BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 02:43 PM

Does anyone have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of religion over the millennia. In this I would hope that ALL religions are included, including if possible, estimates for religions in pre-history.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:30 PM

I'd say it is pretty nigh impossible to classify a war as primarily a religious war. See "Criteria for classification" in Wikipedia for varying opinions on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

No, nobody does.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:52 PM

Unknowable.

A lot less than the number killed for the sake of property, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 05:48 PM

Wot Jack said. While I have no truck whatsoever with religion of any kind, I think that religion has been extensively used as an excuse to wage war, when the actual motive for so doing was very different. Nothing like claiming that you have God on your side and charging into battle under a crucifix, of course, no matter how unchristian your true motives. For balance, of course, the same thing happens in Islam, Judaism and, well, you name it. Some quite nasty stuff going on between Hindus and Muslims in India at the moment. Of course, religion causes huge misery the world over, generally by controlling people with an authoritarian iron fist. Religion may not kill you but it can condemn you to restrictions on your freedom, poverty, ill-health and unwanted pregnancies. And all predicated on a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:07 PM

Good point. It could be argued that religion itself kills very few whilst using a religion as an excuse for other more temporal gain is perhaps the biggest premeditated killer. Ideology is bound in such things and spreading your control over others is where the fighting the good fight / jihad etc comes into it.

You could argue I suppose that without spreading, converting and influencing the lives of people for gain, religion has no other purpose. Hence in enlightened liberal democracies such as ours, the whole idea of being told what to do and how to think is anathema. Another nice spin off is the resulting low tolerance of bigotry based on differences in general. Seeing everybody as equal works for me, works for you and even politicians see "prosperity through equality" as a vote winner.

But the past? See Dylan's "God on our side" for details....

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:13 PM

Some philosophers view early religions as formalized practices to survive in difficult or dangerous landscapes and social practices needed for the group to thrive.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:31 PM

Well these days I think we could argue that organised religion itself creates those difficult or dangerous landscapes and social practices.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 07:37 PM

All wars are bankers' wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 07:38 PM

"A lot less than the number killed for the sake of property, for sure."
As churches (as distinct from religions) tend to dedicate themselves to maintaining the status quo, it is virtually impossible to separate them - typical example, the Crusades, ostensibly about Christianising the East but in fact all about opening Eastern Trades routes and spices.
The various Empires were gained in the name of civilising the 'heathens' - political and economic power, impure and simple.
Scratch any 'religious' war and you'll find a political or economic agenda not far below the surface.
None of this has anything to do with true religion of course - just a flag to march under
Jim Carroll

Subject: Gravity is solved?
From: GUEST,RESIDENT
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 08:34 PM

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED














MINDED.




The most significant scientific discovery thread about our first detection of gravity waves sans gravitons was closed by a few religionists and that has made me angry that religionists with the support of a prejudiced cowardly mod can still attack science with pithy censorship =.


A SCIENCE ADVOCATE has never actually closed a religious thread.
We are not superstitious or wish to censor religion.
We would like to see more maturity when it comes to closing important science threads even if it is attacked by religion or even psychopathic voices.


One could prove their understanding and reopen the thread about the single signature most important scientific measurement in 80 years.


Religion is a business with all the foibles of mankind and any business. AS for war see; Steve's
post .

Do you think there is such a thing as totally uncorrupt non criminal leader in any church because of religion? If it is your medicine, use it as directed and watch out for side effects.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 09:39 PM

Yeah, Don, I'm sure the Gravity thread would have gone back to being about gravity after another 2,000 or so posts from the trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 02:37 AM

Yep. Dragging superstition into an exciting subject such as our understanding of gravity and the connotations for our knowledge of the world does tend to disappoint the more rational amongst us.

Of course, if we didn't have religion we'd have to invent it, according to Voltaire. I reckon it's all down to modesty. You want to rule the world but it would be vanity to say it's because you want to so you invent a nothing concept that you can attribute your greed to and do it in the "name" of it.

One way or another, and Stalinist dogma can easily fall into that category, (the nothing concept being the people themselves) religion is the excuse, but is it the cause? We certainly see a rise in people considering blasphemy a crime against their reason, and in that sense, the religion is the end product. Although the effect is to increase the stranglehold by those doing well out of it.

It was Voltaire by the way who said that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 07:02 AM

There's a slightly tongue in cheek saying you should never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be. Ok, that's not really true, but you should know what the purpose of the question is and what use you would make of answer. And I can't offhand come up with answers to those that appeal to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST, 34
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 10:38 AM

In some ways it doesn't matter if it's a religious war, or if religion is just used to sell the war. Either way, it's a religious war, and the practitioners of religion are responsible, either by starting the war or by being willing to go fight in it. For the non-religious, the most visible attribute is people talking about God while killing other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 11:14 AM

Countless times, I've posted comments regarding the hypocrisy of the national dialogue, being controlled by the TWO bankster/corporate OWNED 'political parties'....and pointed to using the angst of the people, as a tool to compose, or play music.
Wars are usually fought over the way money and/or property is handled and who controls it...and therefore, even if your particular ideology hides it from your own eyes and understanding, your ideology is just an avenue, for the owners of the parties, to gain popular support FROM THEIR VICTIMS!!!...and fight over MONEY!!!

However, on the other hand, I don't believe ANY wars have been started over MUSIC...which, by the way, is a LOT higher calling, AND what 'Mudcat' is 'supposed' to be about.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,wysiwyg minus cookie
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 01:23 PM

A start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 03:32 PM

I don't believe ANY wars have been started over MUSIC...which, by the way, is a LOT higher calling, AND what 'Mudcat' is 'supposed' to be about.

Hence your complete lack of erudite posts on musical threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 04:48 PM

Strange that there are complaints about Christians getting threads closed as nearly always it is the atheists who introduced the subject.   Yet it is probably mostly the abusive among the atheists who cause thread closure.                                                      Related question to OP.    Does anyone know how many people who have been killed by atheist states?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 05:03 PM

No we don't, Pete. Go on, tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 05:35 PM

Of course, constitutionally speaking, only The UK and Iran have a notional leader who is also head of a state religion.

Can't wait for pete's take on what constitutes an atheist state. Especially as for most rogue ones, the nation is the religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM

Presumably under Marxo-Leninism, religion ["Opium of the people"] would be forbidden or at least much frowned on; but nevertheless lots & lots of people were killed. It could of course be retorted that the State-approved belief in the teachings of Marx & Lenin constituted what could be regarded as a 'religion' (who was it who said something about "That arch-Jesuit, Stalin"?). As those old enough to remember him back in the 1940s, the BBC's good old tame philosophy Professor C E M Joad* was in the habit of prefacing every reply to questions put to the "Brains Trust" panel with the words "It depends what you mean by ..." It brought him a certain amount of ridicule; but I always thought, and still think, that he had an excellent point. It always does 'depend on what you mean by...', dunnit?

≈M≈

*interesting Wikipedia entry on Prof Joad

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 10:14 PM

Also, there are data in The Better Angels of our Nature (blicky).

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 02:18 AM

Just to clarify in case necessary for full comprehension, my last post was an attempt to furnish a partial answer the previous question

"Does anyone know how many people who have been killed by atheist states?"


to which a negative answer had been returned.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:25 AM

Or "no" as non rambling posters would say.

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:47 AM

Will you kindly apprise your goodself, Dr Muskibumz, of the crucial & essential fact that criticisms of, and endeavours of amendments to, my elected prose style constitute an insufferable impertinence up with which I shall not put!

So yah·sux·boo·2·u, ɷ-face!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 04:20 AM

"Presumably under Marxo-Leninism, religion ["Opium of the people"] would be forbidden or at least much frowned on"
Pretty reasonable summing up of The Soviet Union here.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
"The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes"
That was, as far as I know, more or less the state of things throughout the Communist world
I've visited some beautiful religious buildings in Communist countries, still in full use - Sofia Cathedral is pretty outstanding.
How many people killed by atheist states - about the same number as angels that can dance on a head of a pin - silly question Mike.
Wars are waged for political and economic reasons - not or anti-religious ones - religion is often the banner that flies over the armies, but it is seldom, if ever the cause fought for.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM

"silly question Mike."
.,,.

Wasn't my question, Jim. It was Pete7**. I was simply seeking for an example in response -- which you appear to agree was accurate as an answer ("Pretty reasonable summing up of The Soviet Union here"), whevs might have been the perpetrators' motivations.

If you are working in one of your denunciatory modes, then kindly have the goodness to ensure that your denouncements are accurately directed!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 05:48 AM

"If you are working in one of your denunciatory modes"
Am not - I responded to what I believed was an unanswerable question - neither denouncing nor denuding the enquirer.
I assumed it was rhetorical.
Stop picking fights on a Sunday morning - far to nice a day here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 07:32 AM

You picked the fight with me, dammit -- attributing an idiocy of someone else's to me! I wasn't the bloody 'enquirer'!

It wasn't me, sir. It was him! · ie Pete*******.   

Oh, wotza-use. Roll on Man·U v Arsenal...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 07:54 AM

"attributing an idiocy of someone else's to me"
Picked up from your posting - it was addressed generally to what I believed was a rhetorical question - but if it's so important - apologies
Jim Carroll
Did you know my uncle once owned Manchester United? - not a lot of people know that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 08:17 AM

Apologies accepted, natch.

Tell us more about your uncle & Man U -- much more interesting than all this metaphysical wotnotz...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 08:43 AM

We don't often talk about that - imagine growing up in Liverpool with that hanging over you.
My Uncle, Louie (Edwards), once owned Man Un. - don't know much about him - never met him - just that really.
Black sheep of the family.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 09:11 AM

Yeah Jim, a Man U connection? This is terrible news. I don't know what to say. Speechless is what I am. You'll be telling me next your grandad played for Man City. Jaysus...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 10:04 AM

It's very disappointing really, a Mancunian supporting Liverpool.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 10:45 AM

"a Mancunian supporting Liverpool."
Sorry lads - not a Mancunian - born and bred in the Pool
No interest in football whatever - that and the Beatles drove me away from home.
Family story tells of my going into town with my dad on the top of the bus and passing the Everton ground - pointing to the Stand, I asked him what that big building was.
Before he could reply the man in the seat behind said "Eh mate, are you bringing up a ******* atheist?"
More interested in the fact that my Uncle Louie was a crooked businessman rather than what team he owned/supported.
Jim Carroll
Went to a Man City game once (at Fulham) - my mate had to wake me up when it was over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 11:00 AM

Liverpool and Man U connections eh? Why am I not surprised? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 11:14 AM

Well, at least we've got the thread back on to

R E L I G I O N!

≈M≈

Up The Gunners -- tho I've just watched Man U win — Poo!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:28 PM

Yeah, and Liverppol unjustly kicked out on bloody penalties. Damn.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:37 PM

Nothing unjust mate. Cream rises to the top, and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 05:56 PM

As does scum. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:45 AM

True. It looks like Hull will be promoted with us. Except they'll be lazy and not have to go through the play offs first.

Been a few years since I went to Anfield. Came away with points the last time I went, but these days most people say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:42 AM

Sorry lads, 'bout time we drifted back to spiritual matters rather than the important things in life
My and my Uncle Louie's fault entirely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 04:40 AM

Jim it's Steve Shaw who is a Mancunian and I have to say in supporting Liverpool a disappointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 05:41 AM

It's a genetic thing. I come from one of those thousands of families which have an inbuilt and irremovable hatred of Manchester United. I have a grudging respect for City because they have several of my favourite players. Sergio Aguero would get in my world team anytime. And we're grateful for James Milner. Actually, as a lad I went most often to Gigg Lane as it was just up the road from where we lived, but my first love was Burnley in their early sixties glory days, the great Jimmy Mac being my hero. Truth to tell, I just love a good footie match well played. It really can be the Beautiful Game, played on much better pitches than I ever remember and so fast and skilful.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 05:52 AM

I suppose you all know that, as with Glasgow, our two teams are fairly rigidly divided into religious groups.
I've just learned that my Uncle Freddie managed to buy himself a plot in Goodson Park and his urn now rests under the 'blessed turf'
Never been sure how the Church squares that sort of thing with their somewhat jaundiced view of cremation.
Did you know that there are only four crematoria in the whole of the Republic of Ireland - one of the first being sited in the town of Ovens, in Cork - you can't beat the Irish sense of humour!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:22 AM

Yes, strange how cremation was regarded as an abomination until 1963 when the Pope changed his mind and said it wasn't after all. :-). All to do with believing in the resurrection of the body. You'd have thought that resurrecting a pile of ashes would be no more difficult for God than resurrecting a worm-eaten pile of mouldering compost, but hey ho. It's amazing the little things that God can get cross about. I mean, one piddling nicked bloody apple and we're all in the shite for evermore...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:26 AM

And wasn't 1963 the year sexual intercourse was invented? Vintage year, that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:32 AM

Nah, it was the 7th May 1969.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:03 AM

July 4th 1963 at 6-30 in the crypt of Liverpool's Catholic Cathedral
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 09:51 AM

am or pm Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 10:02 AM

Very much pm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:20 AM

Thank Christ for that. I had visions of you illicitly dossing all night in the crypt then indulging in further, er, illicitry before the early morning shift. My mind has ceased to boggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:33 AM

Why is it that some people, seeing a perfectly good thread on religion, can't resist trying to get it closed down by introducing the subject of sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:34 AM

"I had visions of you illicitly dossing all night in the crypt"
How date you? - d'you think I have no respect for consecrated ground?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 11:52 AM

We're running out of room, cremation only 

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 12:38 PM

I prefer missionary, although you need less room playing doggies.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:21 PM

Dave: "Why is it that some people, seeing a perfectly good thread on religion, can't resist trying to get it closed down by introducing the subject of sex."

Because their corporate backers find certain 'religions' a threat to their agendas. They hide it behind 'politics'.

One thing I find rather hypocritical, is that while the 'so-called liberals' love to scream 'racism' and 'bigot', basing it on the part of the Constitution that guarantees 'equality'....they look the other way, when it comes to 'creed'...as in race, CREED or color. They hopped on the bandwagon and venerate Martin Luther King....but stop up their ears, and close their eyes that REVEREND Martin Luther King began his message, FROM HIS PULPIT, in the Dexter Avenue BAPTIST Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and later helped found the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, serving as its first president.

A lot of the phony 'so-called liberals' jump aboard...NOT because of any sense of compassion towards blacks, but because they wanted to 'belong' to something, as a way of recognition for something...ANYTHING...and what they became was the moral equivalent of the KKK of the '60's and 70's when anyone posts a post regarding 'religion'. They will denigrate them, try to discredit them, mock them, change the subject, and try in essence to get the thread closed down....and frankly how a person feels to regard 'God', in any of the concepts, within their own minds, is really NONE of their business!!

But it bugs them. They have to stomp it out...and can't even come up with a good reason why!! They coddle the blacks(and a lot of them don't even know very many of them that they call 'friends'...but just because it is a 'cause' that they can pretend to 'feel important', about.

Some folks may have differences with certain denominations...and certain denominations have brought some of that upon themselves..but the way they are treated, BY those who don't have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about, is, as I said before, the moral equivalent of the KKK!!!

