Jump to content


Photo

The "but The Bible Is Also Violent" Argument

Violence bible Islam Jihad terrorism Muslims Christians

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:14 AM

1. The mother drowning her children didn't get the rationale from the bible. 
2. Abortion clinics aren't exactly non-violent themselves. They kill people. But still: What would be the biblical rational to blow them up. 
3. Owning a gun isn't violence against those disagreeing with you neither. But I think one can get a rationale from that in the bible, at least an equivalent one. 

Still missing: A rationale for killing those that don't believe in the bible from the bible. 

 

If the woman was raised to believe that there is such a thing as God and that he might speak to her then her delusions were supported by her religious beliefs. I completely agree that she is delusional and that God did not, in fact, speak to her. However, I think that this also applies to Abraham and Fred Phelps and the raging jihadists.

 

Again though I cannot supply a justification for you and we would have to ask the KKK or the Army of God for their rational. All that I can say is that they do use their religious beliefs to justify their violence. I have no doubt that we would both agree that their justifications are misguided.

 

I think that the belief in a supernatural entity that dispenses justice in some afterlife for actions committed in this life is where the problem comes from. If, instead, we consider this life to be the total set then it makes good sense to behave in a fashion that benefits us in this life instead of some imagined next realm.

 

Don't mistake this for a selfish approach. We are social creatures and what is good for the group is good for us. The brilliance of Christ's message is that we are all a part of the same group.



#42 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 04 November 2014 - 01:05 AM

 
If the woman was raised to believe that there is such a thing as God and that he might speak to her then her delusions were supported by her religious beliefs. I completely agree that she is delusional and that God did not, in fact, speak to her. However, I think that this also applies to Abraham and Fred Phelps and the raging jihadists.
 
Again though I cannot supply a justification for you and we would have to ask the KKK or the Army of God for their rational. All that I can say is that they do use their religious beliefs to justify their violence. I have no doubt that we would both agree that their justifications are misguided.
 
I think that the belief in a supernatural entity that dispenses justice in some afterlife for actions committed in this life is where the problem comes from. If, instead, we consider this life to be the total set then it makes good sense to behave in a fashion that benefits us in this life instead of some imagined next realm.
 
Don't mistake this for a selfish approach. We are social creatures and what is good for the group is good for us. The brilliance of Christ's message is that we are all a part of the same group.


Uh no. Let's think about this for two seconds. Abraham was being spoken to by God, and we know this because God told us via His word. (Bible) Abraham wasn't the only one to speak with God, considering He spoke with his wife Sarah, and then preformed a miracle in making it possible for a 100+ year old woman to become pregnant and nurse a child. Add in the coming of two angels, and the pre-incarnate Lord to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (prior to the birth of Isaac) and now you have a man speaking with God. Versus your argument of a delusional woman who hears a voice and attributes it to God to do something against the word of God (killing her child). Yeah, doesn't quite measure up. As for your thought on eternal punishment....it makes no sense. By the atheist worldview, what's the point to being a "good" person? What's the reward if this is all there is? How can you claim you're being good or bad with no objective reference? Note that those like the KKK and their ilk, have to twist scripture and the Christian religion to fit a mindset. That isn't an indoctrination of the faith, anymore than if a person tried to use a high school biology book to perform surgery on his next door neighbor would be the fault of the biology book.

How about this. How about you post those verses you think teach Christians to be violent, and I'll debunk them for you?

#43 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 04 November 2014 - 06:00 AM

Abraham was being spoken to by God, and we know this because God told us via His word.

 

That is just a little too circular for me. Corroborating evidence should come from a second source. Do you not see that you are saying that the bible is true because the bible says so?

 

Even so, according to the bible, God talks to people. Did he stop talking to people after the bible was written? Who are you to say who God talks to and how can you tell?

 

 

Versus your argument of a delusional woman who hears a voice and attributes it to God to do something against the word of God (killing her child). Yeah, doesn't quite measure up.

 

Assuming that the bible is the word of God then it is hardly against the word of God to do a little killing. I seem to recall that according to God he killed all of his children except 8 of them one time. God encouraged his devout followers to kill others by the score time and again including the women and children and cows and goats. He sacrificed his own son for goodness sake (except not really because his son was apparently really himself and he didn't die after all).

 

Perhaps I am disqualified as a non believer from interpreting the word of God but when I read the bible I see lots of killing. Now you can hand wave away the violence with arguments about context but as soon as you do you must logically abandon any notion of absolute morality.

 

It hardly seems fair that you can claim context for the bible but completely reject it in the case of the quran. If the quran is not meant to be understood in sequence then one must read and understand the whole thing in order to take in context. This is no different than saying that you have to read the whole bible in order to get the whole message.

 

 

That isn't an indoctrination of the faith, anymore than if a person tried to use a high school biology book to perform surgery on his next door neighbor would be the fault of the biology book.

 

How does this statement hold up to Mark's idea that communists use Darwin's book to justify their behaviour?

 

 

How about this. How about you post those verses you think teach Christians to be violent, and I'll debunk them for you?

