Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 112

Thread: is christianity intolerant?

  1. #1 is christianity intolerant? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    thanks to MM for the idea as i needed to take a break from the intense evolutionary threads as i have said almost all i cansay on thattopic.

    so in your opinion, is christianity intolerant? why? Why can't God have Hisown rules, after all it is His kingdom, His heaven His plan of slavation?

    {please try to make spaces between your paragraphs so they are easy to read and address}


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Yes Christianity is intolerant. By what you just said, you are assuming that your opinion is the only opinion and whoever does not agree with you is going to burn in hell.

    Why can't God have Hisown rules, after all it is His kingdom, His heaven His plan of slavation?
    That is an assumption. You are assuming it IS his rules. We do not know if God exists. And if he did, if he would condemn those to hell that weren't Christians than your God is a jack ass and deserves people to fight against him just like people need to fight against any tyrant that tries to rule.


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    No. Do not generalize what one person says or the behaviour of one person within a cultural group in general.

    There are intolerant people in all groups ever concieved. Does not mean I call my family intolerant, the government(s) intolerant, my social club, the jazz club members, dance groups, etc etc etc...

    EDIT:

    Is the religion intolerant?

    Do or die choices. Yes... it is intolerant.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Ha ha, this thread reminded me of this one time when I was in first grade, and I, being childish and naive, promptly blurted out at my lunch table, "I DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS!"

    Honestly, it was almost amusing to see the way everyone drew in a single, shocked breath. Then, I was preached to by my ridiculously religious teacher, who had her hand over her heart throughout the whole lecture. She told me that unless I wanted to drown in a terrible flood, I should go home that night and ask God to forgive me. Remember that I was a young and impressionable first-grader, so obviously I was terrified at what I'd so thoughtlessly said.

    The next day, when I went back to school, she rushed over to me and asked me if I'd "said sorry" to God. I said yes, and she promptly pulled me into a deep hug, and then (very creepily) brushed her cross pendant across my forehead. Now when I think about it, I feel a little weird, because it's like "What was the brush for, huh? Trying to get me into some mad cult? well, I'm not doing it! AAAHH!"

    So, yeah, there you go. My first religious faux pas. Of course, again in 6th grade, I encountered the same subject, only this time involving my school library, the Left Behind series, and a very disgruntled "friend".

    But that's for another time. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    She told me that unless I wanted to drown in a terrible flood, I should go home that night and ask God to forgive me.
    Tell her that you only go to hell if you believe in Jesus as your saviour and THEN deny him. I'm f**ked but oh well, I'm done with empty threats.

    Also tell her her God is all forgiving and so is Jesus, see her rationalise that. I love it when they try to. Its so entertaining because they haven't got a clue what to say. Hehehehe.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Sad thing is, this woman was in Alabama. So I have no idea if she's even still alive now.

    Most atheists make me smile. You make me laugh. Way to go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Similar thing used to happen to me a lot. Nobody could understand why it made me laugh when I was threatened with hell and floods and torture.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Stop! stop! my body parts are flying off at both ends for laughing!

    These people don't see the brainwashing implications of this do-not-dare-to-think-such-things mentality. Assuming that this was not a public school, what this teacher SHOULD have done is taken that as a breaking the ice opportunity and invited all the others to express their opinion on the matter. AND give you a recognized protected minority status if that turned out to be the case. What this teacher did was not only completely unprofessional but utterly faithless and being a bully.


    By the way, the people people at MY church would LOVE it if someone did something like that because it would give them the perfect chance to live up to the ideals they preach all the time. And NO archeologist, it does not mean they are soft on believing in Jesus, we are quite up front about that. It is just that we see unbelievers as a blessing rather than as a threat. Not that you would like my church very much. It might not be a place where you could find your weekly dose of self-righteousness.



    Quote Originally Posted by archeologist
    so in your opinion, is christianity intolerant?
    It depends on whose christianity we are talking about. But generally it is the christianity of intolerant people that is intolerant. These people will even come up with this fascist justification for being intolerant, arguing that tolerance isn't logically consistent. Poppy cock. Just because people hate those who practice and promote the hatred of others doesn't mean that they don't believe in the ideal of love. Everything is naturally limited by its opposite. It is only logical that in holding up the ideal of tolerance that we do not tolerate intolerance.


    Quote Originally Posted by archeologist
    Why can't God have His own rules, after all it is His kingdom, His heaven His plan of slavation?
    Oh dear! Divine relativism! Yes indeed every club and clique certainly has the right to establish its own rules to define what its club and meetings are all about. After all it is a free countrty and to each is own. But a club that adopts an attitude that there is no alternative to their club and that those not in the club are just so much refuse to dispose of, well now, THAT is a club that has gone from an exercise of their freedom to intolerance. But doesn't that sound awfully familiar? Isn't this exactly what this intolerant form of christianity is saying?

    But this was not what Jesus was about and this is not what God is about. There are realities to deal with which are ultimately a consequence of logical consistency. In our childishness and tendency to wishful thinking we often demand inconsistent things like having our cake and eating it too. It is to help us understand such limits of consistency and deal with the realities of our existence that God is offering to help us with. We are free to decide what our life is about and what to pursue, the question is whether we want help or not. Now I believe in an infinite God and thus an eternal life full of limitless possibilites, for it is creation and goodness that has no limits and has has neverending vistas to explore, while it is destruction and evil that is small petty and boring. So the question of whether we want help is also a question of whether we want to climb out of our safe dark holes to face the challenges of a bigger world or remain cowering in our holes, whether out of pride or fear.


    Quote Originally Posted by archeologist
    {please try to make spaces between your paragraphs so they are easy to read and address}
    I think he means spaces between sentences. In fact I think archeologist would just prefer a bulleted list of topics so that he can just tell everyone the TRUTH on those topics, probably both allowable questions as well as "correct" answers.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Assuming that this was not a public school, what this teacher SHOULD have done is taken that as a breaking the ice opportunity and invited all the others to express their opinion on the matter. AND give you a recognized protected minority status if that turned out to be the case. What this teacher did was not only completely unprofessional but utterly faithless and being a bully.
    Um,MM....I was in first grade. How intellectual do you think a first grader's take on a religious apocalypse would be anyway?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    Assuming that this was not a public school, what this teacher SHOULD have done is taken that as a breaking the ice opportunity and invited all the others to express their opinion on the matter. AND give you a recognized protected minority status if that turned out to be the case. What this teacher did was not only completely unprofessional but utterly faithless and being a bully.
    Um,MM....I was in first grade. How intellectual do you think a first grader's take on a religious apocalypse would be anyway?
    My point is that if a teacher wants to encourage taking a subject seriously then he/she should encourage student to think about what questions they might ask and what conclusions they might consider, rather than acting like such questions can have only one acceptable answer or that some questions should not be asked.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am actually being serious here. MM made the accusation so i thought i would see what the consensus was.

    But generally it is the christianity of intolerant people that is intolerant.
    i am not talking about human versions of chrisdtianity, but i am talking about the biblical one {which isn't yours}: homosexuality is sin, no pre-marital sex, no adultery and so on.

    Do or die choices. Yes... it is intolerant.
    how is it intolerant? you have a choice, what more can you ask for?

    Similar thing used to happen to me a lot. Nobody could understand why it made me laugh when I was threatened with hell and floods and torture.
    why would you call it a threat? you have a choice and threats are usually donein a manner to force you to choose one particular option---'pay the ransom or i will kill your child.'

    that is a threat, you have little choice. with God you have no coercion, no extortion, you are free to choose which path you will take but there are consequences. remember the game show 'let's make a deal'?

    the contestant made a choice and they either got rewarded or zinged? they knew it could happen yet no one was threatening them. same with God--you getto choose your destination--no threats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I am not talking about human versions of chrisdtianity, but i am talking about the biblical one {which isn't yours}: homosexuality is sin, no pre-marital sex, no adultery and so on.
    Not a true scotsman - Logical Fallacy

    how is it intolerant? you have a choice, what more can you ask for?
    You are one sick puppy. If I told you to go out and kill your family or I would torture you until you die of pain, would you consider THAT a choice as well?

    why would you call it a threat? you have a choice and threats are usually donein a manner to force you to choose one particular option---'pay the ransom or i will kill your child.'
    And this is different from, "Believe in Jesus as your savior or I will send you to hell to be tortured for all of eternity" how?

    that is a threat, you have little choice. with God you have no coercion, no extortion, you are free to choose which path you will take but there are consequences. remember the game show 'let's make a deal'?
    You just contradicted yourself. You just said that there are choices, but then there are consequences for your choices. So do you really have a choice at all if you made the "wrong" choice and suffered the consequences? Kind of like you have a choice whether to pay the ransom or your child dies?

    they knew it could happen yet no one was threatening them. same with God--you getto choose your destination--no threats.
    Choosing a destination would be like choosing to either go to France or London for Spring Break. Both of which do not end up with torture or with your child being killed. They were both respectively neutral in their offering of pain and torment.

    To sum up what you just said
    Telling someone to give them money or they will kill your child - Threat
    Telling someone to accept salvation and believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or you will burn in hell for eternity in fiery brimstone is not a threat, but a vacation hotspot.

    Both of which are the SAME THING in terms of a logical argument.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You are one sick puppy. If I told you to go out and kill your family or I would torture you until you die of pain, would you consider THAT a choice as well?
    of course a choice is involved but the difference is God is letting you live your life out and giving you until you die the chance to change your mind. your example does not do that.

    And this is different from, "Believe in Jesus as your savior or I will send you to hell to be tortured for all of eternity" how?
    as above. you have time to change your mind based upon your free will and your right of free choice.

    So do you really have a choice at all if you made the "wrong" choice and suffered the consequences
    see above.

    Choosing a destination would be like choosing to either go to France or London for Spring Break.
    but you still have a choice where you will end up...it is up to you andnothing is going to change that fact.

    Both of which are the SAME THING in terms of a logical argument.
    see above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    That's like saying I have the choice of continuing my life, or commiting suicide. Only one option is logical, so in what way are you giving a choice?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    If God is so loving, then why do we face the prospect of eternal damnation if we dare to "defy" him? Can't he tweak the rules for us a bit, and maybe make hell a little more like Cancun rather than the inside of Krakatau? Also, if God gave us free will why is he so bent on punishing us for using that free will? He gave it to us, he should be prepared to face the consequences for it. In every group of followers, there is a rebel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I realize you maybe responding to archaeologist specifically but you don't make this entirely clear and so forgive me if my responses are intruding.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    If God is so loving, then why do we face the prospect of eternal damnation if we dare to "defy" him?
    If parents are so loving then why do children that defy their parents by playing in the street have to get run over by cars?


