Religious Zealotry

[PureX]

Morality is not arbitrary. There IS a standard, and it is NOT US.

Yet, we still have to make that determination for ourselves. Each and every one of us.

Participation in what?

Our participation in the actions and endeavors of others.

When we align our priorities to what is outlined in the Bible, there is no problem at all.

Unless we misinterpret what we read. Which clearly does happen. Millions or people have been raped, robbed, tortured, and murdered for the cause of badly interpreted scripture. And every person that did so, believed, like you, that they were interpreting it rightly, and that God was telling them it was OK to do what they did.

When God's priorities are our priorities, then our priorities ARE absolute and sacrosanct.

Problem is, we don't really know when that is the case. Our mind is not God's mind, and our hearts are not God's heart. And when we presume that we do know, we loose our ability to doubt and question ourselves, and so we loose access to our conscience.

You seem to be doing the very thing you are condemning... That's called hypocrisy.

It's also called real-world experience.

When one places his own beliefs above what God says, that's when the person falls into error.

No, it's when one presumes one's own beliefs are God-authorized. That's when we start thinking we are extensions of God's righteousness. And there's a whole lot of that going on among professed Christians these days.

 

[PureX]

Amen, (and that is dependent on what you refer to as "weaknesses".)
Christians realize that it is God who will do the punishing.

Purex: Seems a lot of self=proclaimed Christians these days want to rule over their fellow humans, and judge and punish them and even blame them for their suffering.
That "self-proclaimed" bunch gives the real Christians a black eye.

They do tend to drive people away from investigating Christianity. And in turn tend to attract would-be tyrants and zealots.

 

[Idolater]

I.e., to serve those who are suffering, not to rule over them, condemn them, and punish them for their weakness. Seems a lot of self=proclaimed Christians these days

Is there some other kind of Christian, that I don't know about and that I never heard about, besides "self-proclaimed" Christian, Purex? I'm Catholic so I'm in the Church's register, but that doesn't make me a Christian, not in the sense that, we Christians mean. We mean who's going to Heaven, when we go softly into the night. We mean we believe in the resurrection and the life of the world to, and Thy kingdom, come. There's no other way to authenticate a bona fide genuine Christian than by that possible Christian's own self-proclamation (not that I'm aware of anyway).

want to rule over their fellow humans

I don't want to do that.

, and judge and punish them and even blame them for their suffering.

I don't want to do that.

 

[Idolater]

Non-Christian fundamentalism.

No way you can call that "non-Christian" no way. They claim they're Christians, they do and say Christian things and have Christian books and build or make Christian buildings.

What they are is immoral. They are immoral fundamentalists. Christian or otherwise, it doesn't matter. There are Christian immoral fundamentalists, Muslim immoral fundamentalists; there used to be a lot of Jewish immoral fundamentalists, and there of course are "Communist" immoral fundamentalists and have been. Politically, the ideological difference between immoral fundamentalists like Oliver Cromwell and just flatly immoral people like Hitler and Stalin and Putin, is exactly how they are going to violate our rights. Immoral fundamentalists aren't going to surprise you. Hitler and Stalin and King Kim Jong-un and the Buffalo mass murderer have no limits on what they might do to you, but the immoral fundamentalists are going to abuse you with what they believe is justice, like, literally executing you if you say the wrong thing type stuff. John Calvin.

 

[Idolater]

Care to elaborate?

I already told you. What is Heavenly mindedness in the Bible? Colossians 3. Focus on ethics, that's being Heavenly minded according to Colossians 3, it's right there. So that's all you focus on, but in so doing you completely miss the planet for the trees, let alone the forest. Your personal, private ethics do not and should not govern your political ideology. If you want to be a pacifist great. But you need to pull your head out enough to see that for you to be a pacifist is a luxury that you can only afford because of how great our country, Constitution, military, and guns are. You thank God, you thank Him for America. And you pray for America. Maybe you're not going to champion America, OK, but at least don't get in America's way, don't be a stumbling block, don't be an obstacle, don't be flamboyantly anti-American.

 

[Clete]

It's our responsibility to determine our own ethical priorities, and to judge our own actions in the world according to those priorities. Of course that will involve having to judge the behavior of others to determine our degree of participation and/or response. The problems arise when we presume tat our ethical priorities are God's ethical priorities, and that our ethical priorities are therefor absolute and sacrosanct: inerrant and unquestionable.

What if there isn't any assumption happening?

Do you understand the point there?

Probably not....

Who gets to judge whether I'm assuming something or that it's the actual truth? At the very least what you are talking about is removing one's right to their own religious beliefs and at worst, you're arguing that everyone should have your religious belief. The former almost always leads to the later, which is why idiots like yourself are the grease on the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Once we reach that point, we no longer have an effective conscience.

By what standard?

That's completely backward! There can be no such thing as an "effective conscience" without moral absolutes.

Whatever we think is right is right absolutely, because (we believe) God says so.

If something is right absolutely, our belief is irrelevant except in a judgment about our moral character.

Something cannot be both absolute and contingent on my belief.

