The Gospel of Unbelief

[LOki]

You're generally anti religion.

You just refuse to understand "unfounded presumption."

I've not once argued anti-religion. Every argument presented is explicitly in support of preserving religion, and religious freedom--you are a tool.

If you don't want the label, don't spout the propaganda.

I really was hoping you were being ironic.

If you don't want the label of theocrat, don't spout the propaganda.

So you want to make the argument that christianity values an individual life less than communism does? DO ya, do ya? Huh ? Make my day.

If you're unfamiliar with the lives that the Inquisition and John Calvin had no value for, and the basis upon which they devalued those lives, you should get familiar with them so you can see that I already have made that argument.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you're unfamiliar with the lives that the Inquisition and John Calvin had no value for, and the basis upon which they devalued those lives, you should get familiar with them so you can see that I already have made that argument.

So you ARE making the argument that communism has more respect for an individual human life than christianity does? I just want to be clear.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The Laws of God VS. Talmudic Hate Speech.

You be the judge.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Loki went to go get Abe Foxman. :gross2:

 

[LOki]

So you ARE making the argument that communism has more respect for an individual human life than christianity does? I just want to be clear.

If communists have no respect for human life, and the inquisitors had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women and children of Shilo had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women of Midian (except the virgins kept for themselves) had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women and infants of Amalek had no respect for human life, and those who killed the Edomite children had no respect for human life, and if those who killed every man, woman, child and babe of Ai had no respect for human life, then I guess I can't make an argument that communism has greater respect for human lif than Christianity does--it's about the same.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If communists have no respect for human life, and the inquisitors had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women and children of Shilo had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women of Midian (except the virgins kept for themselves) had no respect for human life, and those who killed the women and infants of Amalek had no respect for human life, and those who killed the Edomite children had no respect for human life, and if those who killed every man, woman, child and babe of Ai had no respect for human life, then I guess I can't make an argument that communism has greater respect for human lif than Christianity does--it's about the same.

No. It's worse. In morally bound groups, there is a way of dealing with individuals who are part of the group, The INGROUP, and ways of dealing with the OUTGROUP. Communism is a constantly continuing process of transformation of IN indivuals into OUT individuals by dividing and villainization, and then the victimization of those by the new IN group. Like all totalitarianism it's a ponzi scheme of fear and tyranny which must expand quickly and become abusive to maintain power. Christians AT LEAST love their in group, and our policy towards outsiders is to preach, not kill, despite the abuses of the past in which the church, drunk on it's worldly power, partookeded.

 

[LOki]

No. It's worse. In morally bound groups, there is a way of dealing with individuals who are part of the group, The INGROUP, and ways of dealing with the OUTGROUP. Communism is a constantly continuing process of transformation of IN indivuals into OUT individuals by dividing and villainization, and then the victimization of those by the new IN group. Like all totalitarianism it's a ponzi scheme of fear and tyranny which must expand quickly and become abusive to maintain power. Christians AT LEAST love their in group, and our policy towards outsiders is to preach, not kill, despite the abuses of the past in which the church, drunk on it's worldly power, partookeded.

Like Catholics and Protestants?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Like Catholics and Protestants?

I believe the protestant reformation is less intended to destroy a society than it is to save it from a church which had become despotic. I agree the catholic church has had serious issues over the years. The protestant reformation is hardly the calculated madness of communism, however.

 

[LOki]

Like all totalitarianism it's a ponzi scheme of fear and tyranny which must expand quickly and become abusive to maintain power.

I can agree with this, but I question the assertion that Christians are exempt based on the will of God rather than rational notions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I can agree with this, but I question the assertion that Christians are exempt based on the will of God rather than rational notions.

We're looking at the TEACHING. There have been hypocrites who ignored the teaching. They may be in hell. Christianity TEACHES "THough shall not kill". communism denies personal morality. According to the "dialectic" as they call it, a man's behavior is the result of his born station in life, not a conscious moral decision. Morality doesn't even have a purpose so communism teaches nothing practically, except revolution.

 

[jillian]

The Laws of God VS. Talmudic Hate Speech.

You be the judge.

Talmudic hate speech?

 

[Said1]

Talmudic hate speech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud :huh:

 

[jillian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud :huh:

I know what the Talmud is. I was wondering how it is likened to "hate speech", so thought perhaps I was misconstruing.