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    Can't he tweak the rules for us a bit, and maybe make hell a little more like Cancun rather than the inside of Krakatau?
    Well it depends on the nature of these rules doesn't it? If they are trivial rules like those of a game of cards then yeah why not. But good grief, look at the diversity of the world! Every trivial rule imaginable is tweaked all over the place.

    But besides such trivial rules that are simply arbitrary, there are rules that exist for a reason. Take gravity for example. As much as we may lament the deaths of those who jump off of tall buildings, repealing or even temporary suspending the law of gravity would have far worse consequences.

    And besides these two types of rules there are also those of simple logical consistency and these are often the type that children will insist should not be imposed on them even though their parents can do nothing about it. These are the most serious rules and God cannot tweak these because that doesn't even make any sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    Also, if God gave us free will why is he so bent on punishing us for using that free will?
    But is He? All through the Bible He says, I set before you the choice between life and death, so choose life. We are free to choose death, so when you complain that having chosen death, death is what you get, then aren't you are really complaining that he gave you any choice. But I tell you that choice is life itself and thus to give you life is to give you choice. To refuse choice and responsibility is to choose death.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    He gave it to us, he should be prepared to face the consequences for it.
    Yes, He does. Everyday He watches His children destroy each other and themselves. And how does He feel about this? In Genesis 6, He says that He is sorry that He made man.


    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    In every group of followers, there is a rebel.
    Yes and I believe that God counts on this. I mean perhaps you are making an assumption about which of these are the real problem. If we look at the Nazis in world war II, was it the followers or the rebels that were the problem? I think that is an example of a ubiquitous human problem and that this tendency to all work together in an evil system without rebelling is actually the greatest danger that we face.

    I believe that is the world that God destroyed with the flood, for it is right afterwards in Genesis 11 that God prevented mankind from uniting and instead scattered them over the earth with different languages. If you think about it, then if that really happened then you can blame our history of wars on God. BUT then as bad as war may be I don't think that is the worst fate that mankind can face. The evils of peace-time can be far far worse.

    Thus I see God as a creator of diversity, and it is in that diversity that we will find the salvation of humanity. For it allows the rebel to point out the evils of society and call for an accounting.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    of course a choice is involved but the difference is God is letting you live your life out and giving you until you die the chance to change your mind. your example does not do that.
    According to your belief, no one actually dies. They just switch dimensional planes of existence and suffering pain in hell is the same as suffering pain while you're still alive.

    as above. you have time to change your mind based upon your free will and your right of free choice.
    It's still not different from your example. The threat is still on the table. Stop justifying immoral and inhumane treatment simply because your "loving god" deemed it so.
    but you still have a choice where you will end up...it is up to you andnothing is going to change that fact.
    Appeal to fear. You are saying to either agree with you or I will suffer terrible consequences and burn for eternity.. bigot.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    If God is so loving, then why do we face the prospect of eternal damnation if we dare to "defy" him
    MM was pretty close on this one, a little sarcastic for my tastes. God punishes because you have disobeyed and disobedience is sin. rom. 3:23 for the wages of sin is death...' you are well aware of the sentence when you knowing practice sin.

    Can't he tweak the rules for us a bit, and maybe make hell a little more like Cancun rather than the inside of Krakatau
    no, that would not be just nor fair. why should those who chose to disobey get good treatment?

    Also, if God gave us free will why is he so bent on punishing us for using that free will?
    He is not punishing for your free will but for your rejection of His plan of salvation.
    and your unforgiven sin.

    He gave it to us, he should be prepared to face the consequences for it. In every group of followers, there is a rebel.
    He is not responsible for your decisions or actions, you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i've been reading snorre sturlasson, and how olav "the holy" christened norway, and my conclusions are, christianity is very intolerant.
    olav was walking through sweden to find men for his army, and he came upon
    two men and their band of bandits called gaukatore and avrafaste.

    here's from snorre:

    "the men who are mentioned, one called gaukatore, the other Avrafaste,
    they were pathfinders, and the worst robbers, and they had 30 men with them, all of them same kind as them. these brothers were bigger and stronger than the rest, and they didn't lack in courage. they found out about the army that went through the lands,
    they talked inbetween themselves that it would be wise to go to the king and follow him to his country, and there be in a real battle, and try their skills, for they hadn't been in battles with an army. they were very curious after having seen the kings army, and went to follow it and meet the king. when they arrived with the king,
    they walked in front of him, fully armed, and greeted him.
    he asked them what kind of men they were, they mentioned their names, and told them they were from around here. after that they told him their intentions, and offered the king their service.
    they king said they seemed like good men to have as followers.
    <<i am very eager to take in men like you>> the king is quoted as saying.
    but how is it, are you christians?
    gaukatore answers he is neither christian or a heathen.
    <<we and our men have no other belief than those who we believe in are ourselves, our strength, and our luck in victory, and thats enough for us>>
    the king answers:<< its great damage that men that look like soldiers shouldn't believe in christ, their maker.>>
    Gaukatore answers: <<is there any christian man in your following, king, who has
    grown more in one day than us two brothers?>>
    the king asked them to be baptised, and take the right belief, <<and then you can follow me>> he said.
    <<i will then make you into great men, but if you don't want that, you can go back to your line of work>>
    Avrafaste responds, and says he doesn't want to accept christianity, and then they leave. gaukatore says: <<its a great shame that this king turned down our help.
    never before was i in a situation where i wasn't good enough to join a group of men. i will never return home in this way.>> later they joined with other men from the forest and followed the kings army.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    my conclusions are, christianity is very intolerant.
    how does this make christians very intolerant? one is underno obligation to accept help from non-believers. that is not intolerance but exercising one's freedom of choice.

    typical of non-believers to force their ways on others and when refused blame those for doing what they are allowed to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    typical of non-believers to force their ways on others and when refused blame those for doing what they are allowed to do.
    Why, what do you think you've been doing?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Gentlemen, please hear me out. I have personal experience with trolls, I am an experienced troll myself on other fora, and Archeologist is exhibiting all the qualities of a troll. By adopting the single most irritating persona one could imagine for a science forum, archeologist has proven himself a capable troll by degenerating every conversation with his accusations of ulterior motivations and the like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    i am not talking about human versions of chrisdtianity, but i am talking about the biblical one {which isn't yours}: homosexuality is sin, no pre-marital sex, no adultery and so on.
    Um, i have a question here. Yeah, i know, what else is new right? But, in accordance with the no adultery part, isn't that rule broken over and over everytime there's a divorce? So, basically, Christians are supposed to stay loyal to one spouse for the rest of their lives/existence, and yet here I have found a link that visibly refutes the Christian aspect of nuptial fidelity.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

    What gives? Is divorce=adultery?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    No point trying to make sense of the bible, really. It's full of random stuff:

    "Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind." -- Leviticus 11:22

    "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19

    "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27

    "When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening." -- Leviticus 15:19-20

    "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." -- Deuteronomy 25:11-12

    "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place...." -- Ephesians 5:4
    (sorry archaeologist, no heaven for you)

    "Do not go around as a gossiper among your people..." -- Leviticus 19:16

    "There are a tremendous number of things you can get executed for in the Bible," notes Jacobs. "Homosexuality, adultery, astrology, being a disrespectful child, being a drunken son, blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, perjury, incest, bestiality and witchcraft." And stoning was often the execution of choice.
    Point being, not to offend christians, but that the bible is not fundamental to your belief.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    As for being intolerant:

    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - (1 Sam 15:3 NIV)
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589


    Are those all true? That's hysterical.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Some of them I can verify from my own reading of the bible. There are certainly a number of unusual laws.

    My own personal favourite is about how to go to the toilet during a military campaign, but I was unable to find it on the internet, and have no bible handy.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Ok, you have GOT to be making some of this up! Why would anyone base a religion on a book that addresses how to go to the bathroom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    No, I'm sure I read something about that in the bible...

    You see, most christians don't read the bible, for the reason that it is not really an important part of their beliefs; more like a rough guideline.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Sort of like most motorists and the highway code.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You see, most christians don't read the bible, for the reason that it is not really an important part of their beliefs; more like a rough guideline.
    The majority of those who call themselves christian? No they do not. But the majority is not everybody. Those who have read the Bible all the way through, even though it is less than 10% of the widest definition of the word christian, this quite a large number of people, and I think you will find that the percentage is a good deal higher among certain groups like those in the cleargy of all denominations, but also among the fundamentalists and evangelicals (myself being in the latter category but not the former). Many of these churches read straight through the Bible in their Sunday services.

    Of those that do, however, many have read all the way through the Bible various numbers of times. As for me, once all the way through was enough to get an idea what was there and where I could find things. A second time through at seminary added to this an idea of what were the various schools of thought about the different books of the Bible.

    But I am not the sort, who just read through the Bible all the time, because that is what they believe they are supposed to do, and I have encountered quite a few people like this. But I find it amusing when I encounter those who sling passages at me, but clearly cannot read and examine the context from which they were taken. It is even more amusing to me when they display a clear inability to read anything longer than a couple sentences and still pretend that they know what the Bible says.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I hope that was not a comment aimed at me; I too have read the bible all the way through.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I hope that was not a comment aimed at me; I too have read the bible all the way through.
    _________________
    EVERYONE hates paranoid people...
    Are you feeling a little paranoid?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    As for being intolerant:

    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - (1 Sam 15:3 NIV)
    thatis not intolerant, that is being punished for disobedience to God's rules and ways.

    you confuse intolerance with right and wrong, expecting to live a life anyway you want and expect to enter into heaven when you die. it just doesn't work that way. unless you obey the rules , you won't be going into heaven. rule #1 John 3:16.

    Ok, you have GOT to be making some of this up! Why would anyone base a religion on a book that addresses how to go to the bathroom?
    because in battle going to the bathroom makes you very vulnerable and a soldier must be aware and ready at all times. it isn't just their life on the line but the lives of those depending on their fighting and survival.

    if you stop at the surface and ridicule without study, you miss the valid reasons for such instruction.

    "Do not go around as a gossiper among your people..." -- Leviticus 19:16
    this is also repeated in the new testament for such a person can cause a lot of trouble ruining a church or family with their lies and gossip.