This is the danger I am warning about when we encounter (or become) the religious zealot.

Fools are a danger in any free society. Having a free society means that the members of that soceity are free to be foolish if they choose to be. The only ones that ought not be allowed to be foolish are the ones that infringe on other people's rights. Such fools are criminals and criminals should be punished in a manner that teaches the rest of the society what is right and what is wrong and that frightens any other potential criminal out of his criminal mind. The alternatives are a free soceity that morally degenerates into anarchy or a society that is not free. History teaches us that the former is unsustainable and short lived (relatively speaking) and that the later is the norm.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The fact that you couldn't respond without insults tells me that you are not here for any positive purpose. I think we're done here.

I can respond in any manner I see fit and calling someone that says idiotic things and idiot is merely telling the truth. No one expects the idiot to be edified by it and no "positive purpose" can be achieved by treated the stupid like they're saying something worthwhile.

 

[PureX]

Is there some other kind of Christian, that I don't know about and that I never heard about, besides "self-proclaimed" Christian, Purex?

Yes. They are the ones that need no labels because they embody the divine spirit of God's love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity for all the world to recognize. "Christ" is a way of being, not a religious ideologue in someone's holy book.

I'm Catholic so I'm in the Church's register, but that doesn't make me a Christian, not in the sense that, we Christians mean. We mean who's going to Heaven, when we go softly into the night.

I don't think it's even about that. To be Christian is to be Christlike. That is to allow oneself to become the human embodiment of that divine spirit within.

We mean we believe in the resurrection and the life of the world to, and Thy kingdom, come. There's no other way to authenticate a bona fide genuine Christian than by that possible Christian's own self-proclamation (not that I'm aware of anyway).

It's not about what we believe. It's about who and what we are in the world: an expression of God's divine spirit? Or an expression of our own selfish fears and desires?

 

[Clete]

The laws and the rights on the books in this country are the laws by which lawbreakers are charged or citizen rights are upheld.

...unless you're politically connected.

Whether they match biblical law or not is irrelevant.

Not if the question is, "Are the laws of the United States of America just?"

Yes, we've had unjust laws that were changed, abolished or amended,...

And we've enacted ten times that many that were unjust and immoral.

...people who represent the law are either good or bad at carrying them out and that will continue to be the case.

I do not know what you mean by "people who represent the law".

You can live your life by your biblical morality but it will make no difference when you're standing in a courtroom or pulled over by a cop.

Oh, of course, it will make a huge difference! The more I live my life morally, the less likely it becomes that I'll stand in a courtroom or be harassed by the police. That is true, however, only so long as the society I live in holds to a biblical morality. Freedom is biblical morality. You cannot have a free society that lives by any moral code other than that found in the bible. When the immoral segments of society are allowed out of the closet, those of us who are moral are forced into the closet. The more biblically immoral the society gets, the less free it becomes.

In short, you are arguing for your own demise.

Clete

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whatever that means...



Continuing to attack me, rather than my argument, should give you pause for thought.



No, I would have a government.



No, it wouldn't.



You're free to come up with one better, but you certainly have a high bar to clear.



Still with the personal attacks.

Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"



Moving the goalposts.



You asked for me to, quote:

"provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports . . . the . . . notion that children . . . should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime."

I provided exactly that.

You did not ask for me to "provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports . . . the . . . notion that infants . . . should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime."



I provided what you asked for. That you're in denial about it is YOUR problem, not mine.



Why do you keep moving the goalposts?



Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.



Clearly not what the verse is referring to.



Again, moving the goalposts.



Straw manning my position, and then claiming my defeat because you've moved the goalposts doesn't work, Arthur.

It means the law overall works just fine as it is now. Making an observational comparison is not the same thing as an ad hom either.

Of course your "government" would impose on the rights of people. In our respective countries we have the right to freedom of and freedom from religion. You would usurp all that and force your ideals onto society regardless of what people believe.

Whilst not perfect the bar as it stands now is significantly higher than yours as it is. For one thing we have sensible laws that protect children from harm, predators, abusers and that recognize they can't be held as accountable for their actions as an adult. You never did get around to responding to my question regarding an adult having sex with a ten year old. As it stands that's child rape as legally the child is deemed too young to give informed consent. Do you agree with this law?

"You and your ilk" is not a personal attack JR. If you prefer, how about "You and those of similar persuasion"?

There is absolutely no goalpost moving going on at all and frankly, it's feeble of you to even attempt that deflection. A five year old is an infant JR. You advocate that children as young as five should be tried and if convicted, executed for committing a capital crime. You have not provided anything remotely resembling what I asked for. I asked you for the following:

You have no Biblical support for it whatsoever JR, else provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports your contention on the score. By that I mean one that incontrovertibly supports your notion that children as young as infants should be held as accountable for their actions as an adult and should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime.

You have in no way, shape or form met the criteria as outlined. If you can't then it would be more honest to acknowledge such.

The verse is clearly not referring to children which should be obvious.