 

[LOki]

I believe the protestant reformation is less intended to destroy a society than it is to save it from a church which had become despotic. I agree the catholic church has had serious issues over the years. The protestant reformation is hardly the calculated madness of communism, however.

I think you're asserting that the intent of communism is to destroy society. I see that as quite a logical leap. I agree that communism is destructive to society, I see that with all the avalable evidence to believe it's not is pretty much a statement of faith, but a society is envisioned by communism; not one I'm interested in, one that I am opposed to on moral grounds, but the intent of communism is the creation of a society--I'm certain of it.

We're looking at the TEACHING. There have been hypocrites who ignored the teaching. They may be in hell. Christianity TEACHES "THough shall not kill". communism denies personal morality.

I'm not saying otherwise. I am pointing out though that Christianity teaches that the pregnant women of Samaria shall have their babies torn from their bellies because they Samaria has offended God, and the Chinese communists force abortion upon their women because over-population is an offense to the state. I question the moral and rational validity (in both cases) of these "teachings."

According to the "dialectic" as they call it, a man's behavior is the result of his born station in life, not a conscious moral decision.

Is this significanly different than the moral state of man being determined by the actions of his first ancestor? By the nature of being born imperfect? Is the decision to, from this day forward, abdicate my conscious moral descisions to a religious dogma really different than ascribing the morality of my actions to the situation of my place in society? I don't think so.

Morality doesn't even have a purpose so communism teaches nothing practically, except revolution.

I sense that communism DOES have a moral purpose, and that purpose is class strife that (in their morally relativistic minds) justifies a life of theft and slavery.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The statement that makes the definition internally self contradictory, which is the only definition you're accepting, is what is being rejected.

No, it is not the only definition I am accepting. I thought I made it clear from the start that there are different variations of the meaning of secularsim.

However, using the definition that incorporates the rejection of religion does not make it "internally self contradictory". You are just assuming that something cannot illogically reject itself.

No they don't. They don't if they practice religion, and they most certainly CANNOT if secularism is a religion And rtwngAvnger accuses me of ignoring logic!.

Of course Secularists reject religion. Are you living in a void? It's the reason for argument in the Courts today. It's why the ACLU is bent on tearing the symbols of religion out of the public square. And that is why I am claiming that they are "practicing" a religion themselves….they have an ideology or faith or set of beliefs under the so-called innocuous banner of secularism that they wish to impose on the rest of us -- despite the fact that hanging the 10 Commandments on the court walls is not establishing a religion.

If I accept your unfounded premise that said rejection is based on faith, then we can; I don't accept that premise--not on faith I don't. Unless you can prove that the rejection secularists engage in is neccessarily based on faith, you cannot insist that it is; if you cannot insist the rejection is based on faith, then you cannot insist that secularism is a religion.

On what basis can you NOT accept that the rejection isn't based on faith? Secularists are rejecting religion because religion does not fall into what they consider to be "worldly matters". That is a presumption on their part because they have NO PROOF that God does NOT exist. And then they turn around and claim religion must be rejected because religious people cannot prove to them that God DOES exist. Exactly who is stating a fallacy of presumption here?

Which is why it is important to closely examine the definitions and usages of words--to strip them of those definitions and usages of your emotional biases so you can make rationally sensible statements.

The same goes for you. I prefer to make a distinction of the meanings of "secularism". We could call them secularism and Secularism. We could say the former means not establishing a government-based religion and the latter means rejecting every vestige of God/religion from our government and the public square.

I am fully aquainted with the definition of principle and its usage. I suppose there are a number of rational principles involved--starting with "human beings exist." You'll note, that the assertion stands without being contingent upon "why" human beings exist, just that they do. The rational principles of morality build upon similarly objective self-evident assertions of fact that avoid the leaps of faith (such as: "Jesus says so" or "in the interest of 'society'") that are shortcuts to moral conclusions.

So you fall under the great banner of Relativism?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think you're asserting that the intent of communism is to destroy society. I see that as quite a logical leap. I agree that communism is destructive to society

Yes. By design.

, I see that with all the avalable evidence to believe it's not is pretty much a statement of faith, but a society is envisioned by communism; not one I'm interested in, one that I am opposed to on moral grounds, but the intent of communism is the creation of a society--I'm certain of it.

Yes. Beginning by destroying the previous society by destroying it's values systems, which may have cast shooting your landlord in a "bad" light.