    No point trying to make sense of the bible, really. It's full of random stuff:
    actually there is a big point to making sense of the Bible for the reasons range from your health to long life. the Bible not only reveals God and the origin of all things but it also helps you eat healthy, live wisely and in peace with your neighbors etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: is christianity intolerant? 
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thanks to MM for the idea as i needed to take a break from the intense evolutionary threads as i have said almost all i can say on that topic.

    so in your opinion, is christianity intolerant? why? Why can't God have His own rules, after all it is His kingdom, His heaven His plan of salvation?
    In your subjective opinion god can do whatever you wish god to do. It is because people have these inane beliefs, that it makes christianity intolerant.
    If a higher power existed, then yes it would have it's own rules, but there isn't one or any for that matter, it is all pure wishful thinking, just a comfort blanket.
    Unfortunately most people are infected with a religious meme (mindvirus) hence why their all powerful imaginary comfort blanket can kill at a whim, religious people are Ahumanist, as they have a total lack of regard for human life.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Fundamentalism is intolerant, that is what makes it fundamentalism.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    you confuse intolerance with right and wrong, expecting to live a life anyway you want and expect to enter into heaven when you die. it just doesn't work that way. unless you obey the rules , you won't be going into heaven. rule #1 John 3:16.
    Considering the fact that quite a few of us are atheists and all, I think heaven is a bit of a far cry for us. So there goes another redeeming factor down the drain: LOL.

    the Bible not only reveals God and the origin of all things but it also helps you eat healthy, live wisely and in peace with your neighbors etc.
    But i feel that these things are common sense. Unless you are a masochist, you will always go for the healthier, wiser, and more peaceful way. It is my opinion that sure! Keep your Bible. Use it as a rough set of guidelines; something that will confirm all the common sense swimming around in your head. But don't take to such literal terms that you cannot stop thinking about it when you are NOT reading it. And this goes for all religions actually. Yes, keep a set of rough guidelines, but instead of waiting for God to fulfill all your dreams, concentrate on yourself a little bit more, and you'll find that hard work will accomplish what waiting for a miracle could not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    The Jesus of the bible seems like a pretty tolerant guy. Most christians today are not very tolerant; most of them seem to want to use laws etc. to force everyone else to obey their christian rules, even people who aren't christian. But I'll admit that they're more tolerant than in past centuries, when it was considered acceptable to kill people for not being christian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I'd say about 1% of all Christians actually follow what Christ taught. I'd be as bold as to even say that the rest of them use religion and Christianity more precisley for their religion to get away with what they please and be part of some superiority complex.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    I'd say about 1% of all Christians actually follow what Christ taught. I'd be as bold as to even say that the rest of them use religion and Christianity more precisley for their religion to get away with what they please and be part of some superiority complex.
    Agreed. It astounds me that the republicans are considered the "chrstian" party in the U.S. Aren't the democrats the ones who want to give to the poor, provide healthcare to the sick, etc?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    I'd say about 1% of all Christians actually follow what Christ taught. I'd be as bold as to even say that the rest of them use religion and Christianity more precisley for their religion to get away with what they please and be part of some superiority complex.
    Agreed. It astounds me that the republicans are considered the "chrstian" party in the U.S. Aren't the democrats the ones who want to give to the poor, provide healthcare to the sick, etc?
    Are you suggesting that the bible cares more for it's own wealth than for those worse off?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Isn't that the way of the world? Surely you've noticed it by now, turtle. Why should religon escape the taint of vice when all else falls prey to it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Hehe, sorry, that was more British humour (sarcasm).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    I, too, was being sarcastic. I find that being cynical is a great attribute to being an atheist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Fundamentalism is intolerant, that is what makes it fundamentalism.
    no, it is following the rules, you only think it is intolerant.

    In your subjective opinion god can do whatever you wish god to do. It is because people have these inane beliefs, that it makes christianity intolerant
    God set the rules but He also lived by them. why do you think creation took place inonly 6 24 hour days and on the 7th He rested/ He set the example and was not going to hypocrite Himself. he expects men to work 6 days and rest 1 thus His example on how it should be done.

    If a higher power existed, then yes it would have it's own rules, but there isn't one or any for that matter, it is all pure wishful thinking, just a comfort blanket.
    Unfortunately most people are infected with a religious meme (mindvirus) hence why their all powerful imaginary comfort blanket can kill at a whim, religious people are Ahumanist, as they have a total lack of regard for human life.
    you would be wrong. secular scientists need to explain away why there is religion and a concept of God when inevolution it would not take place. so, viola there is the 'magic gene ' discvoery which makes religious people. except that that doesn't explain how evolution came up with such a gene and why peoplehave free choice.

    Considering the fact that quite a few of us are atheists and all, I think heaven is a bit of a far cry for us. So there goes another redeeming factor down the drain:
    but thatis your choice, no one is twisting your arm to disbelieve.

    But i feel that these things are common sense. Unless you are a masochist, you will always go for the healthier, wiser, and more peaceful way
    if that were so, there would not be any fast food restaraunts or junk food.

    The Jesus of the bible seems like a pretty tolerant guy. Most christians today are not very tolerant; most of them seem to want to use laws etc. to force everyone else to obey their christian rules, even people who aren't christian. But I'll admit that they're more tolerant than in past centuries, when it was considered acceptable to kill people for not being christian.
    and i would agree with you but Jesus warned us that there would be those who claim to be christian but aren't inthe church which is why you can't lump everyone in the same pot.

    I'd say about 1% of all Christians actually follow what Christ taught. I'd be as bold as to even say that the rest of them use religion and Christianity more precisley for their religion to get away with what they please and be part of some superiority complex.
    iwould agree with this as well except for the per centage. there are more true christians out there than yo realize. they just do not get the press only the bad ones do. which distorts the reality and gives the secular world a false impression.

    keep in mind that christians are not perfect and still make mistakes and still sin. some things you blame them for are done innocently not on purpose.

    Agreed. It astounds me that the republicans are considered the "chrstian" party in the U.S. Aren't the democrats the ones who want to give to the poor, provide healthcare to the sick, etc?
    i would like to see christians remove themselves from all political parties and either run as independents or start their own party. one really can't present Christ's ways whentheyare also advocating the ways of the secularworld. compromise just doesn't work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Fundamentalism is intolerant, that is what makes it fundamentalism.
    no, it is following the rules, you only think it is intolerant.
    Intolerance is only a matter of opinion. You think you are tolerant, because you think you are right. I think you are intolerant, because you are wrong.

    In your subjective opinion god can do whatever you wish god to do. It is because people have these inane beliefs, that it makes christianity intolerant
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God set the rules but He also lived by them. why do you think creation took place inonly 6 24 hour days and on the 7th He rested/ He set the example and was not going to hypocrite Himself. he expects men to work 6 days and rest 1 thus His example on how it should be done.
    Again the assumption of existance.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If a higher power existed, then yes it would have it's own rules, but there isn't one or any for that matter, it is all pure wishful thinking, just a comfort blanket.
    Unfortunately most people are infected with a religious meme (mindvirus) hence why their all powerful imaginary comfort blanket can kill at a whim, religious people are Ahumanist, as they have a total lack of regard for human life.
    you would be wrong. secular scientists need to explain away why there is religion and a concept of God when in evolution it would not take place.
    Yes, I believe it is fundamental to the theory of evolution (which explains genetic change over time) that organisms cannot have an opinion.

    Religion may have a function, however, in that it may have encouraged early humans to protect one another; it encouraged group bonding. So the religious groups stuck together better, and were more likely to survive.

    Neanderthals, it is believed, had no imagination, and so no religion. They were mostly solitary, and died out because they could not co-operate well enough to survive an ice-age. Although an alternative hypothesis is that they merged with homo-erectus to result in modern humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    so, viola there is the 'magic gene ' discvoery which makes religious people. except that that doesn't explain how evolution came up with such a gene and why peoplehave free choice.
    Free choice is meaningless. Are you saying a wild animal is not free to do as it wants?

    I have already stated my hypothesis on religion.

    I will also point out (and you will most likely fault me for this) that it is a logical fallicy to use examples as evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Considering the fact that quite a few of us are atheists and all, I think heaven is a bit of a far cry for us. So there goes another redeeming factor down the drain:
    but thatis your choice, no one is twisting your arm to disbelieve.
    Really? No satan influencing us? Then we go to heaven, yes? Since we can only be influenced by god...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    But i feel that these things are common sense. Unless you are a masochist, you will always go for the healthier, wiser, and more peaceful way
    if that were so, there would not be any fast food restaraunts or junk food.
    Fast food is just that - fast. An important part of survival for humans was always to find and eat food quickly, and the trait has not yet died off.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The Jesus of the bible seems like a pretty tolerant guy. Most christians today are not very tolerant; most of them seem to want to use laws etc. to force everyone else to obey their christian rules, even people who aren't christian. But I'll admit that they're more tolerant than in past centuries, when it was considered acceptable to kill people for not being christian.
    and i would agree with you but Jesus warned us that there would be those who claim to be christian but aren't inthe church which is why you can't lump everyone in the same pot.
    OK, I also agree on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I'd say about 1% of all Christians actually follow what Christ taught. I'd be as bold as to even say that the rest of them use religion and Christianity more precisley for their religion to get away with what they please and be part of some superiority complex.
    iwould agree with this as well except for the per centage. there are more true christians out there than yo realize. they just do not get the press only the bad ones do. which distorts the reality and gives the secular world a false impression.
    I can tell you from an informal survey I did of around 120 people that the figure is around 2-3%. I also found that around 4-5% were practising muslims, though, and about 70% were passively christian/agnostic.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    keep in mind that christians are not perfect and still make mistakes and still sin. some things you blame them for are done innocently not on purpose.
    But persecution of scientists for hundreds of years was not an accident. You should keep this in mind.

    No, I don't blame you personally for this, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Agreed. It astounds me that the republicans are considered the "chrstian" party in the U.S. Aren't the democrats the ones who want to give to the poor, provide healthcare to the sick, etc?
    i would like to see christians remove themselves from all political parties and either run as independents or start their own party. one really can't present Christ's ways whentheyare also advocating the ways of the secularworld. compromise just doesn't work.
    Agree 100%.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    [Neanderthals, it is believed, had no imagination, and so no religion. They were mostly solitary, and died out because they could not co-operate well enough to survive an ice-age. Although an alternative hypothesis is that they merged with homo-erectus to result in modern humans.
    I need to call you on that one. Neanderthals had jewelry.. It was not very good looking jewelry but it did exist.
    And there is a cave that was found where the fossils of some neanderthals had their skulls bashed open.
    Also, there has not been a single genetic link between any human found and the genes of a neanderthal.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    OK, no problem, I can accept criticism

    I'm pretty confident they were incapable of planning for the future, though. A major part of why they died out.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Neanderthals had jewelry.. It was not very good looking jewelry but it did exist.
    And there is a cave that was found where the fossils of some neanderthals had their skulls bashed open.
    right and just because the skeletons were found in the same cave that means the artwork and objects solely belonged to them. that is a stretch,

    there has not been a single genetic link between any human found and the genes of a neanderthal.
    do you know how hard it is to extract DNA from a 1,000 year old skeleton let alone a 100,000 year old one? extremely and i would question the samples and the age of those skeletons.

