crime and haven't the money I can choose to pay it for you...but if you have committed a crime, like say murder or theft, I can't serve your time for you, I can't take your punishment onto myself... = Laws are made to enforce and maintain public order and to allow societies to function constructively. That is their primary objective. Allowing someone to serve time on someone else's behalf will not effectively deter future perpetrations. Since the Christian message has a spiritual dimension, I do not think we can judge it by referring man-made laws. > If you come to me and say you have a fantastic gift for me, say a gold watch, and it will be mine if I agree to the execution of the person who owns it, and I agree, then I am an accessory to murder... = What if you were told “this person sacrificed his life to preserve this gold so that you can have it” and they show you his will. Would you then be an accessory to murder? > Had Jesus been hanged, little children would be wearing a miniature, gold, gibbet complete with hangman's noose round their necks and in their churches would be a bloody statue of Jesus hanging by the neck... = It would be disturbing indeed because a noose is still being employed as an instrument of execution. The cross ceased to be used as such and therefore it has instead become to symbolize a religion and a message. > that would be like arguing with someone who believes the world is flat...where do you start? These people begin their argument by saying that God exists, and then go from there. = No actually the book is a response to those who claim that science invalidates the existence of God. Whereas we cannot proof that God exists, we cannot prove that he doesn't either. > I can't simply say "I know pigs fly on Mars now YOU prove that they don't, and, if you can't, then you have to admit they MIGHT be up there flying around on Mars"...doesn't work that way. = Yes but pigs on Mars or a flying spaghetti does not explain the the meaning of life, why do we exist, how did the universe come to existence... and so on. > In India and China there are a few Christian congregations...about the number of people you'd expect if Christians in those countries were only allowed to marry within their own faith for several hundred years...but nothing like the mass conversions claimed for Ireland and other Roman provinces. It was the armies of Rome who converted people to Christianity, through force....the current pope just barely admitted it. = Maybe there is another explanation to this. Maybe European pagan religions were not philosophically profound and therefore they did not satisfy the people's thirst for knowledge. Therefore we might not be surprised if most of Europe willingly converted. India and China, on the other hand, already had sophisticated religions which is why they did not find Christianity appealing. It would therefore take violence to convert them to Christianity just like it would take violence to convert a Christian to another religion. --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
|
Host: www.insideassyria.com Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Cookie: *hidded* Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Pancho_will_like_this-6JZz.7ghn.REPLY Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.9 Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, ... User-agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.9.168 Version/11.51 X-forwarded-for: 46.185.144.149 Content-length: 5101 Connection: close |
- Sunday, October 30 2011, 16:35:17 (UTC)
- 10/30 16:52
- 10/30 17:53
Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9