They LOVE to spout Vladimir Lenin...except this one:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the Russian revolutionary who founded Bolshevism which became Soviet Communism, said, "I made a mistake. Without doubt, an oppressed multitude had to be liberated. But our method only provoked further oppression and atrocious massacres. My living nightmare is to find myself lost in an ocean of red with the blood of innumerable victims. It is too late now to alter the past, but what was needed to save Russia were ten Francis of Assisi's" (Letters on Modern Atheism)."

But the history only teaches us that man NEVER learns from history!!!

...and the passage from the Constitution, of which the 'so-called liberals' about 'equality', is based of the Judaeo/Christian concept which the Constitution is based on!!..Thought they will stupidly argue, and beg to differ...but they are WRONG!!

"Wash one's mind of Judaeo Christian connection…it does not exist..it is a trap millions are falling into".

OR you can make the same mistake Lenin chased..until he wised up!!
(See Lenin's quote above).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:47 PM

Sorry guys, I seem to have inadvertently left the door unlocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM

Sorry??...You got your question answered, didn't you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

Corporate backers... Good old Goofus. We make allowances for foreigners you know..

Your sincerely

Musket

In association with Fullards Fish & Chips, purveyors of finest Grimsby cod and haddock, and finest King Edwards from The Isle of Axholme. Open Tuesday to Saturday, on street parking available. Please ask on entry for haddock, pies and fish cakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

Not a clue GfS, whole lot is completely over my head. I know nothing of this Alabama or KKK of which you write. Not my country mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:30 PM

Dave, the KKK is a 'White Supremacist' group, mostly in the South, who hates blacks, and was known for lynching them, among other forms of persecuting them. Just Google 'KKK'...you'll get a disgusting insight.

It's a hate group..you know, like how 'liberals' feel towards Christian 'religions'.....you know, like the Chi-Com feel towards the Tibetan monks...

Musket: "Corporate backers..."

Yeah, the guys who own the media, and the 'party bosses...and about everything you think. They want control of both the money and property, while they remain at the top, and control it all....while pretending it's all 'political'.

BTW, Do you think those guys live like YOU or I do???...or have any plans to do so???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: mg
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

please follow what is going on regarding australian cardinal and abuse survivors and testimony in rome. absolutely profound implications for catholic church. much will be exposed i think, including absolute incompetence, narcissism, criminal orientation of higherups, in terms of thumbing their noses..their ontologically altered noses..at the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

Plenty of liberals feel very positively towards Christian religions, and are indeed part of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:24 PM

"It's a hate group..you know, like how 'liberals' feel towards Christian 'religions'.."
Are you really suggesting thAt liberals want to lynch Christians
Do you have nay evidence of this?
Takes all sorts to make a discussion forum - I suppose
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:45 PM

Jim Carroll: "Are you really suggesting thAt liberals want to lynch Christians
Do you have nay evidence of this."

Evidence??...Just look how they are treated in Mudcat!!

...but, you're right: "Takes all sorts to make a discussion forum - I suppose."

First it starts with 'talk'...and gathering from the 'talk' on here, there is a disproportionate amount of animosity towards Christians on here...from there it escalates...and do we really need that??

There was a time in Germany, that the 'hate rhetoric' was aimed at the Jews...I think it escalated, don't you think?

I may not...no I'll change that, I DO not agree with a lot of the tenants of a whole lot of 'religions'...and unless someone WANTS to discus it, I'll hold forth...but not at all like the ATTACKS, accusations, attempts to discredit, and baiting to close the thread that goes on within predominately 'liberal' groups, as in here.

I'm having a hard time believing that you are not aware of that....so your next post(or someone else's) will be a smear tactic...or maybe she'll just close the thread....which SHOULD be your clue!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:22 AM

Anybody who says they have a faith isn't treated in any way differently to anyone else Goofus. I don't recall any post by anyone to that end.

I do however see what happens when reality is scorned by people pushing superstition or claiming in debate the certainty of impossible things. I for one really lace into the concept of religious organisations trying to control communities or demanding respect whilst abusing vulnerable children and adults.

No. You confuse personal need for a comfort blanket with the rotten corruption that convinces feeble minds of its importance in life.

Nothing to do with any ideology or political outlook. It's god botherers who try to introduce their sky pixies to politics, not normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:34 AM

Oh, just look at the responses to 'pete of 7**'...even Joe Offer has had some 'belittling replies'.....not to mention attacks by YOU, Greg F., Steve Shaw just to mention a few....and though I'm not promoting any particular 'religion', I also get flak, if I comment on 'God', in response to somebody's semi-literate diatribe on the subject...and frankly, I can't believe you are pretending to playing being ignorant regarding this!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:54 AM

"Evidence??...Just look how they are treated in Mudcat!!"
You mean disagreed with - tsk-tsk what a shower of inhuman bastards we are!!
Perhaps you might like to provide examples where it has been suggested that anybody has suggested we should lynch or harm in any way, Christians, or ny other religious group - no? - thought not!!
Haven't been to a good lynching for years.
It is rabble-rousers like your good self who bring about lynchings and persecution
Christians, as with all religion, are persecutors and potential persecutors in the name of their various beliefs and superstitions.
I respect Joe for much he has to say - I do not respect his defence of a church that has done the damage it is done, and is continuing to do - not even when he reduces that defence to "what they say isn't important any more - go and count that many thousands of failies and individuals that have been tainted because of widespread - world-wide, it transpires - clerical abuse.
Or the effects the church is still having on over-population, or sexually transmitted diseases, or the lives off homosexuals,or the education of our children..... or all the other ills of the world that the church still has its grubby hands on.
If you believe that discussion and criticism of that is "lynching", you live in a strange, disturbed world.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Atheist Ideologies.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 03:55 AM

Does anyone have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of atheist ideologies, and imposing those ideologies on neighbouring people, and their own.

Some significant names from 20th Century would be Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:14 AM

There's a gulf of difference between killing people in the name of atheism and killing people because they're atheists. In fact, I don't recall any of your hit-list ever saying that they were coming to get you because you're not an atheist like me. Dictators with expansionist notions kill people to gain even more territory and power. Religion is the veneer of respectability they attempt to cover themselves with in order to convince their own side that what they're doing is right. My view is that many people in history have been killed in the name of religion but that very few actually have been killed because of their religion. There has nearly always been another reason. I dislike all organised religions but if I want to find sticks to beat them with I can find plenty without resorting to dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:32 AM

I might be wrong in this but I cannot recall any of the people on the list saying "thou shalt not kill" which is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:35 AM

"people in history have been killed in the name of religion but that very few actually have been killed because of their religion. There has nearly always been another reason".
.,,.

This seems to me perhaps an oversimplified dichotomy. Surely both sides of this equation are generally present, but in varying proportions. Certain Islamic polities will nowadays execute people for converting to another religion, for instance. Are not both a religious and a politically ideological element involved in such occasions? The same is surely true of all such goings-on, from Christians-to-the-Lions to the Crusades to the Holocaust, Intifada, 6-Day-War....?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:45 AM

"thou shalt not kill" .. a basic tenet of Christianity".

No it isn't Raggy — or there would never have been the Holy Office [aka Spanish Inquisition], Crusades, Reformation/Counter-Reformation with concomitant burnings & hangings, Salem witch trials ...

usw &c·&c ad ∞∞∞∞∞.....................

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:50 AM

Funny that Michael, I thought it was one of the 10 commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:05 AM

It is usually translated as do no murder Rag.
Jesus had no objection to people being serving soldiers. He healed the daughter of a Centurion.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:27 AM

Ahem ...... No, the 5th (or sometimes 6th) commandment states quite clearly "Thou shalt not kill" Full stop, no proviso's included.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:30 AM

Wiki,

"Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, "Do not murder."[46] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, comes from the heart.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

— Matthew 15:19 (NIV)
The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[47] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of "bearing the sword."[48]

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[53] The profession of soldier is used as a metaphor by Paul exhorting the Ephesians to "put on the full armor of God."[54] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[55] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion's servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[56] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:31 AM

PS: I thought it was a centurions servant. Luke 7-9 ESV

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:33 AM

Michael, I will thank you for not misrepresenting what I said. You truncated my remark by starting the quote "people in history" when what I actually typed was "many people in history". Stop pretending you're Keith for a minute, will you.

Keith, ask a hundred Christians what the fifth commandment is. If they don't all say "thou shalt not kill" I'll eat my hat. "Usually translated as do no murder" my arse. As for healing the daughter of a centurion, well she wasn't the centurion, and several other considerations besides. For example, the fact that he didn't do it. Even if he had done, at least he wasn't clinging to the tenet that the sins of the father are visited upon the daughter. Complicated stuff, this biblical morality. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:34 AM

Quite right Rag.
Well spotted.
It was referenced in my last post anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:36 AM

Thats a massive cop-out Keith. Of course he would heal the daughter of a centurion, he would even heal the centurion himself I believe, but that does not mean that he had no objection to him being a centurion. "Love your enemies", didn't he say that? Religion is often invoked as a defence of nationalism, but the consistent Christian position is in my view theQuaker one.

You are right in your earlier post of course that plenty of atheists have been violent murderers too.

Michael, I think that all of your examples are ones in which religion is commandeered as a justification for violence whose real motivation is a thirst for power. ISIS, thats another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:39 AM

As I said earlier there are no provisos in "Thou shalt not kill"

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM

Rag, it has always been understood as "do no murder" since Moses.
The Israelites were constantly at war.

There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[52]

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[53] The profession of soldier is used as a metaphor by Paul exhorting the Ephesians to "put on the full armor of God."[54] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[55] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion's servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[56] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance.John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:43 AM

You can paint it any colour you wish but the commandment clearly states "Thou shalt not kill" FULL STOP.

No ifs' buts or maybes.

As a commandment I quite like that one, I think it's my favourite.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:53 AM

I don't like that one that says I can't covet my neighbour's wife's ass...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:05 AM

Raggy -- as to 'the commandment clearly states "Thou shalt not kill"'

It was not written in English, you silly fellow Raggy; but in Hebrew - a language I learnt to speak quite fluently many years ago, tho now rather rusty. But I will tell you, because I know better than you in this instance, that it contains two distinct verbs: one of which translates as 'to kill' tout simple'; the other as "to kill unlawfully", ie to murder. And it is the latter, not the former, which occurs in the commandment. (English, you will note, similarly contains two distinct verbs, 'kill' and 'murder', for the same two discrete concepts.)

You are going on, as my late first mother-in-law used scornfully to put it, like those who appear to believe that The Bible was always 'bound in black and written in English'. FYO, it wasn't; so stop telling me what that commandment sez, or at least said in its original language -- because I know better than you do, & you have GOT IT WRONG!

שלום

≈M≈

That says, 'shalom'' = 'peace', the standard Hebrew greeting or valediction.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:15 AM

Actually I had a long discussion with a creationist who hasn't posted to the site for a while. They usually say that the commandment says 'thou shallot murder' which is a huge caveat when compared with 'thou shalt not kill'. In particular who gets to decide whether is is murder or not. Again, the answer is usually the state, which gets us onto the interesting position that God can in effect be overruled ny the state in the event of a disagreement. But also many genocides are state approved, so presumably they don't break the commandment. And this doesn't begin to deal with civil wars when it isn't even clear who the state is

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:15 AM

So all those millions of Christians were regaled with a load of background Hebrew when they were made to chant the commandments, eh? As I said, ask a hundred Christians what Commandment Five is. Ask them what they think it means. I doubt that any one of them will start to delve into semantics with you. In any case, let's remember that the story of those ten strictures is a bloody big fib in any case. Tablets of stone from God fetched down by a murderous bastard. He had no taste, this God chappie.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:17 AM

Those creationists do know their onions though... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM

You may well be correct Michael, however in ALL western Christian translations of the bible that I am aware of the 5th (6th) commandment simply states "Thou shalt not kill"

As I said no if's buts or maybes.

The Koran I believe is slightly different in as much as Chapter 17, Verse 33 states "And do not kill the soul which God has made sacred, except in the course of justice. If someone is killed unjustly, We have given his next of kin certain authority. But he should not be excessive in killing, for he will be supported"

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:20 AM

Yes, I noticed that shallot. Damn damn damn damn damn

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:30 AM

So, Raggy, you prefer a widespread mistranslation to an accurate one, and would rather derive your morality thence.

Can't say which I think less of:- your ethical or your academic standards; both appear severely exiguous to me.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:39 AM

Not me Michael, I managed to shake off religion decades ago.

However I am aware of many, many people of a religious persuasion who claim to follow the commandments but then go on to say that this or that killing is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:54 AM

Whatever the translation, the commandment has always been understood by both Christians and Jews to proscribe only murder.
Neither religion demands pacifism, and pacifists have only ever been a small minority of both faiths.

Jesus never suggested that executions or warfare breached the commandment. He clearly understood and accepted that it was only unlawful killing or murder that was proscribed.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:54 AM

Perhaps they are better versed in, or more conscious of, the obvious distinction between lawful and unlawful killing than you are, Raggy? It is idle, and frankly IMO not·right·bright, on your part, to pretend that such a distinction cannot be made by those purporting to follow any particular ethical code.

Sentence of death in the formulaic words when such applied would end with "May the Lord have mercy upon your soul". I don't believe in Lords or souls any more than you do BTW; but that is scarcely the point, is it?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 08:07 AM

The bible is so much a mass of ambiguities and contradictions as to make it totally useless as a moral or ethical guide - on killing, on women, on homosexuality, on acquisition....
Christians such as those on display here are among the first to make use of these in order to ignore all their supposedly dearly held beliefs and stal remain "Christian"
Killing meaning "murder" is a later rationalisation - there is no evidence to suggest it was confined to 'unlawful murder'
Nowhere in the scriptures is the deliberate taking of human life for gain condoned, yet "Christians" have condones mass slaughter for just that throughout the ages - as late as recent threads on Mudcat.
If push comes to shove, we'd be stoning women for infidelity and ripping eyes out as acts of revenge if we were to take this sometimes very beautiful (prior to the latest dumbing-down) work of fiction seriously.
Try telling a Christian he won't go to heaven if he seeks wealth, and see how far you get.
It's a big a joke as appealing to our resident Christians' humanity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM

"Neither religion demands pacifism, and pacifists have only ever been a small minority of both faiths."

Good job really. No religion that espouses pacifism has ever done very well. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:05 AM

"Neither religion demands pacifism,"
Maybe I read about "turning the other cheek" in the Beano when I was young.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:09 AM

I saw quite a few well-turned cheeks in Playboy in my misspent youth, Jim. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:34 AM

"I saw quite a few well-turned cheeks in Playboy in my misspent youth, Jim"
I shall enjoy trying to get to the bottom of that remark Steve
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:43 AM

Misspent youth???
Sounds like a moral judgement, gained by maturing.
So, if it is 'misspent' as you say, maybe there IS something lurking in the back of your mind, or heart, that is consistent with the Judaeo/Christian ethic....how did that happen??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:56 AM

the commandment has always been understood by both Christians and Jews to proscribe only murder.

This is the same class of bullshit, Professor, as your "ALL HISTORIANs" blah, blah, blah"....

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:56 AM

Please step this way Mr Shaw for the analysts couch. Doctor Sanity will see you shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:59 AM

Killing meaning "murder" is a later rationalisation - there is no evidence to suggest it was confined to 'unlawful murder'

If you read what Michael tells us, that is exactly what the original commandment and therefore Jesus' understanding of it was.

Nowhere in the scriptures is the deliberate taking of human life for gain condoned, yet "Christians" have condones mass slaughter for just that throughout the ages

No they have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:08 AM

I know this isn't what most denominations of so-called Christianity practice....but this is what it is about....and I think it SHOULD clear up the squabble about killing versus murder...