    Intolerance is only a matter of opinion. You think you are tolerant, because you think you are right. I think you are intolerant, because you are wrong
    no it is not. it is the backlash against something that i sperceived to be excluding a person basedupon one's actions regardless of the rules. would you call a country's visa regulations intolerant because they restrict who can or cannot enter into a country?

    God's regulations state how you can enter His country, if you do not meet those regulations then you are barred, it is not intolerant but a restriction upon those seeking entrance.

    the thing with God though is, you have a lot of chances to choose the right way and meet the requirements yet most do not want to give up their sin. itis NOt God who is intolerant but those who want to enter outside of the rules for they will not allow God to have His regulations.

    Religion may have a function, however, in that it may have encouraged early humans to protect one another; it encouraged group bonding. So the religious groups stuck together better, and were more likely to survive.
    you would be wrong though. Jesus said 'if my kingdom was of this world my servants would fight' false religions may use violence but that is one thing that sets them apart from the truth.

    people stuck together because they had the same tongue not the same religion.

    Free choice is meaningless. Are you saying a wild animal is not free to do as it wants?
    not at all, it is one of the bastions of the american constitution and the american people.

    I can tell you from an informal survey I did of around 120 people that the figure is around 2-3%. I also found that around 4-5% were practising muslims, though, and about 70% were passively christian/agnostic.
    surveys are too easily manipulated by the structure of the questions asked so i will refrain from accepting your sample.

    Really? No satan influencing us? Then we go to heaven, yes? Since we can only be influenced by god...
    no, i was speaking from the believing side. going to the absurd doesn't help your case.

    But persecution of scientists for hundreds of years was not an accident. You should keep this in mind.
    unfortunately, even religious people do bad things but to lump them all into the same category would be wrong. one can be a christian and do science--they just can't do secular science nor listen to unbelieving people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
       /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
    2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
    3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

    in⋅tol⋅er⋅ant
       /ɪnˈtɒlərənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
    –adjective
    1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
    2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually fol. by of): intolerant of very hot weather.

    We are not referring to one's ability to tolerate something, so I am assuming the conversation is about whether or not Christianity is tolerant of other beliefs.

    So again, I affirm that "Fundamentalism is intolerant, that is what makes it fundamentalism."

    and in response to archeologist denying this and saying: "no, it is following the rules, you only think it is intolerant. " The fundamentalist movement, as explained above, is more than just about following rules. I do not think it is intolerant, because I think the evidence speaks for itself. I don't need to believe when I can see. The point of fundamentalism, in any religion, is to return to the religion, as literal fact, and to be intolerant of other ideas because they are lies.

    Just as if I told you the sky was red, you would be intolerant of me and that statement, because it is a lie, but maybe I see red, or maybe I see blue but call it red, you are intolerant of my ability to communicate, but you are also intolerant of understanding that.

    If you know something to be true, such as your God, and someone says "there is no God" or "there is God, but he is not as you believe Him to be" you may be intolerant of them and what they say, because you believe differently. Tolerance and the lack of it, find their roots, as all things, in suitable soil. In this case it is the mind, principles and beliefs make a very fertile soil for intolerance, though due to the irony of our definitions, they may indeed make one more able to tolerate suffering, but then again so does apathy and psychosis.

    Without principles, without beliefs, you are a tolerant person, anything goes. The more principles and beliefs you have, the less tolerant you are towards other principles and beliefs. You have a principle because other principles(or lack of) are wrong, you have a belief because other beliefs(or the lack of) are wrong.


    Now, if you've read this far, sorry I am not done! Now that we have defined tolerance I feel I must go on.

    turtle said: "Intolerance is only a matter of opinion. You think you are tolerant, because you think you are right. I think you are intolerant, because you are wrong. "

    Intolerance is not a matter of opinion. It is relative, but that doesn't make it a matter of opinion, it makes it a matter of context.

    If you don't believe something, you are intolerant. If you believe something you are tolerant. Thinking you are tolerant, is different than being tolerant, as you gracefully pointed out while also pointing out your own intolerance to the possibility of archeologist being right. Whether or not he is right does not change whether or not you are tolerant of the possibility of him being right. You might wonder what the point of all of this is? It is to show you the difference between opinion and relativity.

    An opinion is if I said "He is tolerant"
    but the fact is that I am intolerant for saying that. Again, because whether or not I am right, does not change whether or not I am tolerant to the possibility of being wrong.

    archeologist then said: "no it is not. it is the backlash against something that i perceived to be excluding a person based upon one's actions regardless of the rules." though I can't understand the part that I made bold, I would like archeologist to explain what this means. Are you in grade school? No offense, but please try to speak intelligibly. I don't know if you care about sharing your message with people, but it might be more effective to speak simply when things are complicated. Try using punctuation more often.

    I believe you are saying "no it is not" to turtle saying "Intolerance is only a matter of opinion" in which case you are right, intolerance is not a matter of opinion, BUT, you are wrong with your definition. Intolerance is not a backlash against anything, never mind whatever your trying to describe. I get a pretty good idea of what you are trying to say, but it just doesn't work, the words don't make sense in that order. Tolerance is not the word you are looking for repercussion is, and whether or not you perceive something doesn't change God's will does it? Maybe I misunderstood the whole thing, please explain. I am tolerant to explanation, but intolerant of abused rhetoric, so please speak as plain as thoughts can be.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    As for the topic, I need to clarify.

    I was in no way saying that Christianity is intolerant by saying that Fundamentalism is.

    Some Jewish and Christian sects are Fundamentalists, Catholicism and the Nation of Islam, they are Fundamental sects. There are sects of all of these religions though that are more tolerant than some, and there are always individuals who do not agree, but remain in a group for other reasons.

    A belief cannot be tolerant or untolerant, a system of beliefs niether. A person must make that choice when presented with their own beliefs.

    Take for example Agnostics, they are virtually atheists, tolerant to the idea of God, but not tolerant to the preaching of God. Some are tolerant to discussions of God, some are not. Some are tolerant to athiests, some are not, some are tolerant to religious folk, some are not.

    For every tolerance there is an equal and opposite intolerance. If you are tolerant towards something. God for example, you are intolerant towards the idea that there is no God.

    If you are tolerant when it comes to Homosexuals publicly displaying their affection, you are probably intolerant of someone who displays their hatred for them.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    is christianity intolerant?
    Are intolerant people Christians?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Christianity isn't intolerant in general. There are some things it dissaproves of and some things which are not allowed in the faith.

    I think the more prudent question is "Are Christians tolerant?"

    It depends where you are and on the person.

    If I may make generalisations for a moment, it seems to me that the christianity in America is very overbearing.

    You regularly see videos on youtube of young american atheists saying things along the lines of "we shouldn't be ashamed of being atheists... it's time to come out of hiding". In a trully free society, peaceful people should not feel under that kind of pressure to keep their feelings and beliefs and views hidden. So for me it seems like in general American christians need to back off a bit. It'll come back to bite them in the arse if they dont!

    If we jump over the pond to the UK however it's the complete opposite. It is Christians who are very tolerant and the atheists who simply ridicule and try to stamp them out. Christianity is steadily declining in this country and atheism is on the rise. The problem is that in this country christians have become TOO timid in the face of adversity. Christians on the whole have take then "Love thy neighbour" thing a little too seriously until they are now no longer respected. On the tv their are plenty of offensive jokes about God and Jesus because christians on the whole are a bunch of peaceful wimps who nobody takes seriously. You bet they wouldn't dare put any offensive programs about Islam on the tv. In this country I think it's fair to say we are very wary/distrustful of foreign speaking muslims.

    So really I think that whoever is in a minority in any type of situation is always going to feel like the majority are barely tolerant towards them.

    It's just how human society works. It doesn't matter what world view is in charge.

    This hasn't been well written but I think you should get the jist.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I get the just, but you can better explain the fact by looking at sub cultures. Take for example the hippies and compare them to skin heads, hippies think the world is against them, skin heads think the world is against them. That is because they are both intolerant of others. Hippies act like they are tolerant, but when you start talking about the effects of regular use of marijuana, their tolerance goes out the window. When you talk science or religion or claim any authority on any subject, tolerance flies away. They can both be quite fascist in the sense that they will both take evidence that suits their case and ignore evidence that doesn't. They will both take such things as personal attacks.

    I think this is intolerance in it's purest form, when you hear something and think it is an attack on what you believe, but are not made curious, do not seek, and do not have faith that what is true will be revealed unto you as you learn what is needed to build understanding on. I mean that as scientifically as I do spiritually as I do religiously, it is all the same, faith is faith, tolerance is how you know faith. Not BLIND faith, but objectivity, not letting your thoughts cloud your perception.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    is christianity intolerant?
    Are intolerant people Christians?
    This equivalence of being Christian with being good, kind and generous might have worked in another era but not any more. I think the dominant consensus is that being Christian is about the things one believes. I don't even like the typical equivalence that many Christians make between being Chrisian and being saved. For the word to have meaning it must label something about which we can make some judgement and I don't believe in making judgements about who is going to heaven and who isn't (Romans 10:6-7), which is not the same thing as making comments about the sort of thing that effects what our final destination might be.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    archeologist then said: "no it is not. it is the backlash against something that i perceived to be excluding a person based upon one's actions regardless of the rules." though I can't understand the part that I made bold, I would like archeologist to explain what this means. Are you in grade school? No offense, but please try to speak intelligibly. I don't know if you care about sharing your message with people, but it might be more effective to speak simply when things are complicated. Try using punctuation more often.
    it is simple, one looks at the rules and see that they are excluded and conclude that that exclusion is unfair and intolerant, yet it isn't. to label fundamentalism or christianity as 'intolerant' one would have to label every country club, every organization that requires membership as intolerant.

    for they all have rules that claim what is or isn't acceptable for inclusion in their little club.

    God and christianity says you have to make a choice, you are free to continue in your sinful ways if you want or you can choose to change. that is not intolerasnt but asking for you to adhere to the rules
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    That isn't a good analogy Archaeologist. let me help you out.

    If there is a country club called the Klu Klux Klan and they said that in order to join us, you must be white, then they go out and kill everyone who isn't white, then that would be similar to Christianity. And that IS intolerance.

    Likewise, Christians believe they have a club and in order to join us you must believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. And whoever wont join us will be burned in fiery damnation... See the correlation?