I'm not saying otherwise. I am pointing out though that Christianity teaches that the pregnant women of Samaria shall have their babies torn from their bellies because they Samaria has offended God,

Was this a one time thing? Or are christians told explicitly in a general way to kill the children of nonbelievers?

and the Chinese communists force abortion upon their women because over-population is an offense to the state. I question the moral and rational validity (in both cases) of these "teachings."Is this significanly different than the moral state of man being determined by the actions of his first ancestor?

In no sense does christianity espouse that the christians should currently be killing the babies of nonbelievers.

By the nature of being born imperfect? Is the decision to, from this day forward, abdicate my conscious moral descisions to a religious dogma really different than ascribing the morality of my actions to the situation of my place in society?

Since you made up that "christian teaching" the premise of this question is somewhat invalidated.

I don't think so.I sense that communism DOES have a moral purpose, and that purpose is class strife that (in their morally relativistic minds) justifies a life of theft and slavery.

And that is destructive and we can call it an "anti morality" if it must be a morality.

 

[LOki]

No, it is not the only definition I am accepting. I thought I made it clear from the start that there are different variations of the meaning of secularsim.

It's the only one you provided for your theory that secularism is a religion.

However, using the definition that incorporates the rejection of religion does not make it "internally self contradictory". You are just assuming that something cannot illogically reject itself.

No, I am asserting that something can ONLY illogically reject itself.

Of course Secularists reject religion. Are you living in a void? It's the reason for argument in the Courts today. It's why the ACLU is bent on tearing the symbols of religion out of the public square. And that is why I am claiming that they are "practicing" a religion themselves….they have an ideology or faith or set of beliefs under the so-called innocuous banner of secularism that they wish to impose on the rest of us -- despite the fact that hanging the 10 Commandments on the court walls is not establishing a religion.

Does a Christian who asserts that hanging the 10 Commandments on the court walls is establishing Chrisianity as the religion of the court rejecting Christianity? I don't think so.

Despite the arguments and activities of the ACLU, secularism does not reject religion.

On what basis can you NOT accept that the rejection isn't based on faith?

On the basis that you cannot demonstrate that such rejection is NECCESSARILY based on faith. If that rejection is not NECCESSARILY based on faith, secularism CANNOT be religion per the definition agreed upon. That is the exact basis.

If you want to make your point, make THAT point. That on a statement of faith, secularists reject all beliefs based on a statement of faith--including their own stament of faith.

Secularists are rejecting religion because religion does not fall into what they consider to be "worldly matters". That is a presumption on their part because they have NO PROOF that God does NOT exist.

Secularists are rejecting religion in "worldly matters" BECAUSE they have no proof that God does NOT exist, or that God DOES exist.

Exactly who is stating a fallacy of presumption here?

Obviously, NOT secularists.

The same goes for you. I prefer to make a distinction of the meanings of "secularism". We could call them secularism and Secularism. The former means not establishing a government-based religion and the latter means rejecting every vestige of God/religion from our government and the public square.

Considering that you are desperately defending the entrenched Chrisitanity in our government, I am not at all surprised that you wish to continue to assert that secularists have an atheist aggenda--so much so you want to blur the distinction by asserting the self contradictory notion that (big S)ecularism is the religion of no religion. Pathetic.

Why not use nihilism? It's really what you're after anyway--unless what you're really after is the Christian theocracy I suspect you're after.

So you fall under the great banner of Relativism?

Nope. If I were the one advocating relativistic word usage, and Christian theocratic newspeak, I'd be careful about the way I swing my presumptions about Relativism.

 

[LOki]

Yes. By design.

Yes. Beginning by destroying the previous society by destroying it's values systems, which may have cast shooting your landlord in a "bad" light.

Was this a one time thing? Or are christians told explicitly in a general way to kill the children of nonbelievers?

In no sense does christianity espouse that the christians should currently be killing the babies of nonbelievers.

Since you made up that "christian teaching" the premise of this question is somewhat invalidated.


And that is destructive and we can call it an "anti morality" if it must be a morality.

That's a bit of creative editing. Nicely played. :happy2:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's a bit of creative editing. Nicely played. :happy2:

Thank. I'm really good with the bulletin board quote tags.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Laws of God VS. Talmudic Hate Speech.

You be the judge.

What do you mean by this RWA?