I John 3:14-17
"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death.
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
By this we have known love, because He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

GfS

P.S. Methinks a lot of you ALSO have been turned-off by the hypocrisy of 'religions', sorta like I feel about 'politics'....but that is because neither are being straight!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:40 AM

Thank you, Keith.

Raggy & Jim: To what extent have you studied the language in which the Pentateuch was originally written, Hebrew? If not at all, as I suspect, then it is unmannerly and ill-becoming of you to dispute as to the meaning of a passage originally written in it, with me, who have [see again my post of 0705 am.]. All v well for Raggy to go on as if the original isn't relevant, but only the [mis]translations; but it seems patent to me that he is simply making a fool of himself in so doing. There is a tipping-point where sticking to one's guns thru thick & thin ceases to be in any way courageous or impressive, but becomes self-defeating idiocy.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:57 AM

How does all this square with turning the other cheek and where does it say that killing for gain is OK?
As I say - the scriptures are a contradictory mess, and are impossible to adhere to, so quoting bits and pieces out of context (as is your wont) is as meaningless as they are.
"Raggy & Jim: To what extent have you studied the language in which the Pentateuch was originally written,"
Same response to you Mike
I seem to remember reading that it was OK to be wealthy because 'The Eye of a Needle' referred to a gate in Cairo.... or somewhere - commmmme onnnnn - it's all a pin-'n-mix fairy story anyway.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:00 AM

Michael, As Steve suggested earlier if you ask the next 100 Christians you meet which is the 5th commandment 100 will tell you "Thou shalt not kill" Supposing they are actually practicing Christians and not the once a year at Christmas variety.

Like myself they do not read Hebrew and their understanding of it, like mine, is based for the most part on modern western interpretations of medieval translations of the ancient scripts.

Short of everyone learning an archaic language just so we can discuss with you the semantics of a particular phrase I feel I and many others will stick with the accepted translation.

Bye for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:07 AM


Michael, As Steve suggested earlier if you ask the next 100 Christians you meet which is the 5th commandment 100 will tell you "Thou shalt not kill"

They would because the KJ mistranslation is so well known.
Ask them for their understanding of it, and they will tell you the same as I told you.
Jesus did not learn his commandments from the KJ bible!

where does it say that killing for gain is OK?

Nowhere, because it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:20 AM

Can these head-in-sand ostriches not get the point that the belief, universal at one time, that the Earth was flat did not make it so? It doesn't matter how many people think that what Moses wrote was what they should be bound by, when they are in error as to what it was in the first place.

So here's adieu right back to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:21 AM

Jeez!!..I hit the nail on the head for ya' and you are still 'straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:32 AM

The Holman Christian Standard bible: "Do not murder"
International Standard Version: "You are not to commit murder"
GOD'S WORD: "Never murder"
JPS Tanakh 1917: "Thou shalt not murder"
New American Standard 1977: "You shall not murder."
Jubilee Bible 2000: "Thou shalt not murder."
English Revised Version: "Thou shalt do no murder."
World English Bible: "You shall not murder."
Young's Literal Translation: "'Thou dost not murder."
From Bible Hub

Smiting is apparently OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:55 AM

Thanks, Jeri.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:09 PM

"Smiting is apparently OK."
And "turning the other cheek" is to be ignored, I presume?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:15 PM

I've already made my point about the "Christian" attitude to warfare and asked is it ok to Kill for gain - the silence was deafening.
Is there a Christian rulebook to justify when killing is acceptable and when it is not - or do you make it up to suit yourself?
Then we might be able to move on to 'Love they neighbor' for all those "Christians" who want to send them all back from where they came from - or has that been re-translated as well?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:38 PM

I've already made my point about the "Christian" attitude to warfare and asked is it ok to Kill for gain - the silence was deafening.

There was no silence.
In reply to your,
Nowhere in the scriptures is the deliberate taking of human life for gain condoned, yet "Christians" have condones mass slaughter for just that throughout the ages I replied "No they have not."

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:52 PM

I doubt Christians etc have ever interpreted anything. The commandment says thou shalt not kill.

I doubt a mind that believes make believe is capable of distinguishing nuances based on multiple medieval writings that pretend to be translations of fairy stories from a thousand years or more before even they wrote. And they were writing in order to preserve the control over peasants their masters required.

As Raggy said. Thou shalt not kill. Military Padres are a weird concept, same as the sick bastards with dog collars who "officiate" as Americans kill their prisoners by injection.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

The commandment says thou shalt not kill.

No it does not.
Not in the original.
There has been one mistranslation, the KJ Bible, now corrected.
Please read Michael's and Jeris' posts on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:19 PM

Dear oh dear Keith, my fundamentalist connections would have a fit if you suggested that the KJV had mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:56 PM

Yes but theologians writing in the last twenty years who are still alive have formed a consensus 😹😹😹😹

There's something nice about "thou shalt not kill." There's something sinister about qualifying that. The terrorists who are perverting the q'ran would be proud of the fuckers.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:06 PM

'And "turning the other cheek" is to be ignored, I presume?'

I certainly don't think someone should be smitten for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:20 PM

I've seen some cheeks that I've been thoroughly smitten with.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:49 PM

"There has been one mistranslation, "
Isn't that convenient now!!
Not enough Keith - you have been given a list of examples of the slaughter they have carroied out for political power and wealth - I might have added The Crusades - which were simply to open the Trades routs - plenty more of this sort of thing - or the opening up of Empires to 'civilise' the conquered.
Christian Spain wiped out entire cultures in pursuit of gold
Britain took prt in the mass slaughter of entire generations in the name of "God, King and Country"
The Borgias (2 popes among that lot) were masters of war, avarice, rape and murder.
You refuse to respond to the command of "turning the other cheek" (doesn't matter - your silence is as eloquent as your denial) - a clear statement of pacifism - then how about the big Yin's "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword." (Matthew, 26) - another clear invocation of pacifism.
'Christians' like you would give your religion a bad name if history hadn't got there before you.
Hypocrites all - your Gospels are as adaptable as Easter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:10 AM

Now now Jim..   Their bible also says, (so I hear, I could be wrong) that you shouldn't suffer a witch to live.

All you have have to do is define "witch" and the world is your oyster.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:12 AM

Does anyone deny that the commandment in its original form, as it was known to Jesus, referred to murder not killing?
If not, move on.

Jim, Jesus preached love and forgiveness.
Many Christians feel they must be pacifists to be true followers.
Most do not.
Jesus never spoke against the law allowing someone to be stoned to death or otherwise executed.
He never spoke against people who were soldiers, and neither did John the Baptist or Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM

The commandment as displayed and drilled into the heads of people reads "thou shalt not kill"

Whether it was known to someone who may be a historical character (but if so was a human and didn't perform real miracles) or the mythical leadership cult the evidence suggests, is irrelevant.

Whatever such a person may have known, it wasn't written in olde English when he may have read it so your argument lacks logic Keith.

Mind you, logic and sky pixies never made good bed mates.

By the way, the difference between kill and murder is distinguished by more temporal means such as courts and elected governments. Civilised countries dropped the god delusion in such matters years ago.

If Christians don't go for the shalt not kill angle, there's not much point in listening to them eh? interpreting old books to allow you to kill people? Where are we hearing that now? Let's see...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:23 AM

I don't know if some people are just being deliberately contrary.....a distinct possibility..., or just don't get it !   Moses was before king James and therefore the Hebrew text has the original meaning , and Christians are supposed to accept the original meaning, whatever the misleading translation might be since kng James. I did tap out more last night but it did,nt take.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:31 AM

The short version. I think the New Testament used soldiers as analogies in the epistles to illustrate lessons . The soldiers job in those times encompassed policing, civil order, and mail too to some extent I think. I think the early church excommunicated anyone who (willingly?) joined the military but I am not sure on that. I personally think a Christian should be pacifist , but I appreciate that it is not entirely clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:31 AM

"Does anyone deny that the commandment in its original form, as it was known to Jesus, referred to murder not killing?"
Of course - does anybody deny that the other messages from the gospels indicate pacifism rather than the message that the modern day church propounds that it is OK to kill if the state says so, or are you going to continue ignoring those messages? (rhetorical question, of course)
"Most do not."
Don't remember a vote being taken on that one - ever, but there again - you seem to have a direct line to both God and the minds of "most people".
Your arguments are medieval - a step back to the "warrior Popes" that plundered the world for power and gain.
For Christ's sake (pun intended) we are talking about a mythological figure whose "message" has been adapted and manipulated by politicians and businessmen for two millennia to further their own ends - what he "preached" is about significant as the words of wisdom of Fionn Mac Cumhaill or Merlin, or Cassandra any other mythological figure
Your own "message", as always, is the one of the State - in this case, it is acceptable to kill and plunder for gain and political influence.
You and your church hold neither justice nor human life as important as the interests of the rich and powerful, and to serve your agenda, you are happy to pick-'n- mix your own supposed beliefs to serve your own agenda.
As for what most people think - I believe that the vast majority firmly believe it is wrong and evil to kill anybody, have never taken a human life themselves and live under the philosophy of 'live and let live' - the ultimate and over-riding message of pacifism.
We don't go to war willingly - far from it - it takes extreme laws and official threats of death to persuade us to bear arms.
Your presentation of a violent, war-like face of humanity is as sickening as many of your other arguments in favour of a sick political system in decline.
Basically, the Christian 'message' is one of 'Love and Peace' - perhaps the greatest advertising slogan ever.
Are you telling us it is now 'War, conflict and acquisition' - that is certainly your own personal message - you have defended all at one time or another.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:35 AM

So pete..

Let's get this straight. Christians are supposed to know and understand ancient hebrew, are to shun the bible real christians have been using in The UK since er.. King James, and soldiers should be excommunicated.

it's the poor military padres I feel sorry for. Where will they get a job with their lack of real world experience?

Keith! Joe! Is pete right? Is he a christian or are you? He reckons you can't be whilst you think he is round the bend.

I'll get the popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:25 AM

" I think the New Testament used soldiers as analogies in the epistles to illustrate lessons"

But Pete, you don't do analogies... do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 09:42 AM

the New Testament used soldiers as analogies

Absolutely not true, pete- the Bible is the word of God and is litetrally true, word for word.

Had you temporarily forgtten?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:01 AM

He's as boutique and hypocritical as the rest of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:11 AM

Greg, can you ever give it a rest? I'm in disagreement with Pete's literalism, but he knows what he's talking about in this instance. He's not referring here to alleged facts in the Bible that others don't accept; he's referring to instances in which the writer is not narrating, but is instead clearly using an analogy to convey a concept; "sermonizing" in a letter to a church group.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:28 AM

Thank you, frog prince. I was merely contributing to the discussion but some posters are just looking for confrontation. Btw, I don't actually call it literalism but reading according to the genre , and you could see the difference as far as the NT is concerned. Seems some have a harder time doing so !

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:29 AM

But Pete keeps saying it's true. All true.

Any stance other than analogy would indicate the god and Jesus stuff is actually true. No intelligent person falls for that nonsense, not even those employed to perpetuate control over others.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:59 AM

Yes, you contributed to the discussion by saying Christians have to believe the Hebrew bit and that KJV is false.

A sweeping statement like that, which just about every Christian would bristle at isn't "merely" anything but is provocative.

Still, it's all bollocks anyway eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 12:16 PM

Music is (and has been) a highly effective war propaganda vehicle (as religion is, and has been in many conflicts):




war and music 

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:48 PM

Ed T.: "Music is (and has been) a highly effective war propaganda vehicle (as religion is, and has been in many conflicts)."

Propaganda for which?:
__Freedom
__Communism
__Socialism
__Democracy
__Religion
__Monarchies
__Corporate Globalism
__Totalitarianism
__All of the above
__None of the above

It can also be used for healing...and uniting..and inspiration.
HOWEVER, the ABUSE of ANY of the above, can be, and has been damaging.

That all being said, music is a powerful medium, that should be studied, as to what makes it resonate within the souls of man.

BTW, I'm not disputing your post...just want those in here, who are politically, or religiously deluded, to take a closer look beyond their delusions.

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:39 AM

Musket,
A sweeping statement like that, which just about every Christian would bristle at isn't "merely" anything but is provocative.

No.
Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing.
Ask some.
You have family members who are Christian, and a priest I seem to remember.
Prayers are regularly offered for our armed forces in my typical CofE church, and there are Chaplains provided by all the main Churches including Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:02 AM

Islam providing chaplains ................................ there's novel

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:09 AM

GfS, freedom was summed up in song by Kris Kristofferson.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:38 AM

Just about every Christian qualifies "thou shalt not kill"??? Really???

I have an in law about to start his first rector job after two years learning Ancient Greek and how to talk in public. I have a good friend who is a vicar. The former is clever but smiles too much and the latter sees his role as a social worker without rules. Incidentally, he uses the word metaphor rather than the word historical. He can't reconcile metaphysical nonsense with scientific reality but says that doesn't stop his bible being his moral compass.

There again I have a friend who reckons we never went to the moon and is possibly watching repeats of The X Files at this minute.

Military Padres are about as awful an interpretation of hypocrisy as I can think of. I assume their bibles are edited to remove the bits about turning the other cheek and not killing. Although presumably they convince themselves the enemy are gay witches? Both fair game to your all loving, all forgiving, all embracing god delusion.

Talk to pete about pacifism. He's a real Christian apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:59 AM

Sadly Guest,Musket, those aren't repeats, its an actual new series.

I am with Pete on this one, and many Christians are. Not sure its most, but many. Quakers obviously, and the Methodist church is quite close to endorsing pacifism. Then there are individual examples like Bruce Kent, Paul Oestreicher and Rowan Williams.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:03 AM

By the way, club rules dictate I answer for what Musket writes, and I am happy to do so. But it is me with the vicar connections not Musket who Keith quotes.

We move in mysterious ways. Although we don't kill or murder along the way. The other two Muskets have this hypocritical oath thingy and imagine if you could interpret rather than accept that? Oh, some doctors in The USA and other third world countries do. Together with prison chaplains as they work together at executions.

It's the "Christians this that and the other" bits that gets my goat. I'll tether it outside Keith's house when I get around to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:34 AM

This may help, regarding the translation of 'murder' versus 'kill'

...then I guess it's up to your 'political' or 'religious' spin whether you agree, or not....but,at least get it accurate.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:34 AM

"Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing."
More unpublished surveys Keith or did you ask them all personally?
Like many things, even practicing Christians, are not interested in what the gospel says or means - they leave that to the preachers and priests.
Having been subjected to a religious education, I was never told at any time that 'thou shalt not kill" meant anything other than what it said.
The fact that Christian leaders have never adhered to that has basically been ignored, just like the rich man not being allowed into heaven -a bit of long accepted hypocrisy.
There are enough quotes from the gospels to indicate that Christianity as preached was basically pacifist - the wannabe warriors among us have chosen to to either adapt or ignore those quotes which don't fit their own warlike agenda.
Rather typical is your refusal to respond to the ones that have been given.
This is a somewhat strange turnaround on your part
Not too long ago you were blaming the Muslim religion for what a few Muslims were doing - 'implanted'.
Now you are saying that Christianity is a philosophy which promotes killing; as you refuse to respond to killing for gain, I can only assume that this is also part of Christian philosophy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:49 AM

It's alright Goofus. There is no need for confusion. Your bible says thou shalt not kill. It doesn't say anything about murder.