    Luckily they had to change their rules around a bit. Instead of being burned at the stake in this life, they switched it to the afterlife to appease those GODLESS SECULAR LAWS that you hate so much, eh Archaeologist?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I wouldn't consider the KKK and Christianity along the same lines, although the KKK wouldn't have been formed if it wasn't for Christianity, who is to say other worse cults wouldn't have taken it's place. That is not a topic that will lead to logical discussion anyway, it is just a medium to point and blame and plant ideals in ripe imaginations.

    I am sorry archeologist, those country clubs ARE intolerant. Any rule is intolerant of breaking that rule. Intolerance is a definite, things are not intolerant to more or lesser of a degree than other things. You cannot compare two things and say "this is more intolerant that that" because something as a whole is not intolerant, you are misunderstanding or ignoring what I said.

    ANY RULE is intolerant, period. Even a rule saying "You have to be tolerant to join this club" is intolerant towards intolerance, yes it is hypocritical but that doesn't stop it from being, for example again, Hippies. They preach tolerance, but can be as intolerant as anyone if you talk to them about curtain things.

    The biblical God is not very tolerant. He is a jealous god, he inspires fear and is wrathfull. He makes life and beautiful things too, but these things are meant to remind us of him, they are not meant for us to enjoy. He does not tolerate Idols, He does not tolerate murder, He does not tolerate theft, He does not tolerate adultery. There are many things He does not tolerate according to scripture.

    Intolerance is not as bad as I think you think it is, Intolerant does not mean closed minded. You can be intolerant towards close mindedness. Intolerant is used synonymously with lots of things, Ignorant is one of them, but again, You can be intolerant of ignorance. You can be intolerant of tolerance, you would be very angry because you would be the biggest hypocrite in the world, but there you go, we have very angry very big hypocrites in this world don't we?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Those of us who are Christians are often accused of being narrow-minded and intolerant simply because we believe Jesus’ claim that he is the way, and the only way, to salvation.

    The problem here is that seldom does that charge include the idea that we are wrong, only that we are narrow minded and intolerant. This conveniently sidesteps the issue and makes the accusation based merely on the fact that we believe we are right.

    Personally, I don’t understand why anyone who believes something would think he is wrong, no matter what the belief. I mean, if someone believed he was wrong, he would probably change his belief. If one is narrow minded and intolerant merely because he thinks his belief is correct, then everyone who posts on this forum is narrow minded and intolerant.

    Christians believe certain things. That is not being narrow minded. For most of us, we have considered other beliefs and other possibilities. We are not narrow minded and intolerant merely because we have rejected those other beliefs and possibilities. If that is true, then anyone who has considered Christianity and rejected it is narrow-minded and intolerant merely because he has rejected Christianity.

    It cannot possibly be true Jesus is the only way to God and that there are, at the same time, many other ways to God. It is a logical impossibility. If there is more than one way to God or there is no way to God or there is no God, then Christianity is wrong. It is pure nonsense to suggest that anyone who is a Christian would believe anything else. Why would they? How could they.

    Accusing them of being narrow minded or intolerant is not a legitimate criticism of a believe but an attack of how they believe it or why they believe it, not of the belief itself.

    Now then, if you want to suggest that someone has a narrow belief, that could be accurate, but you better also be looking in the mirror when you say that. It is the very nature of any belief to be narrow. Narrow minded, however, refers not to the belief but presupposes that the person is dogmatic, biased or bigotted. While I could agree that you can find Christian who fit that description, I would say you can just as easily find such people in every belief group you could define.

    Sometimes skeptics are far more narrow minded than the Christian himself. My observation from reading many atheist and agnostic comments on this forum is that they have very little knowledge of what Christians actually believe but they are familiar with what others (like maybe, Dockens or Dennett) claim Christians believe and reject on that basis without really investigating the claims of Christianity on their own. Now that is a narrow minded and intolerant position.

    It will probably shock most atheists and agnostics to know that I am more than willing to accept that maybe God does not exist. Maybe Jesus was not God’s son. Maybe there is no eternity. Maybe everything we Christians believe is, as you sometimes suggest, a mere fantasy. But we just don’t believe that. If Christians recognize that possibility, are they truly narrow minded and intolerant?

    The only way atheists and agnostics can validate their claim to open mindedness is to consider that the claims of Jesus may be true and why He made them.

    Having a narrow view is not the same as being narrow minded. Only the truly narrow minded will not agree.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Those of us who are Christians are often accused of being narrow-minded and intolerant simply because we believe Jesus’ claim that he is the way, and the only way, to salvation.
    Not me, I avoid stereotyping.

    I pick on individuals for being narrow-minded, instead.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    drowsy turkle said:

    Not me, I avoid stereotyping.

    I pick on individuals for being narrow-minded, instead.
    What are you? Running for forum comedian?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Dayton has inspired some thoughts of my own.

    Back to the question of whether Christianity is intolerant, I think we merely have to look at the incredible diversity of thought in what is Christianity to realize that this is pure nonsense. I think we can say the same thing of scientists too. It is clearly evident that neither are narrow minded and intolerant because both are incredibly diverse to the extent of overlapping.

    I think a lot of the intolerance is coming from the radical atheists who have been pushing atheism with the argument that evolution proves that Christianity is false, which is necessarily based on this premise that you cannot believe in both evolution and Christianity, but the predictable reaction is not a rush to atheism but a growing rejection of evolution in Chrisitanity. Given a choice they naturally choose that which empowers them in their lives over some abstract theoretical construct.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Now then, if you want to suggest that someone has a narrow belief, that could be accurate, but you better also be looking in the mirror when you say that. It is the very nature of any belief to be narrow. Narrow minded, however, refers not to the belief but presupposes that the person is dogmatic, biased or bigotted. While I could agree that you can find Christian who fit that description, I would say you can just as easily find such people in every belief group you could define.
    No, I don't think this narrow mindedness is the real issue of this question of whether Christians are intolerant. Tolerance is a completely seperate ideal and either you believe and support it or you do not. There are a growing number among the fundamentalists of both theist and atheist varieties who have decided that they do not believe in tolerance for whatever reason, and they have begun rhetoric to argue that tolerance is a contradictory concept. "Why," they think, "should they tolerate that which is harmful." I think they have a savior complex and seeing themselves in the role of saving and bringing truth to the world, they believe that they are justified in doing just about anything in their holy cause to rid the world of evil. But the truth is that by putting their sinful self-important selves in the place of God it is they who have become the source of evil in the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Sometimes skeptics are far more narrow minded than the Christian himself. My observation from reading many atheist and agnostic comments on this forum is that they have very little knowledge of what Christians actually believe but they are familiar with what others (like maybe, Dockens or Dennett) claim Christians believe and reject on that basis without really investigating the claims of Christianity on their own. Now that is a narrow minded and intolerant position.
    But ok lets consider what narrow mindedness really means. I think it has to do with having ones mind so made up about something that one refuses to consider any evidence that might contradict it. It means that you go through life with blinders on and you refuse to see anything which does not fit into what you have decided is real. Thus our degree of narrow mindedness can be measured by how we respond to something that is outside the usual range of experiences. Now I think that this clearly applies to any kind of ideologue, whether theist or atheist and I agree that the atheistic ones are typically more narrow minded by the simple fact that they are defined by a rejection of a certain range of experiences. Though perhaps you can say that the weight of numbers on the side of theism who are narrow minded is the more significant fact.

    But think about it. This DOES NOT mean that anyone who has strong conviction is automatically narrow minded, for part of the question is what range of experiences can your system of belief allow. If your system of believe is one that says that only these things exist, like the naturalist who says that only what modern science describes is real, or like the fundamentalist who says that only what the Bible says is true, then you naturally have a very narrow-minded way of thinking. Besides having a system of thought that is open in scope to a larger range of experiences there is also having a flexibility and adaptability that hold some things to be true in a provisional manner and thus open to changing so that it will embrace new evidence and information. This second is a strong suit of the scientific world view which places a higher priority on the methodology for discovering truth than on any of things which it discovers, but that does not mean that religious world views are not capable of the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It will probably shock most atheists and agnostics to know that I am more than willing to accept that maybe God does not exist. Maybe Jesus was not God’s son. Maybe there is no eternity. Maybe everything we Christians believe is, as you sometimes suggest, a mere fantasy. But we just don’t believe that. If Christians recognize that possibility, are they truly narrow minded and intolerant?
    I don't think it shocks them as much as they simply do not believe you, which is a measure of their own narrow mindedness. It doesn't shock me of course because I was not raised Christian, but came to Christianity by my own conclusion, AND as I am sure you know quite well, pretty much on my own terms. I accept nothing because it is Christian but will believe only that which I decide is reasonable according to my own judgement. It is not a matter of trusting my own judgement but a matter of trusting God to lead me as He wills, whether in truth or error.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Having a narrow view is not the same as being narrow minded. Only the truly narrow minded will not agree.
    Perhaps what you mean by "narrow view" is what I mean by a narrow minded system of thought -- I am unsure. If that is the case then what you mean by narrow mindedness may be this inability to accept any possibility that you are wrong - such that you refuse to see any evidence which contradicts your viewpoint.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    That isn't a good analogy Archaeologist
    i am sure you got the point.

    i will agree with most of what daytonturner said. not all but most.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Those of us who are Christians are often accused of being narrow-minded and intolerant simply because we believe Jesus’ claim that he is the way, and the only way, to salvation....

    Christians believe certain things. That is not being narrow minded.
    Although I don't know specifically who you might have been listening to, I don't think most people would consider christians intolerant because of their beliefs per se. If it's your opinion that, for example, homosexuals will probably go to hell, that opinion per se isn't intolerant.

    Usually when christians are accused be being intolerant it usually has more to do with them trying to legislate their religious beliefs into law, so as to impose them on everyone regardless of whether or not everyone else is a christian. So while believing that homosexuality is a sin isn't in and of itself intolerant, trying to pass laws that outlaw homosexuality or restrict the rights of homosexuals is indeed intolerant. That's just one example - you can replace homosexuals with atheists, of Hindus, or whatever other ungodly group you feel like.

    The question is whether you are willing to tolerate others, not whether you like them or approve of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Scifor said:

    Usually when christians are accused be being intolerant it usually has more to do with them trying to legislate their religious beliefs into law, so as to impose them on everyone regardless of whether or not everyone else is a christian.
    Well, a couple of thing here and with the rest of the post.

    First of all, why is it intolerance when Christians try to encourage legislation which agrees with their beliefs while it is tolerance when non-Christians try to encourage legislation which agrees with their beliefs. This is the way we do things

    I know of no place, at least in the U.S., where homosexuality is under threat of becoming a crime. Tolerance and condoning are two different things. If homosexuals asked only for tolerance, there would be no problem. What they really want and ask is that those who find that practice distasteful (haha), condone it, accept it and support it.