 

I am sure that if we had a scholar of the quran here that they could do the same for anything that you might say about the quran inciting people to violence. This is my point but OK just for fun.

 

Leviticus 20:13

 

13 “If a man practices h*m*s*xuality, having s@x with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.



#44 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 06 November 2014 - 08:08 AM

How about this. How about you post those verses you think teach Christians to be violent, and I'll debunk them for you?

 

Yes Leviticus is a tough one. How about Exodus 22:18

 

22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.



#45 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 06 November 2014 - 01:44 PM

Sorry will, have a few things I'm juggling right now. I've been a bit preoccupied. I'll get back with you soon!

#46 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:45 AM

Sorry will, have a few things I'm juggling right now. I've been a bit preoccupied. I'll get back with you soon!

 

Of course take your time. I was scoring cheap points and attempting levity.

 

I am interested in your interpretation of the verses but my main point is that different people will have different interpretations of the very same words. This is clearly evident within Christianity given the many different denominations and it is clearly true for the quran and Islam.

 

The OP makes the contention that Islam is morally inferior to Christianity and then completely fails to support that position. How do we know that it is not the economic conditions of the people that are causing them to be violent? Or their history? Are the Palestinians violent because of their religion?  Is the suicide bomber a crazy religious fanatic or an enraged human who saw his family killed by a missile from out of the blue?



#47 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 13 November 2014 - 11:24 AM

I get this from time to time, when debating the violent nature of Islam pointing out that Muslims are taught to expand their religion violently. After they run out of denial arguments, they will cherry pick some verses from the old testament that allegedly proof that Christianity is also violent, implying moral parity to Islam. 

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

The fundamental difference is WHY!

 

 

After Adam every human dies once anyway. A natural death has not much advantage over an unnatural one. Moreover, God's priority is to save souls. Unlike humans who count bodies, God counts souls. He counts overall how many souls will be saved along the timeline of humanity. Israel is God's planted seed for the salvation of humans (today's humans also). If the Jews are not allowed to kill, they will be the first to vanish in history and God's plan for human salvation will thus come to an end. The salvation of human souls (God's harvest) can only be maximized when the Jews can successfully be settled in Canaan. Whoever tries to stop this will thus be eradicated. 

 

When grown up, children are the same force to stop God's plan and to kill the Israelites. An eradication means to put an end to a force trying to kill the Jews and possibly wipe out Israel as a whole. God eradicate them before hand, that is, before they can endanger the survival of Israel itself. Moreover, if the Canaanites die as adults they enter hell. If they die as children they won't be in hell, as there are no children in hell (perhaps because they are not mature enough to be judged). In the end, God counts souls.

 

The Canaanites are the dead and unsaved. To allow them to live longer won't save their souls. To allow them to live longer could only endanger the existence of the Jews thus affects God's salvation plan for humans. Only under this circumstance that God allows the Jews to be in a state of "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" to keep the Jews surviving their cruel and brutal enemies, and to facilitate the continuity of God's salvation plan for later humans.

 

It's completely different than the "holy wars" raged by humans towards another religion. 



#48 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy
  • Age: 54
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Southern NY State

Posted 03 December 2014 - 01:28 PM

... implying moral parity to Islam. ...


This kind of specious argumentation or defense is...well, illustrative of two problems.

1) That someone would attempt to mitigate the present-day crimes of followers (actors) of Islam by pointing to historical crimes: "It's our turn, so leave us alone." This is ludicrous and preposterous on it's face as any child on day-one in the sandbox learns that "two wrongs don't make a right"."; and, and...does one need to defend that the notion that violence, murder, terrorism are wrong?

2) The insinuation of historical ethics or morals into the present. How and to what extent can we hold living people responsible for the prevailing ethics and morals of centuries past?

Reparations are a tricky "solution" to any grievance.

#49 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 July 2016 - 03:13 PM

ScheraDo, 

 

Exactly

 

1.) The "Crusade' or "Colonialism" excuse. The facts don't matter in that case, the insinuation that you, you're ancestors or for that matter just somebody else, did do something wrong to Muslims is enough. Assuming some factuality in this, I guess there was some settlement involved post conflict. Do they really want to engage in battle again. Taken the US and Nato countries have been militarily active in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, but this didn't happen out of the blue neither (while I dismiss the official rational given by governments).

 

2.) By biblical as well as Christian Ethics you can't. But I think they're insinuating again. Smells a bit like the notion of "Karma". 

 

 

To me that just shows that these people try to exploit on certain weaknesses of the Occident right now. Tolerance, Open Society, Diversity and other buzz words are held up as ideals and Western Values (Which they are actually not, at least not in the proclaimed absolutism, relevance and interpretation), and this still in a conscience driven culture. So Westerners find it difficult to react with political Realism on the affair. Their own people more prone to violence they still can intimidate with conscience-argumentation. But this doesn't work with Dominance-driven societies, which is the norm outside the Western Nation especially in Islamic Countries, which is btw. the reason for several political disparities as well. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Violence, bible, Islam, Jihad, terrorism, Muslims, Christians

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users