If only Muslims had the PR consultants Christians have? Imagine not having to apologise for the terrorists abusing your faith? Imagine being able to tell people black is white and keeping a straight face whilst doing so?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

Go into any CofE church and find numerous memorials to those who died fighting, and to the glory of their sacrifice.
All beautifully tended.

Methodist church is quite close to endorsing pacifism.

No they are not.
I often attend a Methodist church, my wife's, and they also pray for our armed forces and there are ex soldiers in the congregation.

Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing.
Ask some.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 05:23 AM

..as I just posted: "...then I guess it's up to your 'political' or 'religious' spin whether you agree, or not....but,at least get it accurate"

Are you guys just arguing for the sake of arguing??...trying to rag on Christianity, as an institution??....or actually considering murdering somebody, and just want to find a loophole, that makes it 'alright'???

...Just thought I'd ask.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 06:18 AM

Of course there are plaques in churches. What has that to do with anything? The whole point here is the hypocrisy of organised religion. Dylan's God on our side springs to mind.

I just googled your Ten Commandments. Every hit I checked said kill, not murder.

Luckily for you, your neighbour will look over to your garden and see the goat I'm going to tether in it, and so long as he doesn't confuse it with an ox, he shouldn't necessarily covet it.

Ok, to be fair, elsewhere in it, I'm sure there are loop holes allowing you to kill. After all, three hundred years ago, the bloody code was propped up by a church edict that said man was in the image of God therefore killing a man or depriving him of property was blasphemous.

You can do anything with a concept that you make up as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 06:21 AM

"Btw, I don't actually call it literalism but reading according to the genre , and you could see the difference as far as the NT is concerned."

Very handy! So you can basically use any passage in the bible to support any argument you make? You know The Clangers weren't real, right?


"Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing."

Yay! They can kill with justification! God's on their side! Blast the arms and legs of small children, stick a paveway into a wedding party and STILL get into heaven because it wasn't murder, just collateral damage! Yay!

Up to your nuts in blood and guts and still on the way to sit at god's right hand. Damn, that must feel good.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 06:55 AM

"Go into any CofE church and find numerous memorials to those who died fighting, and to the glory of their sacrifice."
Sod all to do with the scriptures - the various churches are the greatest compromisers on their beliefs - always have been (want to attempt to assess how much the Catholic Church is worth - d'you not think Jesus would have his work cut out throwing out the money-changers of the Vatican?
Chritianity has based its existence on its claimed belief in the sanctity of human life - it's opposition is based on that tenet
Now you're telling us it was all a con (as if we didn't know already!!)
"Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing."
How do you know - do you know "just about every Christian.
The question of what the commandment means hasn't crossed their minds - even if they are even aware of it.
SDon't be daft Keith - you have trouble speaking for yourself , let alone "just about every Christian".
The instincts of just about every human being is probably that it is wrong to kill - our streets would be littered with dead bodies if that were not the case.
People don't kill each other because it is a human instinct not to - sod what either the church or the state says.
But if you want to continue to claim that your religion promotes killing - please feel free - suits me down to the ground.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 07:27 AM

"Just about every Christian understands that the commandment is about murder not killing."
How do you know - know "just about every Christian.

I do know that no Christian denomination except Quakers take a pacifist line, and I knew a Quaker who served in the TA.

Musket, re hypocrisy, did you not marry and attempt to remarry in church, and were not all your children baptised into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:07 AM

"I do know that no Christian denomination except Quakers take a pacifist line,"
That's the Church Keith - SFA to do with "Just about every Christian"
We already know they are a bunch of hypocrites
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:14 AM

No hypocrisy at all, you fool.

As someone who sings traditional songs, I might ask if you are with the Irish republican sentiment in some, or the need to get pissed all the time in others?

I married first time in a church because it was the thing to do. I doubt anybody who is rational actually listens to the "what God put together" nonsense. It's a tradition. Christening is a tradition. I did the Santa Claus and tooth fairy bit too, not to mention getting them reading Tolkien and JK Rowling at an early age.

Mrs Musket is a bell ringer and although not superstitious, gave years of service as a bell ringer at the cathedral, up till going to university and still rings there when visiting family. It seemed logical to marry there. Unfortunately, I'm a heathen due to being divorced so God said no. At the same time, a divorced employee of the cathedral was told God said yes.

We got married in a hotel. The beer was better, the roast lamb beats dry wafers any day and we didn't need the hypocrisy.

You confuse tradition and family with superstition. I was in church singing hymns only yesterday. The deceased believed in God, as did many others of his advanced years, and I was doing it for his widow and the memory of him. As, I suspect, were the rest of us.

A couple of weeks ago I was back at a Sikh temple for the second time, for the equivalent of christening of our friends' latest offspring. I doubt I or any of the other non Sikhs there had a desire to grow our hair round a turban. Chance would be a fine thing in my case.

This assumption that making use of the traditional community service churches, mosques, synagogues and temples offer is somehow to do with believing nonsense is all part of what Prof Dawkins called "the God delusion." You try to rope intelligent people into your mumbo jumbo to hide your own intellectual embarrassment. (That's a compliment by the way.)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:22 AM

This is what the Methodist Church actually says on the subject:

"The Methodist Church teaches that war is contrary to the spirit, teaching and purpose of Jesus Christ. On the other hand Jesus did not condemn the Centurion (Luke 7:1-10) or even Pilate himself for being part of the military arm. Instead he reminded Pilate that he had received his authority from a greater power and remained accountable to that power (John 19:10-11)."

Of course people pray for soldiers in Methodist churches, as they pray for the sick, for victims of natural disasters and for sinners. And of course there are ex-soldiers as there will be ex-burglars. Possibly even ex-murderers, even by your definition. That doesn't mean they endorse war.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:34 AM

Keith always has had trouble in distinguishing the difference between church and laity - pretty much as he has with British politicians and the British people as a whole
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:40 AM

With the Methodistchurch, United Reformed, and many other reformed churched, the laity are the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 09:06 AM

Gosh 😱 Are you sure that's what the Methodist church says??

Only I was all up for believing Keith.

You can't be too careful.

As the actress said to... Etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 09:17 AM

Greg, can you ever give it a rest?

Either the Bible its the incontrovertible "Word Of God" or it isn't.

It can be sort of the word of God - kinda like being "a little bit pregnant", dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 10:26 AM

"The Methodist Church teaches that war is contrary to the spirit, teaching and purpose of Jesus Christ.

So does every other Christian Church, but it is not pacifism.

This is from a CofE site,
"5. In just war theory, criteria are set out for the legitimate resort to warfare. A war
must have a just cause, be waged by a proper authority and with a right intention,
be undertaken only if there is a reasonable chance of success and if the total good
outweighs the total evil expected (overall proportionality). It must also be waged as
a last resort and in pursuit of peace. Criteria are also set out for the conduct of war.
These are discrimination (avoiding intentional harm to non-combatants) and
proportionality of means (using such force as is essential to pursue the just cause).
6. Just war theory does not constitute a Christian ideal. The application of just war
theory is a Christian practice, not a doctrine. It is reflected in international law, but
for Christians who accept it, it is an expedient response to the challenges of living in
a fallen world."
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1376267/defence%20policy%20may%202010.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 10:30 AM

Musket, you excoriate all religions and ridicule people of faith, but you are happy to indulge in Christian ritual and prayer when it suits you.
Seeing that as hypocrisy does not make me a fool Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 10:44 AM

I'm incredibly tempted to ask Keith how be squares that just war theory with the activities of the Israeli regime that he so vehemently defends, but I'm not going to. It might be better for him not to call other people hypocrites though.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 10:51 AM

"This is from a CofE site,"
Church again - not people
The probably would have come up with a similar statement regarding acquisition
Are you really trying to present your church as a bunch of killers?
Fine by me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 11:05 AM

Dave, this is what the Methodists say about pacifism.
The bit you left out.

"The Christian pacifist does not necessarily condemn the use of every kind of force, but refuses to employ force unaccountably or to destroy others, for example in either personal or State violence.

The Christian non-pacifist does not justify every war, but reluctantly recognises that violence (force) may be used when authorised to defend against aggression, to rectify a breach of a boundary, or to restrain or replace a 'notorious and tyrannical' despot. The Church upholds the right of individual members conscientiously to choose between these positions, and offers pastoral support to those on both sides of the debate."
http://www.methodist.org.uk/who-we-are/views-of-the-church/peace-and-war

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 11:08 AM

Jim,
The probably would have come up with a similar statement regarding acquisition
They do not.
Are you really trying to present your church as a bunch of killers?
No.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 11:10 AM

Steve, I discussed the actions of the IDF in terms of International Law, not Christian principles which I accept most here do not share.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 11:52 AM

"They do not."
Yes they do - it is not a sin to gain wealth in the Christian Church - christ told his followers to take their possessions and give them to the poor, he threw the money-changers out of the temple and told the rich that they had about as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel would have trying to pass through the eye of a needle... go down a bomb with today's christians
The 'Big Yin' would find himself banged up as a raving red if he preached that today.
Go read your bible and stop stupidly denying things that the rest of us have known since we gave up the tit.
You are saying that what purports to be a pacifist religion (Christianity, that is, can't speak for you particular sect) selectively advocates that it is fine to kill some people.
I asked for a a list of who it was OK to kill - and answer came there none - just waffle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 12:12 PM

Indulging in the tradition for the sake of others is hardly hypocritical, you oaf.

I used to be in a band with a melodeon player who played for his local Morris team. Is he a hypocrit for using cow shit and fertiliser on his vegetables rather than rely on the good fortune in the dance?

If I happened to be a Christian, should I have snubbed our Sikh friends by saying it would be hypocritical to attend their temple? Or even better, should I have murdered them for not being Christian? After all, we can't be hypocrites can we?

There is no hypocrisy if you don't believe in all that bollocks. Just decency in supporting others in their need and enjoying traditions. Which, I might add, is the main reason some people go to church in the first place. Mrs Musket isn't religious but on Sunday, when we travel down and take her mother out from the nursing home for Mother's Day, she will take her to church (whilst I go for a walk, there are limits...)

Just think, if normal people took heed of your hypocrisy confusion, churches would all shut because they all depend on marriages, christenings and funerals for existence, and if normal people didn't turn up....

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 12:13 PM

Interesting link gfs, . Tekton apolologetics do some thoughtful stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:04 PM

Keith, yes they offer pastoral support to those who espouse both, and uphold the right of individuals to hold either view, but the position of the Church is fairly clearly one not the other. A bit like the position of the Anglican Church on gay priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

Tekton apologetics are a bizarre outfit. Or, really, a bizarre individual. This is he.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:10 PM

And Pete, before you leap to his defence, he doesn't think that much of fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:41 PM

Dave,
the position of the Church is fairly clearly one not the other

No.
Their position is, as you said, ""The Methodist Church teaches that war is contrary to the spirit, teaching and purpose of Jesus Christ."

As I said, that is the position of all Christian Churches, and mine.
I am not pacifist and nor are the Methodist Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:46 PM

As I said, that is the position of all Christian Churches, and it is also my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:54 PM

"The Christian pacifist does not necessarily condemn the use of every kind of force, but refuses to employ force unaccountably or to destroy others, for example in either personal or State violence"

I wonder consider the most important phrase her is "OR DESTROY OTHERS"

That is do not KILL them, you can put whatever spin you want on it, as you no doubt will.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:55 PM

Keith states the position of all Christian churches.

I'll bet he hasn't even heard of some Christian cults, let alone state their position.

After all, Pete is Christian and he states something very different to Keith's assertion. Poor Keith can't even state the view of Christians on Mudcat let alone the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:35 PM

the position of all Christian Churches

You bet, Professor - just like your "All Historians" & etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:45 AM

Boy!!..The bigots are out, and alive and well on THIS thread!!

BTW, I checked with a guy today, who reads, writes, and can speak Hebrew, went to Hebrew school, and is pretty straight with his answers..doesn't know about the argument going on in this thread....and wouldn't care if he did.....and he said that, in the Hebrew text, it definitely refers to murder, or murder for gain.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:17 AM

"and he said that, in the Hebrew text, it definitely refers to murder, or murder for gain."

Excellent news! So you can murder for the joy of it and still get to sit at the right tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?

Is this the sort of bilge the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic moral code is built on? No wonder the world is so utterly fucked and full of needles misery, and explains why they're all such violent lunatics who at the very least are passive in the face of the mindless slaughter their creeds condone.

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:48 AM

Keith states the position of all Christian churches.
I'll bet he hasn't even heard of some Christian cults, let alone state their position.

The teaching of Jesus are quite unequivocal, and can only be seen as stated.
He preached love and forgiveness.
"The Methodist Church teaches that war is contrary to the spirit, teaching and purpose of Jesus Christ."
It is not just the Methodists.
That is my position and that of any Christian Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:49 AM

My first re-action to reading your hateful babble, was to ask, 'What the fuck are you frothing about'?...but then, it was quite apparent....nothing, just bitter meaningless babble....encased within the frothing foam around your mouth.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:50 AM

Cross threaded:

My post was directed at Stu.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:06 AM

"He preached love and forgiveness."
And once again you choose the bits of your religion which suit you and ignore the bits that don't.
The modern-day church has rationalised and adapted the Christian teaching to suit their own political agendas which is why it is in the moral mess that it is today - today it flies in the face if its own teaching by serving two masters 'God and Mammon'.
You deny that you and your church support killing for gain - perhaps you would care to respond to the examples given.
It is "Christianity" such as your that has made the church and your religion non-event that it has become - 'more power to your elbow' as they say in Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:08 AM

The Catholic Church is moving closer and closer toward pacifism. I've heard tell that Pope John Paul spoke out 52 times against the first Bush war in Iraq. And the Catholic Church no longer approves of the death penalty, and it has more-or-less disposed of the "just war theory."
Self-defense is still permissible, but only as a last resort.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:41 AM

Well I condemned the Iraq war. I condemn the death penalty. The just war theory is a ludicrous contruction and I'll use self-defence only as a last resort. Am I a pacifist? Not a bit of it. Less of the non-sequiturs, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:43 AM

Musket, Keith definitely does know of the Quakers, there is a Meeting House in Hertford for a start, and they have a proud and long-held position of refusing to fight in wars. They set up the Friends Ambulance Brigade and not only Quakers, but many other Christians will join that rather than fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:41 AM

"just bitter meaningless babble"

Whoooossssshhhhh! Again.

The only religion that has any credence in my unasked for opinion is Buddhism, which is centred around compassion for all living beings (and dominion over none) and selflessness. In fact, Zen buddhism is a quite remarkable philosophical system that still seems along way ahead of western medicine when it comes to understanding the mind and how it works.

In fact, you can be a Buddhist without even believing in a jot of the supernatural baggage that comes along it. It is a truly life-enhancing way of living, and quite compatible with science too.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 01:10 PM

Jim,
And once again you choose the bits of your religion which suit you and ignore the bits that don't.

So, which bits do you claim I ignore?

You deny that you and your church support killing for gain - perhaps you would care to respond to the examples given.