    There are many things that different societies condone which others find distasteful. Personally, I find it disgusting that there is a society which believes in removing the clitoris of young girls and they do this in a most painful and traumatic fashion.

    I don't think I could ever, as a person, tolerate such a practice. In fact, I think the men of the community who do that should be de-prostated to put them in the same state of sexual satisfaction.

    However, if two guys want to live together and bugger each other, that is their business. But it should remain their business and they should not be trying to make it my business by flaunting their relationship and demanding that I accept their lifestyle as being normal, moral and the equivalent of a relationship between a man and a woman.

    Your position is exactly what I was talking about. It is two-faced in that you feel that persons who advocate for that with which you disagree are intolerant while your efforts to impose your beliefs into legislation are examples of tolerance.

    That is, ultimately, the height of intolerance.

    Secondarily, it is not even the religious who are trying to pass new laws in this area. It is the homosexual community trying to forge new rights and impose acceptance of a way of life that a majority of people seem to find repulsive.

    As Scifor seems to say, tolerance of homosexuality should not necessitate approval of homosexuality. I have always been in favor of a don't ask, don't tell, don't flaunt policy.

    Do what you want, I am willing to let God sort it out when the times comes.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    That isn't a good analogy Archaeologist. let me help you out.

    If there is a country club called the Klu Klux Klan and they said that in order to join us, you must be white, then they go out and kill everyone who isn't white, then that would be similar to Christianity. And that IS intolerance.

    Likewise, Christians believe they have a club and in order to join us you must believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. And whoever wont join us will be burned in fiery damnation... See the correlation?

    Luckily they had to change their rules around a bit. Instead of being burned at the stake in this life, they switched it to the afterlife to appease those GODLESS SECULAR LAWS that you hate so much, eh Archaeologist?
    So much for that cherished "considerable logic" of yours. Your analogy isn't even equivalent.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    That's because it isn't an analogy. Unless you mean calling them country clubs.

    It is a comparison of the KKK and Christianity.

    And it is accurate enough for the purpose it serves.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    No it's not.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    back to the definition of intolerant

    Does someone have to reject non-christian beliefs in order to be a Christian?

    this, despite what it seems, does not make Christianity intolerant, it shows the intolerance of the individuals who decide who is Christian and who is not. Intolerance cannot exist outside of people. Fire is not intolerant of water, earth is not intolerant of air. Hatred is not intolerant of love: at least in the context we are using the word.

    Tolerance is one of two things: Openness to opinions and beliefs that you do not agree with, or the ability to put up with a form of stress. It is clear which form of the word we are using, we are not talking about the IDEAL of being Tolerant, that is more of a fantasy than Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    Christianity is a belief system, actually MANY MANY belief systems all sharing in a common set of symbols. The context and therefore the meaning of these symbols changes slightly, sometimes drastically, from denomination to denomination.

    Even if a religion is not true, that does not make it worthless. Sometimes I feal people forget the power of a story, the power of folk lore and culture. Even though something is a lie, it can help communicate abstract truths. Just like mathematics, just like quantum physics or dark matter. These are lies that help us understand abstract truths. Even if a religion is wrong, you have to ask yourself if it is still usefull to believe in something, to have faith, if for nothing else, than to keep yourself motivated in an otherwise indifferent world.

    You might see me on other topics mention how faith helps you remain objective. This is my experience with it anyway. Science and religion have both equally helped me grow as an individual, science teaches me to look at many sides, religion teaches me to look at the whole, they are both essential skills to be able to observe something as it is, not what we want it to be.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman Chisco1389's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53
    I do not think God is intolerant. all things that are truly sinful are sinful, because they can and will likely cause harm to you. Its like a parent who sets rules for their children. If he was totally intolerant there would be no grace. if we sinned once we would be condemned forever. Instead we can be forgiven. No matter what we have done no matter who and what we have been he will throw our sin as far as the east is from the west.
    Nothing is certain, but uncertainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    First of all, why is it intolerance when Christians try to encourage legislation which agrees with their beliefs while it is tolerance when non-Christians try to encourage legislation which agrees with their beliefs.
    I don't know, I suppose you would have to ask someone who made such a claim. I never did. Clearly if you are trying to outlaw something, you are not tolerant of it. As a society, we're pretty uniformly intolerant of murderers. A large fraction of people are intolerant of, say, marijuana, while a large fraction are tolerant. Many christians are intolerant of people not living according to biblical guidelines, by which I mean they want to use laws to force everyone to live according to them.

    The concept of some sort of "absolute intolerance magnitude" in a person seems a little silly to me, since pretty much everyone wants many, many things to be illegal (or not).
    I know of no place, at least in the U.S., where homosexuality is under threat of becoming a crime.
    While true, this has a lot more to do with our federal system, the constitution, and the supreme court than with any particular tolerance on the part of the community in many places. There are many, many christians who would vote to make homosexuality illegal if they had the chance. I don't really have any evidence as to the percentage, but I would very roughly guess that it's around 1/2-1/4.
    Tolerance and condoning are two different things.
    Yes, this was largely the point of my previous post.
    However, if two guys want to live together and bugger each other, that is their business.
    Sounds pretty reasonable.
    But it should remain their business and they should not be trying to make it my business by flaunting their relationship and demanding that I accept their lifestyle as being normal, moral and the equivalent of a relationship between a man and a woman.
    Ah, and here the intolerance (rather than mere lack of condoning) comes out. You don't simply refuse to condone it, you also want it kept away from you so that you never have to see it or be reminded of it in public places, even when the homosexuals in question have just as much right to be there as you. You are unwilling to tolerate having it around you.
    Your position is exactly what I was talking about. It is two-faced in that you feel that persons who advocate for that with which you disagree are intolerant while your efforts to impose your beliefs into legislation are examples of tolerance.
    WTF? I never said this. Please read carefully and respond to what I actually say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I'm sorry scifor. You did say those things and make those implications. If that is not what you are saying, you need to figure out how to say it differently. I did reread your post and those implications are clearly there.

    You say Christians are considered intolerant when they advocate for legislation which would implement the things they believe in as though you agree this is a legitimate charge. If you did not agree or think it is a bogus charge, you should have said "unfairly considered," or "improperly considered" or in someway disassociated yourself from that consideration. You do not suggest that others are equally considered intolerant because they also advocates for some non-religious or anti-religious belief. Thus, by implication, you are condemning Christians for doing what you impliedly condone in others. I hardly think you would say it is improper for any person to advocate for legislation which would implement his beliefs over the objections of those who do believe similarly.

    Sometimes by what we say, we are also saying something else. When bidding in bridge, if one opens the bidding at one diamond, he is saying he does not have five cards in either hearts or spades. He cannot later show up with a good five-care heart suit and claim, "Well, I never SAID I didn't have five hearts." (There are exceptions.)

    That is what an atheist would say, though. Atheists love to make these subtle implications here and then deny they actually said what they implied. Words connote more that their literal meaning. Words often imply far more than they actually say. Thus, it is wise to qualify or explain more fully your statements.

    I'm sorry if you don't see all the implications and ramificatons of what you have to say. But that is the danger of saying things. We often say more or less than we thought we were saying. None of us is immune.

    I think you are in someway mixing and matching the concepts of narrow mindedness and intolerance. While closely related they are not the same.

    You are correct, however, that there is a limit to my tolerance level just as I am sure there is a limit to yours. But I had originally been focused on the label of narrow mindedness. I do have a narrow view on homosexuality, but I would not agree that I am narrow minded about it.

    I personally believe homosexuality is a counterproductive, unhealthy lifestyle. As to a moral position, I see it no different from any other questionable sexual practice. But I am far more tolerant and open-minded about homosexuality than I would be of, say, child molestation.

    I do not want to observe homosexuality being flaunted in public any more than I want to see people relieving themselves on the street. Yet a person relieving himself on the street has as much right to be there as the homosexual. It is not the right of their presence which is objectionable, but what they can practice in that presence and in relation to who else occupies that presence. It is more a matter of where we have set our tolerance limits.

    You would agree, suppose, that a person should not be allowed to haul out his member and pee in the aisle of the crowded department store, but you would see nothing wrong with two homosexuals kissing and feeling themselves up in the same place? To me, both would be disgusting. However, I would not even appreciate seeing that if the couple were heterosexual. So, in reality, it is the ostentatious overt public display of affection that I find objectionable more than the sexual preferences of the couple in question. However, I probably find such displays by homosexuals more disgusting.

    My observation is that when we draw our own lines, we draw them just below our own personal standards, restricting those behaviors which we would not consider while condoning those which we might ourselves want to do at some time. We do not like it when someone else draws the line more restrictively than our behavior.

    So I agree, there are homosexual practices of which I am intolerant without being intolerant of homosexuality. I have a narrow view of homosexuality, but I am not narrow minded. I am sorry if you have problems with those differentiations or my propensity for looking at all the implications of what people say.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Going way back to Mitchell's comments:

    He said:

    But ok lets consider what narrow mindedness really means. I think it has to do with having ones mind so made up about something that one refuses to consider any evidence that might contradict it. It means that you go through life with blinders on and you refuse to see anything which does not fit into what you have decided is real. Thus our degree of narrow mindedness can be measured by how we respond to something that is outside the usual range of experiences. Now I think that this clearly applies to any kind of ideologue, whether theist or atheist and I agree that the atheistic ones are typically more narrow minded by the simple fact that they are defined by a rejection of a certain range of experiences. Though perhaps you can say that the weight of numbers on the side of theism who are narrow minded is the more significant fact.
    and

    Perhaps what you mean by "narrow view" is what I mean by a narrow minded system of thought -- I am unsure. If that is the case then what you mean by narrow mindedness may be this inability to accept any possibility that you are wrong - such that you refuse to see any evidence which contradicts your viewpoint.
    Well, I don't exactly buy into the entirety of the top definition of narrow mindedness. Narrow mindedness, to me, focuses on the process by which a person assumes a particular position on a specific issue. What you describe, to me, are the results of narrow mindedness. I know, picky, picky, picky.

    I think narrow mindedness is the product of incomplete investigation and consideration. It is a view developed by a person who has made up his mind without investigating the alternatives. I would say that of two people of a similar disposition, one could be narrow minded and the other not so. It is a fine line but what you describe would be the symptoms of narrow mindedness.

    You and I have different views on evolution. But while I would agree that we each hold narrow views, I don't think either of us is narrow minded. We have both considered a plethora of information on evolution and we have come to slightly different conclusions, not because either of us is narrow minded, but because we are OPEN minded.

    What becomes obvious to me as some people discuss evolution is that they really have no idea as to what the skeptic's objections to it are. Now, those people are narrow minded.