It's not an appeal to emotion JR. It should be repugnant on several levels including morally, spiritually and even logically. That's not to say that emotionally it shouldn't register either as it should but it's hardly that alone.

Your position has not been "straw manned" whatsoever and accusing me of moving goalposts when they're in the exact same position they were does not a counter argument make.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why?



Why does it matter?

You're the one that advocates this stuff, the only one in fact from what I've seen on here as nobody else seems to want a bar of it (for which I can hardly blame 'em) so why not you? Why should it be somebody else to carry out the deed? Ever heard of the saying "put your money where your mouth is"?

 

[marke]

In our respective countries we have the right to freedom of and freedom from religion. You would usurp all that and force your ideals onto society regardless of what people believe.

What do unsaved barbarians desire by promoting "freedom from religion?" They desire to make immorality legal. They desire to legalize hallucinogenic drugs. They desire the freedom to fill the heads of schoolchildren with atheistic and racist lies. They desire the establishment of a right for mothers to murder their children at any age under the guise that such a decision should be a mother's right. They desire to establish evolution theory as fact and Biblical truth as myth. They desire the right to force communistic slavery on all powerless people to be ruled over by proud, intolerant, leftist fascist oligarchs. And so forth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What do unsaved barbarians desire by promoting "freedom from religion?" They desire to make immorality legal. They desire to legalize hallucinogenic drugs. They desire the freedom to fill the heads of schoolchildren with atheistic and racist lies. They desire the establishment of a right for mothers to murder their children at any age under the guise that such a decision should be a mother's right. They desire to establish evolution theory as fact and Biblical truth as myth. They desire the right to force communistic slavery on all powerless people to be ruled over by proud, intolerant, leftist fascist oligarchs. And so forth.

It doesn't need to be promoted, it's a right people already have just as they have the right to worship. The rest of your diatribe can just be dismissed accordingly.

 

[annabenedetti]

Why?

Because you just said "That's how laws work, Arthur. If you enter or reside in a country, you must follow that country's laws, or face the consequences. Then they would have to obey the laws. Or they could choose to not obey them, and face the consequences."

Since you reside in the U.S. you are subject to the law of the U.S. No matter how much you base your personal life on the Bible, you cannot impose Biblical law on anyone if it violates their constitutional rights.

Why does it matter?

As Arthur's said, would you be ready to put your money where your mouth is? Simple question.

 

[annabenedetti]

...unless you're politically connected.

Agreed.

Not if the question is, "Are the laws of the United States of America just?"


And we've enacted ten times that many that were unjust and immoral.

But that's not the question. The statement was: "Whether they match biblical law or not is irrelevant."

If a law is found unjust such that it needs to be amended or abolished, that determination is made on the basis of its constitutionality.

I do not know what you mean by "people who represent the law".

Law enforcement, judges, legislators, etc.

Oh, of course, it will make a huge difference! The more I live my life morally, the less likely it becomes that I'll stand in a courtroom or be harassed by the police.

But when you're standing in a courtroom, your rights are based in civil law, not religious law.

That is true, however, only so long as the society I live in holds to a biblical morality. Freedom is biblical morality. You cannot have a free society that lives by any moral code other than that found in the bible. When the immoral segments of society are allowed out of the closet, those of us who are moral are forced into the closet. The more biblically immoral the society gets, the less free it becomes.

In short, you are arguing for your own demise.

Freedom is based on the Constitution in this country. Much, often the majority of the adult population of the U.S. disagrees with you on many moral positions, but they're not a threat to your freedom because they disagree with you.

You said: When the immoral segments of society are allowed out of the closet." Who would you keep in the closet? Are you talking about people who break the law based on the Constitution? Murderers, rapists, etc.? Or are you talking about people you fundamentally disagree with, like Constitutionally law-abiding homosexuals? Unmarried people living together? Liberals? Feminists?

 

[annabenedetti]

to be a pacifist is a luxury

Exactly.

 

[marke]

It doesn't need to be promoted, it's a right people already have just as they have the right to worship. The rest of your diatribe can just be dismissed accordingly.

People have the 'right' to reject God and go to hell but they do not have the right to destroy God Bless America with new Marxist hedonist barbarian perversions.

 

[ok doser]

Not if the question is, "Are the laws of the United States of America just?"

Jumping in here to answer a question that wasn't asked of me so mea culpa


Overall I would say that most of the laws in the US are just. Some are not. Of those that are just many of them are enforced unjustly. Overall I would give the American justice system a B- for intent and an F for execution.

 

[ok doser]

To be Christian is to be Christlike.

Did Christ suffer fools gladly?

Did Christ tolerate evil?

 

[PureX]

People have the 'right' to reject God and go to hell but they do not have the right to destroy God Bless America with new Marxist hedonist barbarian perversions.

Actually they do. Just as one person has that right, so do 10, or 100, or 1,000, or a million. And your trying to stop them isn't saving anyone. People have to be allowed to choose their own path. It's God's will. And your trying to control everyone else's choices and behaviors not only won't work, but runs contrary to God's will.