Of course I deny it.
What examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 01:38 PM

"So, which bits do you claim I ignore?}
Try -"Turn the other Cheek" - it's been up several times
Talso - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
Both of these are indications of built-in pacifism.
I've pointed out the contradiction contradiction between the gospels opposition to acquisition and the Church; attitude
Only getting started with these 0- you have yet to respond to one.
I've asked you a number of times if it's ok to fight wars for territory or political power - no answer
"What examples?"
These ****** examples - which you have already been given.
I gave you a whole list of such wars - a denial they happened
Here they re again - all endorsed by the Church:
You have been given a list of examples of the slaughter they have carried out for political power and wealth - I might have added The Crusades - which were simply to open the Trades routs - plenty more of this sort of thing - or the opening up of Empires to 'civilise' the conquered.
Christian Spain wiped out entire cultures in pursuit of gold
Britain took part in the mass slaughter of entire generations in the name of "God, King and Country"
The Borgias (2 popes among that lot) were masters of war, avarice, rape and murder.
Now - cut the crap and answer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,dave
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:24 PM

Jim, I think the problem is in the refusal to throw off the baggage of the medieval mindset. You may stop reading here and say that the Church is the baggage of the medieval mindset, but it doesn't have to be. The conflation of the church with the authority structure probably dates from Constantine the Great, often it is thought that Constantine introduced Christianity to the west, but he did no such thing. He appropriated Christianity as part of his power structure, and it has remained so to this day. After him, the schism between Rome and Byzantium, in 1054, all the business with Henry VIII and his daughters, right down to the seats of the bishops in the house of lords, these are examples of Christianity being manipulated by people of power, not the other way round. The problems in Ireland for goodness sake, and you know more about this from first hand than me. And people of power need wars. The problem that the church has, and there are many honourable exceptions, is in refusing to reject that explicitly. And I don't mean a particular church, all of them, or most of them, with exceptions such as the Quakers, such as Bonhoffer, such as Huddleston.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:20 PM

"medieval mindset. "
I think it's a bit more fundamental than that Dave.
The Church, rather than being a source of spiritual guidance, is little more than an arm of the State - on hand to lend a hand in wars, if necessary, or to pacify civil disorder..... and more or less anything it is called on to do.
The Church of England was deliberately created by England's head of state, Henry VIII in order to guarantee his and his heirs' position as rulers of England
I think Joe is right to a degree, that in some ways the Catholic Church is becoming more liberal, but I'm not sure whether this is enlightenment or simply pragmatism, in the light of ongoing the clerical abuse scandals and especially what happened in Ireland with the same-sex referendum - unthinkable even a decade ago.
I think the Bishop of Dublin hit the nail on the head when he said that the referendum result was a "wake-up call for the Church.
I noticed while thumbing through the internet that there are a number of substantial calls from progressive groups for a return to "the real meaning of the gospel".
It will be interesting to see if they have any success, and if so, what the reaction of the various hierarchies will be.
Interesting days, eigh - I knew a lot of lapsed Catholics who would have loved to have loved to see it!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:35 PM

I asked a real Christian yesterday.

He said it states "thou shalt not kill"

Not satisfied, I did another search. Seems it says "thou shalt not kill."

It's been a few years since Jim was on the throne and time enough for edits, yet the latest print seems to say "thou shalt not kill."

In English

Oh and my vicar friend? I recall that after a reading from the pulpit he ends with "this is the word of God". After reading from KJV.

Good enough for me. Stop lying Keith. Stop pressing random keys Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:41 PM

OK Musk. Just go on believing that the Bible was written in English & bound in black & dropped from heaven on the Archbish of Cant's head in 1616. & we all hope it keeps fine 4U.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:16 PM

Musket, ask them what it means.
Everyone gives the KJ quote, but anyone who cares knows it is a mistranslation.
It is a fact not a lie that the original Hebrew is mistranslated in the KJ bible.

Jim,
Both of these are indications of built-in pacifism.
No they are not. I subscribe to both.

I've asked you a number of times if it's ok to fight wars for territory or political power - no answer

The answer is no, and I do not need to answer for events many hundreds of years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:56 PM

The only religion that has any credence in my unasked for opinion is Buddhism, which is centred around compassion for all living beings

Except Muslim living beings in Myanmar it would appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 07:31 PM

"No they are not. I subscribe to both."
Yes they are -it is inbult in wahat they say - it is wrong to kill,,(no qualifications)
The answer is no, and I do not need to answer for events many hundreds of years ago."
Yes you do - Christianity didn't start last week - it is what its history has made it.
The massacres that took place in Spain and Chile were not "hundreds of years ago" - Chile took place during my adulthood and Spain was happening during when I was an adult.
The oil wars that Britain is supporting are to ascertain that cars are filled up at the best profitable price - is that acceptable to you as a Christian?
If it is wrong to kill for gain, is it not equally wrong to trade in arms for profit?
Britain is the 6th greatest arms trader on the planet - for profit, trading to despots and human rights abusers unconditionally - their arms minister has admitted the same.
Can we assume that you, as a Christian condemn that trade?
That'll be the day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:31 AM

I don't believe that any more than Michael or his nurse. The point is, Christians are taught to...

The bible is the bible. That it is based on a series of even older scripts is at the same level as the fact that most of the stories in it are borrowed from earlier religions. There is nothing authentic about any of it really, not even tattered texts stored near the Dead Sea. It was compromise and borrow to begin with so not much point in finding a convenient real one, is there? Churches in The UK use KJV in the main and if not, then a version written since.

In English. Oh, and vicars, who buy into it far more than Mudcat's pious idiots, say it is the word of God. Wrong again eh Keith? The big guy with the beard contradicts you (or you him in terms of pecking order eh?)

Oh, and it says thou shalt not kill. Out of interest, the difference between kill and murder is set by secular authorities such as parliament and the judiciary. So it isn't within the brief of churches to distinguish on this moral point in the first place, as they render such matters to Caesar.

"Anyone who cares knows it is a mistranslation." On that basis Keith, 99% of Christians don't care. Your minority hobby just got a whole lot smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:18 AM

Musket, Christians do know about that mistranslation.
It is an indisputable fact that the ancient Hebrew text, as learned by Jesus, proscribed murder not warfare if just. The Israelites were constantly at war from the time of Moses onwards.

Jim,
If it is wrong to kill for gain, is it not equally wrong to trade in arms for profit?

Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords.

Yes they are -it is inbult in wahat they say - it is wrong to kill,,(no qualifications)

It IS qualified. See above.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:26 AM

dave: "....Jim, I think the problem is in the refusal to throw off the baggage of the medieval mindset. You may stop reading here and say that the Church is the baggage of the medieval mindset, but it doesn't have to be. The conflation of the church with the authority structure probably dates from Constantine the Great, often it is thought that Constantine introduced Christianity to the west, but he did no such thing. He appropriated Christianity as part of his power structure..."

BRAVO!!!

dave has broached the heart of the disillusionment, of WHY people think of 'Christianity' as the power structure of an organized 'religious' body of rules, liturgies, control, dogmas and 'costs of subscribing'!!

As the teachings, and effects, resulting from those teachings began to spread out from Judea, its influence was beginning rival Rome's.

In 333 A.D., Constantine defeated the Turks at Istanbul, and came back with the story that he saw a cross in the sky. This was a way to co-opt the spreading influence of Christianity, and incorporate it into a part of the Roman Empire. They incorporated many of the 'pagan' rituals, and beliefs and merged them with an 'adjusted interpretation' of Christianity, and made a state form of the Roman Empire with Christianity part of their ruling religion...sort of a Church/State governing body.

The extent of the Roman Empire, included parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Italy, and extending up to the British Isles, Greece, and up towards Russia...pretty much all of Europe.

The FIRST Roman Empire, was just that...The Roman Empire....when they co-opted their convenient interpretation of Christianity, the Roman Empire became 'The Holy Roman Empire'..and instead of a Caesar, their figure-head, they replaced it with a 'Pope'...who acted in the same capacity...but now had 'God on their side'....and an infraction of the law of the 'state', now became a 'sin'..if you will..and punishable by fines, and servitude, even the confiscation of property as 'penance'.....One could give a 'tithe' to work off time, in a place they invented called Purgatory, called an 'Indulgence'...and if you had enough 'Indulgences' to your name, you might not have to spend hardly any time there, at all!!

...all this was a most effective way of maintaining control of the Empire.

That lasted about 1000 years, commonly referred to as 'The Dark Ages'. Reading a Bible would have been strictly prohibited....as well as the fact that there were none, UNTIL Gutenberg invented the printing press, around 1450, and began printing them....so the Empire-State/Church banned them, and forbade ANY interpretation, of them, or the gathering of groups who wanted to read and discuss..or even pray within those groups, unless it was in concordance, with a 'State sanctioned 'priest'. Hardly ANY education, inventions and so on, happened during this time...BUT, there was an 'Inquisition'...gotta stamp out ANY 'heresies' arising from any interpretation, of ANYTHING about 'Christianity' that wasn't under the authority of the 'Pope', as maintain its ironclad rule over their 'subjects'.

When Martin Luther began his studying and teachings, this became a major 'unraveling' to the Holy Roman Empire....and subsequent protests arose...as did different interpretations...hence, the word 'PROTESTants'. There was now a schism,(or schisms) within the binding force of the HOLY Roman Empire. Also Henry the VIII, wanted to divorce....and that was forbidden by Rome, so he split from the Roman Church, and from having the Pope as a Supreme ruler, over him...you guys know the rest about that.....HOWEVER, all these 'newer' denominations, arisen out of rebelling from Rome, formed their reformed churches much in the order and pattern of what they had been accustomed to...for centuries!!!...sort of a variation of a theme.

Now a brief word of the two..The Roman Empire, and ORIGINAL Christianity..... The 'Roman Empire', later 'Holy Roman Empire' still yearned to re-united, and become a world power...unite, and re-claim their now lost territory and rule. The word 'Reich' as in the Third Reich, literally means, 'realm of the Emperor', specifically the Roman Empire. (Here...see....) The Second Reich was the German Empire...and we all know what the Third Reich was....AND as you read above, the control of the Roman Empire territory, happens to 'co-inside' with the designated expanse of the Axis powers.(see above)

Christianity, in it's 'original form' was completely different...AND the reason the were even called Christian, was not exactly because it was some sort of a denomination, but the word originally meant 'Christ-like'....and the earlier 'church'(if you will), consisted of a lot of their believers, whose BEHAVIOR exemplified obedience to the command of LOVE...and many of them seemed to have 'powers', as a result of their adherence to 'Loving God above all things, and your bother as yourself'.....and it was RAPIDLY gaining in popularity....so much that Rome saw it as a threat!!...and the power that some of these followers were exercising, were blowing people's minds.....and many of the original eyewitnesses of Jesus, some who got dialed into what it was, gave up their lives, unto martyrdom, rather than blow off what they saw, and had 'access' to. ...so it must have been a lot heavier version, than what was passed down, after centuries of a co-opted version, which basically was powerless, beyond the State's enforcement!!

That being said, and not to go on much further, and contrary to Roman Catholic dogma, the original apostles and disciples of Jesus was not about an instituted, organization....but rather an 'organism', one living manifestation of God, incarnate...complete with love AND a knowledge and understanding of how the elements of the 'unseen' worked, and as a result, included many of what people called 'miracles'.

Here's an interesting example....Jesus wasn't teaching that 'if you were good' you'd 'go to heaven'....never found in his quotes, never found in any of the letters...but what WAS being taught, and shown, was that, 'heaven is coming to us', so wise up, get your acts together and utilize love in a way that results in some amazing, and unexplainable things, called 'miracles'..but in actuality, just a given 'side-effect'.....not a goal...just dealing with the properties
of a fuller awareness of who and what we are.

GfS

P.S. Sorta makes it fathomable of why today's ideological sense of materialism, and the control over it tends to discourage people who want to 'believe' in a power other than the state approved variety!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:51 AM

"Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords."
Doubletalk Keith - Jesus condemned acquisition and did not in any way condone "killing for profit" as you are now doing
So now it is acceptable to kill for profit - for the record do I have that right?
I would just like to have that on record.
SFA bout "killing for profit"
You have yet to respoond to your "Christian morality" on the Arms trade
Your weasling doublespeak is typical of that of your religion - dishonest and brutal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:35 AM

So now it is acceptable to kill for profit - for the record do I have that right?
No. You are completely wrong and wilfully so as ever.

Jesus condemned acquisition

Jesus did not condemn trade.
A carpenter invests in tools and timber to make a stool which he sells for a profit.
Likewise a fisherman or a vintner. They have to keep their families and save for further investment and to see them through hard times.

Who would He be advising to buy swords from but an arms dealer?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:47 AM

Right.

One one side we have Joe Offer, who has studied such things, pete, who thinks I don't like him but I admire his lack of hypocrisy if not his grasp of reality, and all the normal rational people who have contributed.

On the other, we have Keith and Goofus.

Are we going for beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probability here?

😇😇😇

Thou shalt not kill.

It doesn't apply to me by the way. I prefer let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:57 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" is not the commandment.
It is a mistranslation made in just one version of an English bible.
The ancient Hebrew says "murder" and so do the Greek tanslations.

That is an indisputable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:09 AM

Hmmm..... GfS, a few problems of detail. Constantine saw a vision of a cross in the sky in 312, before the battle of Milvian Bridge, which was against a Roman rival, Maxentius. It was in Rome, not Istanbul, which was in any case called Byzantium then, before Constantine renamed it Constantinople in 330. The Turks in the 4th century were still in central Asia, present day Turkey was divided into a number of Greek speaking states, the successors of Alexander's empire.

Constantine was not a nice man. He boiled his wife in a hot bath on the orders of his mother. Mothers-in-law can be troublesome things.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:16 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" is not the commandment. It is a mistranslation made in just one version of an English bible. The ancient Hebrew says "murder" and so do the Greek tanslations"

Do you ever do any reading before posting such nonsense? "Thou shalt not killed is quoted in the following: 1. Septuagint version, 2. Philo version, 3. Samaritan Pentateuch version 3. Jewish Talmud, 4. Augustine version, 5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 6. Lutheran version, 7. Reformed Christian version. There are possibly other versions as well.

Sheesh !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 08:06 AM

"No. You are completely wrong and wilfully so as ever."
You said
"Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords."
You linked Jesus's words to profit profit and swords - all in one line
Doesn't really become plainer than that.
You are now using the Gospels to support the arms trade - I really didn't think I'd live to see the day.
"Jesus did not condemn trade."
He condemned the accumulation of personal wealth - he threw those who practiced it out of the temple and he said rich people would not be allowed into heaven - absolutely unequivocal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:06 AM

On the other thread, Joe Offer who has studied theology says Keith is wrong too.

Come to think of it, Christians say "thou shalt not kill" Other than Keith, (who lets face it says WW1 veterans didn't understand what they went through till modern "historians" ripped their accounts into shreds because they weren't patriotic enough,) no Christian seems to say the bible is wrong.

Perhaps that's why normal people aren't superstitious. We aren't capable of keeping a straight face.

I'm not anyway.
😅😅😆😆😆😂😂😂😂
😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹



😸

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:10 AM

Murder is the act of killing,if the commandment is thou shalt not murder it is surely equally applicable to all acts of killing,not the ones that suite.
Killing other people is punishable under human laws,religious law be it Jewish,Christian or Islamic seem to have get out clauses.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:03 AM

Thou shalt not murder is a modern retionalisation of the original 'thou shalt not kill'
If it is a correction - it took a thousand years or so to correct - a correction of convenience, I would say.
If killing for profit is wrong, Keith should be prepared openly to say so.
If arms sales, which is in fact profiting from those killing for profit. Keith should be prepared to say so.
So far, he has attempted to link Christ's words about having his followers with swords (for defensive purposes) with the arms trade
Christians eh - who'd 'ave 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:04 AM

Raggy - what is the "Jewish Talmud" doing in your list of 0716? Think that was written in English, do you?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:28 AM

If the issue of killing and morality is expanded to include all of huuman history, much of the nit-picking debates above are easier to resolve.