    I sort of tossed narrow mindedness and intolerance into the same basket but I do not consider them interchangeable terms even though they are often mentioned in the same breath, especially by non-believers in relation to Christians and their beliefs. Another word that fits into the mix is dogmatic.

    We often use dogmatic as a pejorative term especially when someone refuses to accede to our way of thinking. But I think if a person holds a narrow view and thinks he is right and is either defending or advocating that view, he should be somewhat dogmatic. If one is being narrow minded, then dogmatism becomes inappropriate and offensive.

    I think we all hold narrow views in some areas; we all have intolerances and we all have some positions about which we are dogmatic. I think it foolish to point out these things about others from an attitude that we do not have similar qualities. Although I think it perfectly OK to suggest that a view is narrow; that a position is intolerant or an argument is dogmatic, it is not a reflection on the person unless the person puts the shoe on and it fits.

    I do not mean by narrow view what you mean by narrow minded. I thought I had been fairly clear that a narrow view is a considered, weighed and derived view while narrow mindedness is a position acquired from insufficient data.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I'm sorry scifor. You did say those things and make those implications. If that is not what you are saying, you need to figure out how to say it differently. I did reread your post and those implications are clearly there.

    You say Christians are considered intolerant when they advocate for legislation which would implement the things they believe in as though you agree this is a legitimate charge. If you did not agree or think it is a bogus charge, you should have said "unfairly considered," or "improperly considered" or in someway disassociated yourself from that consideration.
    Again you fail at reading comprehension. Christians are being intolerant when they try to outlaw behavior that they don't like. Any time anyone is attempting to outlaw something, obviously they are intolerant of it.
    That is what an atheist would say, though. Atheists love to make these subtle implications here and then deny they actually said what they implied.
    Or perhaps you're so hyped up to defend christianity from the evil atheist conspiracy that you see attacks were none are taking place?
    Words connote more that their literal meaning. Words often imply far more than they actually say. Thus, it is wise to qualify or explain more fully your statements.
    Hahaha. I can't help but be reminded of that thread from a while ago where we were arguing over whether or not the bible condoned rape, and you attempted to argue that the Israelites weren't being told to rape their defeated enemies when they were told to "despoil" or "prey upon" the young women - as I recall you had the nerve to try to argue that they were merely gathering them up to protect them. Apparently your willingness to read implied meaning varies from topic to topic.
    I do not want to observe homosexuality being flaunted in public any more than I want to see people relieving themselves on the street. Yet a person relieving himself on the street has as much right to be there as the homosexual. It is not the right of their presence which is objectionable, but what they can practice in that presence and in relation to who else occupies that presence. It is more a matter of where we have set our tolerance limits.
    I guess the fact that one is an unsanitary threat to public health and the other isn't never occurred to you while concocting this analogy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    drowsy turkle said:

    Not me, I avoid stereotyping.

    I pick on individuals for being narrow-minded, instead.
    What are you? Running for forum comedian?
    Yeah, let's vote and make it official?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    scifor said:

    Hahaha. I can't help but be reminded of that thread from a while ago where we were arguing over whether or not the bible condoned rape, and you attempted to argue that the Israelites weren't being told to rape their defeated enemies when they were told to "despoil" or "prey upon" the young women - as I recall you had the nerve to try to argue that they were merely gathering them up to protect them. Apparently your willingness to read implied meaning varies from topic to topic.
    I do remember the incident, and as I recall the verse in question was Numbers 31:18 which, after ordering the execution of all captive Medianite male children and adult women (the men had been previously executed), says:

    "But all the women children, that have not know a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

    I still do see the word "despoil" or the phrase "prey upon" included. They weren't there then and they aren't there now. That is YOUR OWN PERSONAL SPIN on, apparently, what "keep alive" means. (Didn't I suggest back then that you should keep your dog alive? Or did I suggest that you go keep alive yourself?) I just do not see the meaning of "keep alive" as ordering or sanctioning their rape and despoliation. Where do you get that other than your own dirty mind?

    My spin, taking into account the previous verses where the Israelites were apparently instructed to take no prisoners because, as Moses explains, this particular people had been instrumental in drawing early Jews away from God. I can only guess that God permitted the young girls to live because they were not "despoiled" and indoctrinated in Median religion and would thus be safe as maid servants or (less likely) wives. It is never explained what happened to these young women, but I just don't agree that there was any directive or clearance here to "despoil" them and "prey upon" them.

    I think there are a number of places in the Old Testament where words or phrases are capable of multiple interpretations or understandings. I sometimes disagree with the traditional interpretations because I don't think they are consistent with the character of God. I don't think my concept of the character of God would support the idea that he ordered or even approved the rape of these young girls. Obviously, by your objection, you also do not think that idea fits into the character of God (if He exists), but you use your far out interpretation as an excuse to justify your disbelieve in God. So your willingness to read (totally off the wall) implied meanings into Bible text varies so as to support your disbelief in God.

    As to the rest, I can only reiterate that I think you fail to comprehend the full ramifications of the potential meanings of some of the things you say. And when someone points out an interpretation other than you intended, you refuse to accept it as a potential meaning. But it is not all that difficult to do.

    For example:

    Scifor concludes:
    I guess the fact that one is an unsanitary threat to public health and the other isn't never occurred to you while concocting this analogy?
    You are right, that never occurred to me, never entered my thinking. I was so lost in my focus on the repulsiveness of each action, I did not consider potential differentiations. I suppose exposing oneself might have been a better comparison act. (Even so, indecent exposure is a crime while PDA is not.) So, touche. However, I really doubt the disparate comparison obliterated the intended meaning for you.

    But as a true atheist, your double standard suggests that you think it is OK for you to point out alternate applications to what someone else has said while not affording them the same opportunity to scrutinize and critique your statements. Pfffft.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    sorry, didn't read all the posts, but I believe that all worldviews have the potential to be intolerant. Is Christianity more or less intolerant than other ideologies? No idea. This is simply because the alternatives I believe are put forward here often (mostly atheism) have not had alot of time to be tested.

    Plus I think everyones definition of intolerant varies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Dayton has inspired some thoughts of my own.

    Back to the question of whether Christianity is intolerant, I think we merely have to look at the incredible diversity of thought in what is Christianity to realize that this is pure nonsense. I think we can say the same thing of scientists too. It is clearly evident that neither are narrow minded and intolerant because both are incredibly diverse to the extent of overlapping.

    I think a lot of the intolerance is coming from the radical atheists who have been pushing atheism with the argument that evolution proves that Christianity is false, which is necessarily based on this premise that you cannot believe in both evolution and Christianity, but the predictable reaction is not a rush to atheism but a growing rejection of evolution in Chrisitanity. Given a choice they naturally choose that which empowers them in their lives over some abstract theoretical construct.
    I respect that opinion, it is an opinion put forward by Kenneth Miller, who I respect. However it would be nice to have some evidence. Certainly creationism has increased since Dawkins published the The God Delusion. But do you anything to support it? I'd certainly appreciate if you did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    how is it intolerant? you have a choice, what more can you ask for?
    You are one sick puppy. If I told you to go out and kill your family or I would torture you until you die of pain, would you consider THAT a choice as well?
    Well of course it is a choice. The question is, which is greater, your cowardice or your sense of right and wrong? What is REALLY peculiar are these pseudo-christians who choose cowardice and call it righteousness.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I do remember the incident, and as I recall the verse in question was Numbers 31:18...
    Actually it was Deut. 20:14:

    "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

    The Hebrew word that is translated here as "take" is "bazaz" which means to despoil, plunder, prey upon, etc and has very sinister connotations beyond what is conveyed by the simple use of "take" as a translation. So, the israelites are being told that the women are to be "despoiled" or "preyed upon" as "plunder". The rape connotation seems pretty clear, or at least it should be to someone who is as into looking at implied meanings as you apparently are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Numbers 31 actually states to kill every man, women who have been touched by a man and male child and to keep all the virgin women children for yourselves.
    It is actually saying Moses told his men to rape these kids. Yeah...
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    No it doesnt verzen... you are twisting what it says...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I think, sox, they interpret it that way because that is what they would do if they were in that situation. When we remake God in our own minds, we tend to give him our own character.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I think, sox, they interpret it that way because that is what they would do if they were in that situation. When we remake God in our own minds, we tend to give him our own character.
    Wow, That is one hell of a lie and an extremely rude ad hom, The original Hebrew bible is the one all the verses were translated from, they actually state despoil/prey upon, so verzen is correct.
    So sox you need to study your holy book a little better.
    And Dayton you do to, also brush up on you manners, just because you don't like the truth thrown in your face there is no need to lie and be rude.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    No it doesnt verzen... you are twisting what it says...
    i will agree with sox here.

    think, sox, they interpret it that way because that is what they would do if they were in that situation. When we remake God in our own minds, we tend to give him our own character.
    too much of a generalization here andiwould disagree. it is clearly a taking advantage of some words to meet one;s own evil desires, has little to do with 'giving God our character'.

    The original Hebrew bible is the one all the verses were translated from, they actually state despoil/prey upon, so verzen is correct
    which original hebrew Bible? last i heard we did not have any of the original texts and you would have to quote thehebrew words in context so we can checkto see if you are right. all you are doing is just hearsay.

    from keil & Deitzsch, pgs. 226-7

    NUMBERS 31:13-18
    Treatment of the Prisoners.
    When Moses went out to the front of the camp with Eleazar and the
    princes of the congregation to meet the returning warriors, he was angry
    with the commanders, because they had left all the women alive, since it
    was they who had been the cause, at Balaam’s instigation, of the falling
    away of the Israelites from Jehovah to worship Peor; and he commanded
    all the male children to be slain, and every woman who had lain with a
    227
    man, and only the young girls who had hitherto had no connection with a
    man to be left alive. lyijæ rqæp], lit., the appointed persons, i.e., the officers
    of the army, who were then divided into princes (captains) over thousands
    and hundreds.-”Which came from the battle,” i.e., who had returned. The
    question in v. 15, “Have ye left all the women alive?” is an expression of
    dissatisfaction, and reproof for their having done this. hy;h;, “they have
    become to the Israelites to work unfaithfulness towards Jehovah,” i.e., they
    have induced them to commit an act of unfaithfulness towards Jehovah.
    The word rsæm;, which only occurs in this chapter, viz., in vv. 5 and 16,
    appears to be used in the sense of giving, delivering, and then, like ˆtæn;,
    doing, making, effecting
    . On the fact itself, see Numbers 25:6ff. The object
    of the command to put all the male children to death, was to exterminate
    the whole nation, as it could not be perpetuated in the women. Of the
    female sex, all were to be put to death who had known the lying with a
    man, and therefore might possibly have been engaged in the licentious
    worship of Peor (Numbers 25:2), to preserve the congregation from all
    contamination from that abominable idolatry
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Buttttt --

    Scifor points out a different verse:


    Actually it was Deut. 20:14:

    "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

    The Hebrew word that is translated here as "take" is "bazaz" which means to despoil, plunder, prey upon, etc and has very sinister connotations beyond what is conveyed by the simple use of "take" as a translation. So, the israelites are being told that the women are to be "despoiled" or "preyed upon" as "plunder". The rape connotation seems pretty clear, or at least it should be to someone who is as into looking at implied meanings as you apparently are.
    So, it is your understanding here that the Israelites were suppose to rape the women and children and also practice beastiality with the livestock? Or does "take" apply differently to the different kinds of booty seized?