   Throughout the ages humans have "killed for gain". Our cave dwelling ancestors did.... Alexander the Great did... Ghengis Khan & the Mongols did... the Romans did. The list is endless.

But, as civilizations grew, it became obvious (to some) that indiscriminate slaughter for personal or political or cultural gain had problems. Some 'resolved' the issue by adopting moral creeds based on supposed religious themes, some (like Kant) by simply arguing that it was not **rational** to "do unto others" what you wouldn't want "done to YOU".
   Obviously, "killing for gain" still occurs in many forms - both by individuals and by groups who rationalize about their 'privileged status'. What this means is that ... hold on to your hats... **morality is subjective**. It is relative to circumstance and culture and religious belief and other such categories. Yes, certain passages in the Bible were , and 'killing' and 'murder' were sometimes considered identical and sometimes carefully separated.... according to culture, specific religious affiliation, and personal circumstance.
   There is obviously a set of rational reasons for society to define and regulate what, if any, 'killing' is permitted ... and by whom: but no universal agreement as to what the definitions & regulations should contain or who should define and regulate them.
Should capital punishment be permitted at all? Should it be left to legislatures & judges, or be a matter of voting by the citizens? (Cue 27 pages of ranting debates).

It is fairly easy to clarify what ancient texts said about killing & murder, and various of you have done that.... but it is NOT easy to proscribe which interpretation OF those texts should be universally accepted---- simply because we silly humans all are able to rationalize and make decisions based on subjective criteria!

All of us are subject to certain laws about killing & murder, but we all know those laws are often ambiguous ...and even when fairly clear, are not always fairly applied.

This thread was begun to ask about religion, but I just tried to make the point that religion MUST be seen in the larger context of historical analysis to even begin to understand what it all means.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:41 AM

But cut through the waffle Bill and we are left with pseudo Christians on Mudcat saying "thou shalt not kill" is wrong and the bible needs correcting.

Make of that what you will, but it came from someone who plays with his toy soldiers, says the men who were sent over top in WW1 were well led and that when Israeli militants commit terrorist attacks in Palestine, hospitals and schools are "legitimate targets."

I would say we all have a right to an opinion but this bugger reckons all Christians know the bible is wrong. The snag is, the others on here who claim also to be Christians seem to think it means thou shalt not kill.

Yet use words such as boutique or pick n mix, and they all get a bit shitty about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 11:10 AM

Thou shalt not murder is a modern retionalisation of the original 'thou shalt not kill'

No. The original commandment was unequivocally against murder, and that is how Jesus would have known it. Later mistarnslations can not change that fact.

If killing for profit is wrong, Keith should be prepared openly to say so.

I do, and have said it.

If arms sales, which is in fact profiting from those killing for profit. Keith should be prepared to say so.

Arms should not be sold to regimes that do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:07 PM

Well Musket, whether those above are pseudo-Christians or direct descendants of Jesus himself, all *I* can reply to them is long OR short versions of the points I just made.

They are doing their picking & choosing according to subjective interpretations... whether their subjectivity was drilled into them from childhood or chosen from a "one from column A and one from column B" list that they 'think' they perused carefully. The very act of choosing ... even choosing to choose "none of the above"... presumes subjectivity. I have tried since about the age of 16 to decide 'rationally', but it could be argued that is itself a subjective choice. (I think I can combat that notion, but to those who have already picked one from column A and one from column B, MY arguments are just my 'opinion'.)

It is all a matter of comfort levels and how badly they need answers to questions that some of us don't believe HAVE answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:27 PM

when Israeli militants commit terrorist attacks in Palestine, hospitals and schools are "legitimate targets."


Nobody is as monomaniacal about Israel as British and Irish Jew-haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM

Jew haters are those who equate criticism of Israeli crimes with blaming the Jewish people - by officially definition
It first appeared as such in the Revised English Bible in the 1960s
You have yet to respond to killing for profit - especially in arms selling, which is profiting from those who kill for profit.
Your silence indicates that you are in favour of that one - another bit of the bible kicked out of the window.
You are once again indulging in selectivity
Another bit of pacifism for you to ignore
"The LORD will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore."
That's unchanged throughout all editions of the Bible
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:25 PM

Well bill, whether Christians pick and choose does not alter what the original text says . I suspect musket is deliberately trying to wind keith up . I think it's known as trolling ! The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing. There may be disagreement on the parameters of those areas , but that is the basic meaning. For myself , I don't think it right to kill in war, or execution b but as I earlier said I accept there are arguments for the opposite stance. It is my view , not necessarily of my church.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

Well Pete, what is crucial about picking & choosing is whether anyone chooses to accept a literal meaning in whatever the 'original' text said. Many pretty devout Christians treat the biblical admonitions as guidance, not commands.
I think it is interesting that YOU take a view that might not be exactly what your church believes. To me, that is just another indication of the subjective nature of most people's moral decisions. (I assume you would allow... or at least forgive... killing in certain instances of self-defense or defense of your family.)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:06 PM

Oh, here we go again. The man who calls people Jew haters. But who is way too lily-livered, and way too bloody thick actually, to name names. Very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 01:52 AM

Oh I don't know Steve, I had a post deleted during the night it seems, where I challenged such crass assertions. Bruceybaby and the moderators mirror the state of Israel and being propped up by Americans.

Nice to see that pete can ignore his bible and teaching too when it suits him. As he did so in order to address my point, perhaps I should feel flattered?

Like I said. Thou shalt not kill. It isn't difficult and it's what schoolchildren "the length and breadth of the land" had drilled into their heads in RE classes, and what every vicar and priest in the country says to their parishioners, being apparently the word of God.

Me? I am delighted to find that having never picked up a bible (I did prop up a noisy hotel bed once with a Gideon bible, although the noise from the other occupant of the bed made such matters superfluous,) I seem to know what it says far more than those who will be smiling sanctimoniously later today at their church.

I believe they use KJV as s bible. Therefore, thou shalt not kill. If any Christian sect in The UK use scrolls written in Hebrew, Attica etc, then maybe they can distinguish but the small number of Christians that exist in The UK are conversant with thou shalt not kill.

These dozy buggers are trying to say the bible they use is wrong. If it were, there would be a memo to all staff with erratum pages to staple to relevant pages.
😴

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:51 AM

I have from time to time, despite disappointment with the way Israel turned out despite the youthful hopes of my generation, challenged various correspondents who have seemed to me to allow anti-Israel expressions to fall over into a more generalised antisemitism, by citing that part of the 2005 definition of antisemitism by the EUMC {The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia}, regarding "the practice of disguised antisemitism masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel". As Steve has called for the naming of names, I will mention Jim Carroll as one such correspondent that I thus engaged some time ago, as he may recall. Jim developed an unfortunate (imo) habit of dismissing my denunciations of Israeli present-day policy as'lip-service', but never attempted to explain to my satisfaction his grounds for such a pejorative and to-my-mind offensive denigration.

Not sure that correspondence ever came to a satisfactory conclusion, and have no desire to renew it, as we have since remained on generally OK terms, with only a few lapses, iirc. But I hope Steve will nonetheless regard this as a reasonable attempt to conform with his 'name names' challenge & injunction.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:55 AM

Over the lest ten to twenty years, most Christian denominations have abandoned the (1611) King James Version (we Catholics never used it). I believe the Gideons now distribute the "Today's English Version" (Good News Bible) from the American Bible Society to hotel rooms.

I thought the Seventh Day Adventists were very conservative, but a couple of weeks ago I heard a SDA minister advise people not to use the KJV unless they regularly speak Elizabethan English.

---

Bill D says: Many pretty devout Christians treat the biblical admonitions as guidance, not commands.

Well, Bill, that doesn't apply to the Ten Commandments. They're pretty basic standards. Most of us don't consider shellfish to be an abomination any more, though - the Jewish dietary laws don't have the same importance as the Ten Commandments. I think most denominations take a fairly commonsense interpretation of the Bible nowadays. It's not really "pick and choose." It's more a "use your head" principle - don't do (and don't believe) things that don't make sense.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:38 AM

I have no idea why you have raised your extremely inaccurate to the point of dishonesty accusations of my being a closet antisemite here - but I am disgusted that you do so.
You, like other closet Israeli regime supporters, select the bits of the 2005 definition that suits you and ignore the bits that don't.
You claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic, yet choose to ignore the section that says identifying the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people as a whole is antisemitic - which has become the standard get-out-of-jail card for that regime's horrendous behavior.
The Israeli regime has betrayed the Jewish People as far as I'm concerned and them who support them have allowed themselves to be part of that betrayal.
In misusing the definition the way you have makes you no different than Keith, who uses the bits of the Christian Gospels that suit him while deliberately ignoring the bits that don't.
I really don't wish to continue this and will be disgusted if you7 do.
An extremely disappointed Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:01 AM

Pete:

"Well bill, whether Christians pick and choose does not alter what the original text says . I suspect musket is deliberately trying to wind keith up . I think it's known as trolling ! The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing."

Legitimate killing??? I didn't expect that from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:02 AM

Is that addressed to me, Jim? [What has happened to your cookie BTW?]. If so, I think you missed the point that I had stressed that my recollections, which were intended merely as a response to Steve's annoyance that nobody seemed willing to 'name names', were way back in the past and I had no wish or intention to rake up past controversy for any other reason than to respond to Steve. Swallow your 'disappointment', Jim, simmer down, and come back to present time.

Tho, as you have raised what appears to me a new point which you didn't, to my recollection, make back then, I should be interested
(purely becoz I am like that guy in Dickens who 'wants to know, you know')
as to what essential parts of the 2005 definition you consider that I [to hear you tell it] so tendentiously omitted, and what may have been their relevance.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:31 AM

Just to clarify, Dave , legitimate as per other peoples pov, and Old Testament times as sanctioned/commanded by God.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:54 AM

He sanctifies and commands? No end to his talents eh?

You know Michael, when I was last in Israel a few years ago, a business acquaintance reckoned that those who portray criticism of Israel as being anti Semitic play into the hands of those who wish to perpetuate anti semitism.

By talking like an old fool, you merely give credence to a state that deals with its real issues by being as rogue as those who oppose its existence.

There again, perhaps "like" was a bit too kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:00 AM

"The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing."

Legitimate killing? Seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:03 AM

"so tendentiously omitted,"
" yet choose to ignore the section that says identifying the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people as a whole is antisemitic "
Not omitted at all Mike - try to keep up.
Sorry about the Cookie - will sort it out later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:44 AM

My remark was addressed to the anonymous guest-coward, Michael, who sticks his ugly masked head above the parapet occasionally, bleating that he needs his anonymity so that we'll address the point, not the man, then he starts calling other people names such as Jew-haters. And if ever I encountered a man who is the very opposite of a Jew-hater, it's Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:11 AM

I have got a bit confused among several different discourses. Shall leave this thread for a bit while everybody gets tempers back.

≈M≈

····though would add for the sake of today's duty Popgun:-

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be..

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:51 AM

Joe Offer says: "Well, Bill, that doesn't apply to the Ten Commandments. "

But Joe, the point was about one of the commandments which suffers from mistranslation. If 'kill' used to mean 'murder', then indeed *many* Christians would properly accept the admonition as basic guidance, and "use their heads" about when to apply it.

Even I, as a non-religious sort, see the list of 'commandments' as generally good ideas that, as historical text, have a place in Western culture.¹ I personally find better expressions of them in other formats, but when I do so, I recognize the basic concepts as pretty universal.


1. (Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals" for example)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 10:18 AM

"I recognize the basic concepts as pretty universal"

This is an interesting point Bill makes. The values in the Ten Commandments are shared across cultures and civilisations widely distributed both geographically and temporally. It seems that as a species our moral codes are dictated by a set of values that are very deeply embedded in virtually all human societies.

Why might this be? It's possible that these values confer an evolutionary advantage on us as a species; the survival of the species within a society of very social animals such as Homo sapiens requires some controls and these could be encoded in our DNA. Unlike our close relatives, we have developed ways of communication that allow us to record and transmit these values over many generations so we have records of them from millennia past.

What's even more interesting is it remains to be seen if this is an effective evolutionary strategy for ensuring long-term survival of the human lineage. Quite possibly it isn't, as we cannot control our numbers, preserve our resources, stop killing each other in the name of superstition or greed, trashing the planet to the point we're altering the entire climate and having the wit to develop sustainable and non-polluting forms of energy capture.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 10:38 AM

Killing is evil but can be legitimate in self defence or to prevent killing.

Musket,
Like I said. Thou shalt not kill. It isn't difficult and it's what schoolchildren "the length and breadth of the land" had drilled into their heads in RE classes,

No. No churches or schools would use the KJ version with children.

what every vicar and priest in the country says to their parishioners, being apparently the word of God.

No. Few use the KJ version and they still call it the word of the Lord.
Ask your vicar relation.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

"Killing is evil but can be legitimate in self defence or to prevent killing."
Where does your support for the arms trade or for killing for profit come into this.?
Please don't claim that you don't support either - your continued refusal to commit yourself indicates that you do, even if you won't actually commit yourself to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 11:55 AM

What the Church of England says about the versions of the scriptures that are suitable for use during worship.





https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/lect/scriptver.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,gits
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be..

No further correspondence will be entered into.

_______________

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement. Ronald Reagan

_______________

R.I.P. Mrs. Ronald Reagan

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:14 PM

S'right, gits - Just Say No.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 03:04 AM

So Keith reckons school children in The UK weren't taught the commandment as "thou shalt not kill."

You couldn't make it up.

Although he seems to have done so.

(Nice to see Michael has a word processor. I assume there is a risk assessment in place?)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 03:40 AM

Keith:

"No. No churches or schools would use the KJ version with children. "

In a UK context this is probably true, but I know that in Australia, and I suspect also in
the USA, there are churches which will not allow any other version, believing the translators as well as the writers to have been divinely inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:29 AM

I think there are some churches in uk that only use the kjv , like the strict baptists, but I don't think they would claim the translators were inspired in the same way as the writers .

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Sedayne D'Voidoffolk
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

I don't think they would claim the translators were inspired in the same way as the writers

Poppycock. Even old irreligious atheists (like me) might reference their cherished family copies of the KJV for the poetry / folklore / tradition / continuity of the thing, although (and call me an old purist if you must) when it comes to the Psalms I'm a BCP man every time - Purcell's transcendent setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 being a case in point, likewise the first two verses of Job 14 (from the Funeral Sentences), neither of which have quite the same intimacy in their later KJV counterparts.   

And talking of intimacy, the joys of anal sex as so deliciously described in the KJV Song of Solomon (5:4) excites more of Bowlder than bowel on the part of modern translators unable to cope with this so manifestly unXtian procedure.

The KJV remains, in this day, as inspired as it is inspiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stanron
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:32 AM

Did anyone see the documentary on William Tyndale? I don't remember the actual figure but the conclusion was that the KJV was 80 or 90 per cent Tyndale. Perhaps all the poetry and inspiration started there.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 06:14 AM

Blimey, all this squabbling about a little sentence. Bodes ill for getting any agreement on all the rest of the Good Book. All these versions too. I have some ancient Bibles handed down and a Gideons jobbie that my Catholic school gave to me (was that allowed?). I need them in order to prove that stuff gets quoted to me out of context and to show these Christians when they're breaking their own rules. All this confusion though. As the Bible is the word of the Almighty, you'd have thought that by now he'd have popped down for a minute to clear it all up...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 06:20 AM

And I would infinitely prefer it if no-one opted to move their bowels in my general direction thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:00 AM

It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe. It is therefore little wonder that they often appear so odds with themselves.

With the exception of Pete. (of the seven stars variety) His belief in a literal translation is frankly balmy but does have the appeal of being consistent.

The remainder seem to want to have their cake and to eat it They also seem to want keep it for themselves, share it with others, bake another one just in case or put different fillings in as the filling they do have doesn't match with their expectations of what they though was in it in the first place.

No wonder the poor buggers often seem so confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:31 AM

The KJV only movement.


A more balanced viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:52 AM

I hope you are not suggesting ambiguity like this is confined to religion, Raggytash. What would half of the lawyers do if written law was clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:56 AM

It seems to me as an atheist that 'to James or not to James' is fairly irrelevant to this argument.
While not in any way accepting the mythological side to religion, a philosophy which preaches brotherly love, tolerance (to a degree), anti-violence, fairness to all and opposition to acquisition and greed.... is a fairly reasonable way to conduct ones life.
It is when politicos take and distort that message to justify the opposite, that I begin to doubt its value.
Arguments such as some of those put up here and the stubborn silences on what I believe the key points of Christian philosophy cause me to ha'e ma doots.
It isn't really Christianity that raises major problems, just those who claim to be Christians but deliberately choose to misuse it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:37 AM

Call the fucker what you like, all the ones here say thou shalt not kill.

Sheesh.

Keith says otherwise. That's the issue here. Does the bible used by the few hundred thousand Christians in The UK say anything different?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:42 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 07 Mar 16 - 08:00 AM

"It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe. It is therefore little wonder that they often appear so odds with themselves."

Jim Carroll - 07 Mar 16 - 08:56 AM

"It isn't really Christianity that raises major problems, just those who claim to be Christians but deliberately choose to misuse it."

Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:07 AM

"Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true."
If you mean that they are true for both religions, I agree.
All religions are open to abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM

"If you mean that they are true for both religions, I agree.
All religions are open to abuse.
Jim Carroll"

Exactly - so why has this thread been all about Christianity?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM

Musket, the commandment was specifically against murder.
I am sorry the KJ's mistake has caused you so much confusion, but we Christians have known about it for a very long time.

Jim,
Where does your support for the arms trade or for killing for profit come into this.?

Of course I do not support "killing for profit!"

There is nothing wrong with a responsible arms trade.
Every nation is entitled to arm itself against attack.
Few can manufacture everything they need.
Where does Ireland get its weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:18 AM

Surprisingly for once I am in full agreement with you. When we get someone who follows Islam we will see what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:19 AM

Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true.

Cue the shrieks of "Islamophobe".

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:20 AM

I should have also pointed out Terri that the opening post from my good self did, in fact, refer to ALL religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:27 AM

"Cue the shrieks of "Islamophobe"."

Cue the opportunistic shrieking of our anonymous coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:45 AM

"We Christians have known about it for a very long time."

We UK citizens who did RE at school know it says "thou shalt not kill."

Christians say "thou shalt not kill." They used to put it on placards in the 1950s and stand outside prisons when people were being hanged, back in the days before civilising influences lifted us above barbaric practices.

When I pop up into the church ringing chamber from time to time to update the ringing educational software (abel) I walk past a poster with the commandments on. Guess what? It says "thou shalt not kill."

You do talk bollocks Keith.

"We Christians.." 😹😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 11:29 AM

"Of course I do not support "killing for profit!"
Then condemn the examples you have been given from the Crusades to modern day oil wars
"There is nothing wrong with a responsible arms trade."
According to your Christian doctrine - which specifies killing for defence, it does
Where is there a let-out clause that allows profiting from weapons of death?
"Where does Ireland get its weapons?"
What the **** has this got to do with anything?
"Every nation is entitled to arm itself against attack."
I'm not referring to weapons for defence - I am talking about selling weapons to the countries Britain does without discriminating - Assad's Chemicals or armoured cars or sniper ammunition - or to Qdaffi, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain -
if you support selling them to such people - have the balls to say so; if you think it is responsible to sell to them, have the balls to say so - if on the other hand, you agree with that nice Mr Cable, who admits Britain sells weapons to states with bad reputations as human rights abusers - condemn such sales - or remain the hypocrite you are.
You have studiously avoided doing so so far
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 11:55 AM

"Exactly - so why has this thread been all about Christianity?"

a) It's the dominant religion in the societies of the folk discussing religion here, most of us were raised as christians so no surprise it dominates the discussion.

b) It's the world's largest religion.

c) As one of the three Abrahamic religions, it shares many texts, characters and values with Judaism and Islam.


Simple, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 12:16 PM

Bill D has suggested that choosing religion from a n array of religions is subjective. Most people are not given a choice.

I was raised with total freedom regarding religion. Some might say that decision by my parents in itself was subjective.

I believe my experience was authentic when it came to exploring the subject and it's home turfs. I became a follower of 6 different religions to compare and contrast over 8 years of discovery.

I did not end up where I began.

At first, prior to surgery, I had to claim a religion for the wristband. I wrote Humanistic Humanitarian.

Today I would write pan consciousness humanitarian.

Am I a hypocrite? Yep. I eat animals but am cutting down.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:58 PM

My children hopefully got the same as I did. The ability of how to think, not what to think. It appears my granddaughter has similar.

Read that script from christenings that Keith shared. Just read it and fucking weep...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:15 PM

You're not a hypocrite if you eat animals. Lions, cheetahs and bird-eating spiders are not hypocrites. Eat animals that have been reared in a way that chimes with your good conscience. If your conscience won't allow you to eat meat, that is very respectable, though my view is that you may be misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Joe at the W#omen's Center
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:22 PM

Raggytash says: It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe.

It would be silly to insist on one and only one translation of the Bible. Translating just doesn't work that way, because words in one language don't translate directly into another. To do a scholarly study of a translation, one needs two or three reputable translations to get a fairly clear understanding of the original. Better yet, the scholar should know the original language of the document.

There is only one accepted edition of the Quran, and that's in Arabic. There's good reason for that - a translation can only be an approximation of the meaning of the original document.

But the Bible was never meant to be an incontrovertible document, and I can't think of any part of the Bible that is written in legal language - or even in theological language. It's a collection of stories, exhortations and sermons, poetry, and other literary forms - all scrambled together. It's meant to tell the story of a faith, not to be a doctrinal statement. It's meant top inspire, not primarily to be a legal directive to be followed exactly.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM

Interestingly, we were at her relatives for lunch on Sunday. As he is to be ordained this summer, the conversation led as ever to the only subject he knows, religion. (I've tried football, guitars, beer, knit one bloody purl one, you name it but he can't help trying to get his sister and I into his hobby cum profession.)

I can't recall the context as I frankly wasn't that interested but because of this thread my ears picked up when he said the college approach had been that you will always find two conflicts in especially the Old Testament, and reading the Ancient Greek scripts will only exacerbate this. "But between two conflicting statements lies the truth."

I chirped in with pointing out that in my thesis on a completely different subject, the truth may not be derived from either of two publications you may wish to cite.

Then I looked down and carried on eating my pork.

Oh, the carnivore sub topic? It's alright, my dentist says we can eat meat. Either we evolved that way or the little baby Jesus made us that way, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM

"But the Bible was never meant to be an incontrovertible document, and I can't think of any part of the Bible that is written in legal language - or even in theological language"

What on earth are the 10 commandments if not explicit directions?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:49 AM

Yeah, so explicit that some idiots on here are trying to find loop holes in them. The best being that apparently it doesn't say "thou shalt not kill" after all.

It isn't the hypocrisy that makes me laugh, it's the wriggling and squirming when hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:11 AM

I'll say one thing for this and the Zika threads, they've confirmed any doubts I had about Christianity as a religion. It's wide open to interpretation (even the nature of the bible is disputed in this thread - a compendium of stories and poems or a literalist manifesto), the nature of organised Christianity is oppressive in nature and worst of all, it's OK to kill people sometimes.

Regardless of what Keith says, this wasn't what I was taught when I was in church as a boy and I resent being lied to, although not as much as I resent people telling me it's OK to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:16 AM

Joe, Guest at 03.35 was I

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:21 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" vs. "Thou shalt not murder".....does this mean that manslaughter is ok?

All religions/ideologies suffer from being misused and perverted by those with power-orientated agendas. Texts are selectively read, what doesn't suit the agenda is either swept under the carpet, openly denied or twisted to suit according to the principle, "I know what Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Karl Marx really wanted to say." The perpetrators have no qualms about setting themselves on a par with said prophets or even God, and possibly even above them. Cue Phil Collins "Jesus he knows me- and he knows I'm right......."

Of course there's the attitude of many Europeans who claim to be christians regarding the refugees, be they christian, moslem or whatever, fleeing civil war and IS in Syria and Iraq - "Love thy neighbour, etc."?, The parable of the good samaritan'? Never heard of
them...............And that's without pointing out that all the east european states participated in the Iraq war - Poland was one of the invaders -and are therefore share responsibility for the rise of IS and the iraqi part of the resulting refugee problem along with the UK and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:06 AM

The original commandment, as it was known to Jesus, was to do no murder.
That is a fact. Unequivocal. Indisputable.

A young child would not be very aware of the difference between murder and killing, nor would they need to be.
A questioning child would say, "But what about...." and the distinction could easily be clarified.

Never at any time has it been held that taking a life can never be justified as a lesser of evils.

Jim, give any example of killing for profit in modern times, and I will condemn it.
I also condemn indiscriminate arms trading with nasty regimes, but every nation needs to equip its armed forces and that requires trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

It all goes back to what I and many others were taught as children, even you Keith. We were taught "Thou shalt not kill"

Now unless you went to a very progressive school you were taught the same. For centuries we have understood "thou shalt not kill"

Until this discussion I, for one, had never heard of "Thou shalt not murder" I suspect few others had either.

I have sent an email to my mate the vicar to ask her what she now teaches. I will ask my mate the Bishop later, if I see him.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Sedayne D'Voidoffolk
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:36 AM

And I would infinitely prefer it if no-one opted to move their bowels in my general direction thank you very much.

Abrahamic orthodoxy shits on us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:06 AM

"A young child would not be very aware of the difference between murder and killing, nor would they need to be."

You know sod all about what I was taught. I was still going to church in my teens and know full well what I heard. Over the years we went to CoE, Methodist and finally an evangelical free church (which i quite liked) and at no point was the interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ever questioned. Or in school. Ever.

Obviously for some people the fact you can't blow children and other innocents to bits is problematic when you support such action, and you'll lie to yourself to justify your own bloodlust. Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:42 AM

Illuminating children with white phosphorus flares then blowing them to kingdom come, or killing teenagers with remote control sniper fire, or killing over 300 children in a few weeks, are the lesser evils of what, I wonder.

Oh yes, I forgot. Ramshackle rockets that killed 30-odd people in fifteen years...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:59 AM

"and the distinction could easily be clarified."
It is always an act of evil to take a life that you cannot replace and no child should ever be taught otherwise.
There are circumstances when taking lives is unavoidable but it is never ever morally acceptable and the idea that you should teach children that is is is equally unacceptable.
I take it you are not going to explain your justification of profiting on the taking of lives by selling instruments of killing to whoever will buy them
What does the Bible say about trying to serve God and Mammon?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 09:30 AM

Can't help yourself eh Shaw.....Sieg Heil!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 09:55 AM

I still wouldn't mind knowing whether there's a bit in the Bible that advises us how to decide which of two evils is the lesser. I suppose someone decided that incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was less evil than an evil that hadn't even happened yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:15 AM

"Can't help yourself eh Shaw.....Sieg Heil!"
THere you go again Brucie - you can't stop denigrating the Jewish People by blaming them for Israel's war crimes and atrocities.
Go read the definition and stop painting targets on innocent people - there's too much antisemitism in the world as it is..
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

Hadn't it? Occupation of Singapore with no previous declaration of war, followed by Sook Ching massacre? River Kwai? POW starvation camps?..........

Och-me a "hadn't happened yet"!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:36 AM

Jim,
I take it you are not going to explain your justification of profiting on the taking of lives by selling instruments of killing to whoever will buy them

I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required.

Others, unless you are a pacifist, then you must accept that resisting evil with lethal force is sometimes necessary. Consider the gunman on a school shooting spree.

Targeting children is never justified, and I do not know why you accuse me of thinking it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:51 AM

Steve,

I still wouldn't mind knowing whether there's a bit in the Bible that advises us how to decide which of two evils is the lesser. I suppose someone decided that incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was less evil than an evil that hadn't even happened yet.

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:57 AM

Now unless you went to a very progressive school you were taught the same. For centuries we have understood "thou shalt not kill"

I suppose I was, but I always knew that it did not forbid my parents and relations fighting Nazism in WW2, so that must have been discussed and explained.
Any kid would question that lethal force could never be used to prevent greater evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:03 PM

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them.""
Then we agree that the British policy on selling arms to whoever will buy them is evil - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:46 PM

British policy is NOT "selling arms to whoever will buy them."

It is the most restricted of any nation.
Here are lists of the very many countries that Britain refuses to supply.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/current-arms-embargoes-and-other-restrictions

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:57 PM

Suppose you know a social psychopathic disgraced ex policeman who murdered unarmed black kids and sold hard ball ammunition to African nations. Naturally he is a veteran.

What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 01:48 PM

Ignore the idiotic troll, Jim. Have asked the mods not to invoke Godwin's Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:04 PM

Keith:

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required."

Well if the discrimination of a particular country is such that it involves selling them to
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, then its pretty useless discrimination in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."

Apart from the majority of nations in the world, who don't sell arms to anyone at all, because they don't even manufacture them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

I've had a response from my mate the Vicar, I've known her for over 40 years. She, and her husband are people, I deeply respect, admire and love.

(she's a beautiful singer and her husband is pretty mean on a guitar by the way)

She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

She did go on to say that she believes people get their just reward, in this life or the next, which leads me to ponder whether that some people on this forum may be in for a bit of s shock.

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:38 PM

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

It does not.
Would your vicar stand by and watch someone stabbing her children, or stop them.
Either way, it is her personal position and does not make it a lie to hold a different one.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:00 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."
It sells to terrorist States and Human rights abusers
Didn't think for one minute that you were going to fess up
You are a Hypocrite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:20 PM

"<<>>

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision."

So it's ok to vaporise thousands of people in a few seconds as long as you didn't ask the God Squad first. This is getting quite amusing, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:38 PM

Steve, why raise purely political issues in a discussion about religion and the commandments?
That decision does not reflect on any faith or church, so why raise it?

Jim, read what Amnesty says about the "Big Six" arms trading nations and then explain why you always and only single out Britain.

"Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, the UK has nonetheless supplied arms to countries where there is a substantial risk that they could be used to commit serious violations of human rights."

"In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support an Arms Trade Treaty covering human rights. With France it helped establish the EU code that has now become the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, the starting point for UK policy positions on the ATT. It also co-authored various UN General Assembly resolutions between 2006 and 2009 leading to the current negotiations. The UK has generally supported the Golden Rule and has progressive positions on the treaty's scope and implementation mechanisms (for example backing robust transparency measures). "
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2012/06/big-six-arms-exporters/

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:23 PM

Raggytash says: I've had a response from my mate the Vicar...She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

Hi, Raggytash. I'd generally agree with that, but then I wonder about situations where a person is called upon to defend himself, his family, or another innocent person. Is it never justifiable for a police officer to kill a person who is in the act of shooting others?

According to the system of moral theology I was taught in seminary, I would call killing "objectively evil" - in all circumstances, a life is lost. But there are circumstances where killing is necessary to prevent greater harm, where killing is the "lesser of two evils."


What about situations like that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

Situations like that require a judgement as to which evil is the lesser. The judgement may be relatively simple (kill a man who is rampaging through a school shooting children) or it may require someone to play God. I asked Keith about whether the evil of dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians was the lesser evil than one which had yet to occur. In my view, that was playing God because you were presuming the future occurrence of an evil that might never have happened (and not least because there were alternative ways open that could have threatened the regime in Japan that wouldn't have involved all the carnage). But Keith thinks that killing of that sort isn't covered by commandments. Well I think that an injunction not to kill, or not to murder, whatever slant you want to put on it, that doesn't cover the deliberate immolation of thousands of innocents isn't worth the tablet it's inscribed on.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:23 PM

The George W. Bush administration had a term for its rationalization of its invasion of Iraq, but I forget what the term was. They claimed that since Iraq had amassed "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. invasion was justified. Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet, but the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated.
What name did they give to their rationalization?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:41 PM

You so called "Christians" are ................. words defy me ......... they really do..................

Peace, Love, Understanding.......... do any of you have ANY concept of the meaning of these words ??

I am so saddened that my fellow man, my fellow folkies, people who I would have hoped would have shared a common sense of humanity with myself can be so evil.

I can think of no other word to describe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 08:12 PM

Rationalisation for starting a war (which will always without exception involve killing innocent civilians, a blatant violation of the fifth commandment) is commonly effected by demonising your enemy, illustrated so well by Orwell in "1984." We have the Axis of Evil, the Great Satan, the Hun, the Evil Empire; we blame groups for outrages without evidence (think of how many groups got it in the neck for 9/11 or for the Lockerbie bombing), we associate our enemy of the moment with negatives such as WMDs (doesn't refer to Russia, Saudi, Israel, Britain or the US, does it?), we coin phrases intended to form indelible negative associations such as "Islamic terror", etc. Everyone agrees that public beheadings are brutal, inhumane and obscene. The handful committed by Islamic State are banner headlines around the world. The hundreds committed every year by Saudi Arabia hardly get a look-in. But then we need their oil and their custom in our weapons industries...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:56 AM

See??...If only people would just "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"...you wouldn't have such futile 'discussions' about guns, killing, what the 'true definition' of OK killing versus murder, abortion, politics and churches......and why nobody will listen to your music.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:14 AM

Steve,
But Keith thinks that killing of that sort isn't covered by commandments.

Yes Keith does.
I said that the decision was taken on political not faith grounds, and it was.

Dave, I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime, and do not approve of arming them.
The decision to sell to them is again political and no faith, church or commandment had any bearing on it.
Again, why raise spurious arguments in a discussion on religion and the commandments?

I

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:58 AM

"The George W. Bush administration had a term for its rationalization of its invasion of Iraq, but I forget what the term was. They claimed that since Iraq had amassed "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. invasion was justified. Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet, but the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated."

Joe on another thread you take Donuel to task for posting and presenting information as fact that is incorrect.

Initial identification that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq was a thread to the stability and peace of the region predates the administration of George W Bush by almost two decades.

UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC Inspections and reports indicated what WMD Iraq MAY BE HOLDING There were no statements of fact made about possession of WMD by Iraq, there were statements related to what the leaders of numerous countries believed Iraq might be holding and producing.

President Bill Clinton pushed through the Iraq Bill in the summer of 1998 that made "Regime Change in Iraq" official US Foreign Policy.

The attacks of the 11th September 2001 showed the world how vulnerable states are to asymmetric attack by anonymous terrorists. The US Security Agencies joined up the dots to assess that any such future attack supported behind the scenes by a hostile regime that possessed WMD or WMD material and knowledge could be catastrophic on a much larger scale.

As for "Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet" - Incorrect - The primary reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the undeniable fact that under Saddam Hussein Iraq had failed to meet the terms and conditions of the ceasefire Iraq had signed up to in March 1991 at Safwan. In 1945 had either the Germans or the Japanese failed to meet the ceasefire terms agreed with the Allied powers then the fighting would have resumed.

In March 2003 Iraq was invaded in order to establish and put beyond doubt once and for all in a verifiable manner that Iraq possessed NO WMD, NO WMD capability and had NO means of delivering WMD.

"the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated."

No they didn't, the previous Clinton Administration did, all 19 of the USA's Intelligence and Security Agencies did, the Joint House Security Committee of the US Congress did and, whether you wish to accept the fact or not, the truth remains that the findings and recommendations of the latter two would have remained exactly the same irrespective of who had won the 2000 Presidential Election.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:10 AM

"In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support an Arms Trade Treaty "
The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people - in defending them you are defending those crimes.
Your god isn't in heaven - he sits in Westminster issuing licences for weapons to be used in killing for profit and oppression.
Your 'Christianity' ignores some of the most profound and important teachings of the Christian doctrine - making you a hypocrite.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:20 AM

That Terribulus seems to be supporting the creation of vacuums seems somehow logical. Given the one between his tabs.

Nice to see Keith admit he learned "thou shalt not kill" after all. Although if you can forget such a simple statement as a Christian when even I, a rational person can recall it did seem a little odd.

Joe keeps insisting that you can't paint all members of the same cult with the same brush. Seems so, but it also means the term "Christian" has no base, no way of identifying and no common creed. Ditto other cults of course, but it is the Christian cult that tries to influence our society most. Sunday trading is being voted on again I notice. Notwithstanding concerns of worker exploitation, the undercurrent of the day belonging to an entity has raised its head again. Fine, but for the majority of the people in The UK who are actively religious, Friday prayers are the order of the day. Luckily, Muslims in secular societies don't insist on rational people being affected by their special day in the same way Christians do.

What is obvious is that the mindset that can ascribe reality to fantasy objects are also unable to distinguish between interpretation and translation. Hence Keith's insistence on "mistake in KFV" rather than differing interpretations.

There again, he says Jesus understood it to mean murder, so no hope really when you invoke a fictitious character in your attempts to push a dubious point.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 04:21 AM

Joe Offer, preemptive war, as in, Carthago delenda est!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 04:52 AM

"The decision to sell to them is again political and no faith, church or commandment had any bearing on it."
Your refusal as a Christian to condemn the sale of arms to despots by your Government has every bearing on you as a claimed Christian. equivalent to the biblical 'Passing by on the other side' or 'washing of hands'.
What your elected Government does is done in your mane and supposedly in your interest - you have the duty, if not as a Christian, or as a human being, at leaset as a voter, to speak out about the support of despotic governments.
In refusing to do so, you have allowed our politicians to put blood on your hands.
Apart from all this, Britain is recognised as a Christian Country, even to the extent of giving clergymen a voice in the running of the state via The House of Lords - you cannot separate political decisions from s
spiritul ones in those circumstances.
I've never had any great problems with other people's beliefs and superstitions - my problem has always been with the Church.
I've always looked on Christianity as a fairly passive, largely harmless mob who at least pay lip service to brotherly love, peace and compassion.
It's always struck be that if Christians lived up to their suppoesed belifs the word would be a much netter place
If your brand of warlike and predatory Christianity is anything to go by - did I get that one wrong!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:11 AM

And I might add, totally uncool

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
Your 'Christianity' ignores some of the most profound and important teachings of the Christian doctrine

No it does not.
Why do you always get so personal and emotional. Why not just discuss the issues.

The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people
Amnesty disagrees. Examples please.

Musket.
Nice to see Keith admit he learned "thou shalt not kill" after all.

Nothing so simplistic.
Christians know what is meant, or none could serve in the forces or as US police officers.
We know that the commandment does not rule out ever taking a life whatever the circumstances. Just murder.
You atheists have just got it all wrong as ever.

Hence Keith's insistence on "mistake in KFV" rather than differing interpretations.

The original Hebrew is there for all to see and quite unequivocal.
You atheists have just misunderstood, as ever.

Jim again,
Your refusal as a Christian to condemn the sale of arms to despots by your Government has every bearing on you as a claimed Christian.

But I do condemn it, as I keep saying!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:53 AM

"The original Hebrew is there for all to see and quite unequivocal.
You atheists have just misunderstood, as ever"

Those atheists were probably all brought up as Christians. They are only quoting the commandment they were taught.

It is the churches position that has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 08:13 AM

"Why not just discuss the issues."
The issue is religion - you have decided to take part in this and you have shown yourself to be more interested in defending the non-Christian (by your own admission) sale of arms to despots than you have honestly defending why you believe it is a correct thing to do as a Christian nation.
"Examples please"
You've been given them over and over again - the sale of weapons to despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia an Bahrain at the time when the Arab people were seeking to free themselves of those despots.
The sale of arms to both sides of the conflict in Libya.
The sale of ammunition, riot control equipment and other military goods at the time Assad was shooting down thousands of civilians on the streets of Homs - also the sale of chemicals capable of being used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
You defend this openly and have done for as long as it has been an issue.
"But I do condemn it, as I keep saying!!"
Where have oyu specifically condemned the British Government - nowhere - on the contrary, you have made excuses as to why they are maybe not as bad as others.
It doesn't matter a tuppeny damn who else sells them - the British Government represents
"Amnesty disagrees"
UTTER NONSENSE
Other opinions
ARMS SALES TO DESPOTS
Now lets have your list of those who say Britain isn't selling arms to killers !!!
Christian my arseum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:34 AM

Rag,
It is the churches position that has changed.

No. The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified.
Otherwise American Christians could never become police officers.
They do, in huge numbers.
Likewise serving in the armed forces.
Christians have had to think about such things.
Atheists do not.

It is well understood that it is murder that is always wrong.
It is no sin to use lethal force if needed to protect the innocent, and never has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:41 AM

Jim,
you have shown yourself to be more interested in defending the non-Christian (by your own admission) sale of arms to despots

I have not done that.
Again you sink to personal abuse instead of issues.

"Examples" I asked for examples of
"The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people "

What war crimes?

If you do find an example, the government does not ask churches who they should sell arms to.
Those decisions are purely political and rational, as you atheists insist government decisions should be.
Nothing to do with religion, faith or the commandments.
Stick to the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:44 AM

Where have oyu specifically condemned the British Government

"I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime, and do not approve of arming them." Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:14 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:51 AM

The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified.

Wrong again, Professor - guess you've never heard of the Society of Friends, as example of many.

Back to your trusted old "All Historians" gambit, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:59 AM

Why are US police officers of interest? Shh.. Keep it to yourself but we call ours armed response units.

"All there for everyone to see in the original Hebrew. ..unequivocal"

Two things there.. If we assume everybody can read original Hebrew and everybody had read it, the first thing they would realise is that it is not unequivocal. For starters, you assume words have direct translations when in fact they don't, never have done and never can. (What's the ancient Hebrew word for Internet?). Murder is a word derived from penal codes set up in isolation from different cultures too, prat.

But because nobody other than a few scholars can read ancient Hebrew, we'll leave it to them eh? Oh.. Mostly theologians and they speak of interpretations (plural..) not translations.

Any other hobbies Keith? Perhaps ones you have a better grasp of?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 10:58 AM

"I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime,"
That is not a condemnation of the policy of selling arms - it is a selective get out - how about the Yemen, or Bahrain or Syria or Syria or all the squalidly murderous dictatorships Britain sells to and is still touting trade from?
British policy flies in the face of Christian principles, whatever way you interpret 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in selling arms, in supporting the wealthiest in our society, in promoting greed and acquisition.... and your support of all of these makes you the "Christian" you are - a great example for your Church!!
Thank god I'm not a believer!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

I daresay that God thanks Himself that you are not, for that matter, Jim...

≈·☺·M·☺·≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 11:32 AM

"Wrong again, Professor - guess you've never heard of the Society of Friends, as example of many."

He must have!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:03 PM

All Christians agree...

Little Sir Echo, how do you do?
Hello! Hello! Hello!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:15 PM

Musket,
the first thing they would realise is that it is not unequivocal.

Yes it is.
Look up what the real scholars say about it, and then tell us why we should ignore the experts and listen to you.

Jim, British policy on arms sales is highly restrictive. See what Amnesty says.
British policy on arms sales has nothing to do with faith, church or commandment. It is purely political and rational, which is how you atheists want government policy to be.
This discussion is about religion.

Dave and Greg, I acknowledged early on that some Christians, including Quakers, are pacifists. We have discussed conscientious objectors years ago.

They are a tiny minority. The main churches do not and never held that it is always wrong to take life in any circumstances.
Christians go out lethally armed as police or military and always have, knowing they are breaking no commandment unless they murder.

Christians have to consider such things, and they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:21 PM

How are Quakers not a "main church"?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:25 PM

'The main churches do not and never held that it is always wrong to take life in any circumstances'.
.,,.,.
They have, indeed, frequently held thruout history that it is right to do so -- Crusades, Holy Office + other Inquisitions...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:30 PM

How are Quakers not a "main church"?

They are a small church in comparison to Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and other large churches.

Call them a small, main church if you will, and their position on pacifism a minority one.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 01:01 PM

" British policy on arms sales is highly restrictive. See what Amnesty says."
Don't give a toss Keith - are you denying they sell arms to human rights abusers and despots?
If so why not just say it's wrong and Unchristian to do so?
If you don't you stand as a hypocrite
G'arn give it a try and see if you are struck down by a thunderbolt from Westminster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:47 PM

I'll tell you what Christians say Keith, shall I?

They say Thou Shalt Not Kill.

It isn't an issue when they kill in his name or the name of personal gain or sheer wickedness, because as you demonstrate, Christianity as a concept cannot be a moral code because you make it up as you go along, as an example, the stupid suggestion that all christians think the bible got such a key bit wrong.

They call them commandments, you know.. Any idea how much "interpretation" that word allows for?

Fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:50 PM

Oh aye.. "Main church"

A few hundred thousand people out of almost seventy million attend CofE Sunday services. How main is that? Far more people go to car boot sales....

Large church... Eeh, you give me a smile, I'll give you that one. The churches may be large but the pews aren't looking as polished by arses these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:07 PM

"No. The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified"

Nonsense Keith.

You, I and everyone else who has contributed were brought, up with a commandment that stipulated "Thou Shalt not kill".

No if's no maybe's.

It is the thing we were all taught from being small children.

The church(s), no one else, have altered that in very recent years to read thou shalt not murder.

I, and I suspect many others, prefer the original.

Sadly others, like yourself, seek to justify killing.

It is really that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:00 PM

Military padres? Prison chaplains at executions?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:03 PM

No Michael, they are there because people need them, that does not mean that they believe the killing is justified. Anyway we don't have executions any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:05 PM

their position on pacifism a minority one.

However that may be, minority or otherwise, Professor, it proves your prior statement to be the usual arrant bullshit.

What a surprise.