    The word you cite is used several times in the Old Testament, but no place is it given the connotation that you wish to ascribe to it here. It is far more difficult to translate it that way here where you have old women, young girls, young boys and livestock than in the other verse where you are left only with young girls.

    In the NIV, "bazaz" is variously translated as away, caught, gathering, prey, rob, robbed, robbers, spoil, spoiled, take, took and utterly depending both on whether the noun usage or verb usage is being employed and the context. You can find a list of the different places and translations at http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...s/CONHEB96.htm

    It is also translated "take" in Isa 10:6 and 33:23, Eze 29:19 and 38:12&13. In any of these instances, the context can hardly convey any meaning other than to "take command of" or "take possession of." There is nothing implied in this usage as to the use of that which they were suppose to "take."

    I really think your interpretation on this particular verse and the others that were mentioned before provide a good incite into the depths of misrepresentation to which you will descend in an effort to discredit a righteous and holy God whose only crime is trying to save your soul from eternal damnation. Why should he bother?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I really think your interpretation on this particular verse and the others that were mentioned before provide a good incite into the depths of misrepresentation to which you will descend in an effort to discredit a righteous and holy God whose only crime is trying to save your soul from eternal damnation. Why should he bother?
    Yet, if we were to raise issue with the instruction to kill women and children, you will say it was a different time with different values, right? So the good and righteous god does not stoop to having his followers rape girls, but it is ok to kill woman and children?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    first off Numbers 31 was what i saw used. second right in the first verse you have the difference in instructions:

    Deuteronomy 20
    Going to War
    1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: "Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."
    5 The officers shall say to the army: "Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it. 6 Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. 7 Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her." 8 Then the officers shall add, "Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too." 9 When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.

    10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

    16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

    19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? [b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.
    now let's look at verse 14

    from Keil & Delitzsch again, pg. 408

    If the hostile town, however, did not make peace, but prepared for war, the
    Israelites were to besiege it; and if Jehovah gave it into their hands, they
    were to slay all the men in it without reserve (“with the edge of the
    sword,” see at Genesis 34:26); but the women and children and all that was
    in the city, all its spoil, they were to take as prey for themselves, and to
    consume (eat) the spoil, i.e., to make use of it for their own maintenance
    there is NO mention of raping or doing any sinful act. God does NOT give permission to sin or disobey His commands so who ever thinks this verse is doing just that is wrong. God is Holy and wants His people to be Holy allowing them to sin is not going to do that but allow evil to enter and destroy His people.

    The israelites in taking the women etc. must act in accordance to God's laws in their treatment of their captives, this verse does NOT lift those restrictions. taking them as 'plunder' does not even come close to meaning 'rape' etc. it just means they get the spoils of war and benefit from victory.

    it is a very big stretch to accuse God of allowing sin to take place and those that do just do not know God nor that His rules are to be followed in all situations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    So the good and righteous god does not stoop to having his followers rape girls, but it is ok to kill woman and children
    your sense of morality forgets that even women and children sin and need to be punished for those wrongful acts. God gets to punish people, even women and children, or he would violate his own words 'spare the rod spoil the child' and no parent would have authority to punish their children when they disobeyed.

    people forget that sin will be punished, that is why there was a flood andif God did not do it to the ancient people thenhe could not do it to you for your sins. God is just and though you do not see it, He is being ust because he sees more than than the outward appearance or the glossy words, he sees the heart and knows thatthe will not repent and seek forgiveness.

    non-believers remind me so much of employees who think they could run a business better than the owner yet fail to realize that they only see part of the operation and do not see what the owner sees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    people forget that sin will be punished
    Are you saying that a 5 year old can sin and should be sent to eternal hellfire for it by being slaughtered? Are you completely insane? You are a dangerous person as you will not hesitate to kill children if you think your god told you to do it. You are no better than Islamic fundamentalists who kill for the exact same reasons. People like you should be locked up and forgotten of.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    God said it-- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

    you forget that 5 year olds can lie, cheat , steal, disobey and so on.

    Are you completely insane? You are a dangerous person as you will not hesitate to kill children if you think your god told you to do it.
    it is quite clear that you are insane if you come to this conclusion and do not comprehend biblical teachings.. we do not kill children because they sin--anyone who claims that God told them to do it would be lying and you ignore so much and are leaping to conclusions without all the facts.

    You are no better than Islamic fundamentalists who kill for the exact same reasons. People like you should be locked up and forgotten of.
    it is quite obvious that your judgment without proper evidence renders you mentally unstable. please do not address me again.

    you obviously have little comprehension and your sense of morality is out of whack along with your cognitive processes which renders such comments without regard that you are doing exactly what you are aghast about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.

    his irrationality shows that science and evolution really are not rational.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Your post show that you have not yet learnt to use the edit button and thus have to double post. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    You say this:
    God said it-- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

    you forget that 5 year olds can lie, cheat , steal, disobey and so on.
    In response to my outrage that you think it is ok to kill woman and children if your god tells you to do it. Then right after that you tell me that I am insane for claiming that you have said something that you have in fact said in that very post? Insane!

    we do not kill children because they sin--anyone who claims that God told them to do it would be lying and you ignore so much and are leaping to conclusions without all the facts.
    Then tell me how you reconcile the above two quotes from you.

    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.
    Bet your ass I am intolerant towards potential child killers!!

    his irrationality shows that science and evolution really are not rational.
    What? Science is not rational? You are INSANE!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    well, judging from this thread, I'm going to hell...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    In response to my outrage that you think it is ok to kill woman and children if your god tells you to do it
    amazing, i never said that did i? if you look closely, the old testament era is far different from the new and God really does not tell His followers to kill anyone. it would be in your best interest to read the bible honestly before attacking it.

    Then right after that you tell me that I am insane for claiming that you have said something that you have in fact said in that very post? Insane!
    you would be wrong. i never said God tells His followers in the modern age to kill women and children. i was responding to your wronful idea that children of 5 are innocent--they aren't.

    What? Science is not rational? You are INSANE!
    i think laster has gone over the edge and needs to stop addressing me.

    Your post show that you have not yet learnt to use the edit button and thus have to double post.
    when you say the same thing to G. then you can approach me about my posting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.
    Bet your ass I am intolerant towards potential child killers!!

    his irrationality shows that science and evolution really are not rational.
    What? Science is not rational? You are INSANE!
    This last suggests that we use the term "rational relativism" for him, just as the rest of his post is an example of archaeologist's brand of moral relativism that I call divine relativism. Archaeologist's pocket god enables him to make himself the measure of all rationality and morality, for both of these are whatever he says that god said they are. In this way, his cult demands obedience without any of these pesky moral dilemnas or logical constraints to intefere with their plan for the domination of the world.

    Yeah yeah, I know, I call myself a Christian and hold up the Bible as God's word too. And so I am not exactly out of the target zone of some of these criticisms you are making. But I do not advocate an idiot literal interpretation of the Bible or this idea of obedience without thought. I oppose this divine relativism that calls for the annihilation of the human conscience. I oppose the efforts to make the Bible the constraint and filter for scientific inquiry.

    The fact is that we don't need the Bible to see the attrocious realities of our past for human history is filled with this stuff. I look at the world in all its gory details and like you I see human development as the answer to this. Where for you this is perhaps an evolutionary development of a species of primate, for me it is the maturation of the children of God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.
    How can he use any form of moral rod since he is an atheist and morals come only from God? Don't bother answering; your twisted explanations are increasingly damaging to my psyche. I've had to turn my tolerance setting up to full. (I should have got a Spinal Tap setting 11.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.
    How can he use any form of moral rod since he is an atheist and morals come only from God? Don't bother answering; your twisted explanations are increasingly damaging to my psyche. I've had to turn my tolerance setting up to full. (I should have got a Spinal Tap setting 11.)
    Think of the long period of detoxing you're going to need...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So, it is your understanding here that the Israelites were suppose to rape the women and children and also practice beastiality with the livestock? Or does "take" apply differently to the different kinds of booty seized?
    I would imagine that when given the command to "despoil" something you would apply it in different ways to different types of plunder.
    The word you cite is used several times in the Old Testament, but no place is it given the connotation that you wish to ascribe to it here.
    That's the definition of the Hebrew word. It means to prey upon, despoil, etc. It implies ravaging and depredation. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.
    It is far more difficult to translate it that way here where you have old women, young girls, young boys and livestock than in the other verse where you are left only with young girls.
    They are given a list of things to take as plunder, and told to despoil said plunder. You appear here to be arguing that they couldn't have been talking about raping the women simply because there were other types of plunder that would be inappropriate to rape, which is an absurd argument.
    In the NIV, "bazaz" is variously translated as away, caught, gathering, prey, rob, robbed, robbers, spoil, spoiled, take, took and utterly depending both on whether the noun usage or verb usage is being employed and the context. You can find a list of the different places and translations at http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...s/CONHEB96.htm

    It is also translated "take" in Isa 10:6 and 33:23, Eze 29:19 and 38:12&13. In any of these instances, the context can hardly convey any meaning other than to "take command of" or "take possession of." There is nothing implied in this usage as to the use of that which they were suppose to "take."
    Like I said, the hilarious thing here is that this all started when you insisted that words and statements have implicit meanings, yet here you want to try to wiggle out of the uncomfortable fact that the israelites were apparently instructed to rape women by ignoring the sinister connotations of the words of the text. There are plenty of other words for "take" or "catch" or "gather up" that don't denote depredation, but those words were not used.

    I really think your interpretation on this particular verse and the others that were mentioned before provide a good incite into the depths of misrepresentation to which you will descend in an effort to discredit a righteous and holy God whose only crime is trying to save your soul from eternal damnation. Why should he bother?
    And I think it's a hilarious example of how you are willing to do mental gymnastics and apply double standards in order to avoid facing things that you find uncomfortable. You're apparently all about looking for implied meaning, unless of course you don't like that implied meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •