Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 7 8 9
Survey says 798. Which means this comment makes 799.
ColtsFan on August 24, 2007 at 11:57 AM
800 comments!!!!!
Allahpundit,
can I pick up my cereal box prize now?
ColtsFan on August 24, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Guilt is an objective concept that is used all the time.
When someone breaks the law, they are guilty of breaking the law, whether they have any “feelings” of guilt or not. The law is an objective standard. (Unless, of course, the liberal lawyers and judges start their semantic games :-). Be that as it may, I believe the law is meant to be an objective standard). When that standard is broken, the law prescribes the penalty and the penalty is paid whether or not the person feels guilty. Interestingly enough, sometimes that penalty is tempered with mercy by mitigating circumstances.
One of the major objections that has been written about illegal aliens is that contempt for the law has been demonstrated by the fact they are illegal, and this does not bode well for a society built upon the idea of the rule of law. Obviously, many of them feel no guilt whatsoever over breaking the law, and in fact, believe it is their right to do as they please.
Now getting back to Christianity. We believe God has set down His law. No one has kept His moral law perfectly. (The ceremonial law of the Old Testament was fulfilled in Christ). Man has a true moral guilt before Him, whether they feel any guilt or not.
Does being guilty mean we are worthless? No, a thousand times. It means we are guilty. As Psalm 8 says:
God in His mercy sent His Son to pay the just moral penalty for breaking the law.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 12:00 PM
I’m Christian and I like myself just fine. I’m not perfect, no one is, but I try to do the best I can. I don’t think you have to hate yourself to believe in Christ, you just have to accept that you aren’t perfect. I don’t see how that’s such a bad thing.
On a side note, does your profession involve studying the Bible, or is it a hobby? I know you used to be Christian, but your level of knowledge seems very current. Don’t take that a a hostile question, I’m just curious and impressed by the ammount of biblical knowledge you seem to have.
BadgerHawk on August 24, 2007 at 12:02 PM
BadgerHawk,
I think that’s very healthy, but not all Christians feel the same way that you do. If I may quote pedestrian, he wrote the following:
Do you agree with that? Are you just as immoral as John Wayne Gacy? He didn’t write “I”, he wrote “we”, as in, “all of us”. I think pedestrian’s grossly-unhealthy statement is a far cry from saying, “I’m not perfect, no one is, but I try to do the best I can.”
I guess you could call it a hobby.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 12:09 PM
You just can’t stop pointing out all the things that are wrong with me, can you? Very Christian of you, and I mean that seriously, not snarkily. Cutting people down is a very Christian thing to do.
So what you’re saying is: *I* am the one who made the wrong-headed choice to turn away from the truth of Christianity. *I* am the one who is wrong, not your perfect religion. Am I understanding you correctly?
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Quoted for truth: Christianity is a guilt-based religion. This is a highly effective strategy for he purposes of gaining and retaining converts to a religion. If you make people feel really, really low and horrible about themselves, then they’ll feel more inspired to come into church to seek the “fix”. It’s best to teach people that they’re disgusting trash when they’re children so that the guilt complex will be life-long.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 12:20 PM
No, you can know for sure. You do have to see both sides to their logical conclusion, however, to discover that only one side is logically consistent. You’ve gotta use the laws of logic.
PRCalDude on August 24, 2007 at 12:23 PM
No, the point is not to make people “feel” guilty or to come to church to seek a “fix”. The point is to say what God has said about man, and those who agree with God don’t seek a fix, they ask for mercy. Those who don’t agree with God, go on their way. That’s not to say there haven’t been those who were Christians and those who were false teachers of Christianity who did that.
As point of fact, I didn’t particularly “feel” guilty when I became a Christian. Someone read Romans 5 with me and I recognized it as truth. I believed. I was forgiven. I didn’t even know I had become a Christian until over a month later I would say.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 12:29 PM
While many approach a Biblical text with skepticism, is it not unhealthy to approach it with a bias? What I mean is, suppose you approach a text with the predetermined notion that it MUST be wrong. In that event, will one not do everything to interpret it in such a fashion. Is perhaps the reverse also true?
Seems the historical-critical method of interpretation goes a long way in avoiding such bias. Such a hermenutic requires a lot of homework before the interpreting actually gets done. I’ve seen and heard a lot of knowledgeable, sincere folks read a text and interpret it right out of the gate when, on further review, they were way off base.
BNCurtis on August 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 12:14 PM
No that is actually quite snarky, since it is you who have made the claim to have evolved from theism to atheism. You discarded what you claim to have been your previous beliefs because some aspect of them offended you. You make the assertion that you have ascended to a higher plane of understanding yet readily and willing descend back to that former plane when it suits your purposes. Your failure to make accurate translations isn’t a matter of conjecture, but an established fact. The suggestion that you cease such obviously flawed attempts isn’t a personal attack but a suggestion designed to help further discussion.
Your insistence of placing morally equivocating connotations upon simple statements of fact does nothing to advance your argument, but serves only to illustrate the degree to which you suffer inner turmoil over decisions which you have obviously made.
At no point have a described or implied that you were “wrong-headed” in your decision or that you were “wrong” for making whatever decision it was that has lead you to the place wherein you now find yourself.
Such decision or moral connotations are not mine to make, nor do I pretend to make them. Such judgments and your personal feeling regarding them are between you and the God you now find convenient or dare I say necessary to deny exists.
In other words you are projecting what you fear on to what you think I am saying with no regard for what I am actually saying.
doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM
BNCurtis on August 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Indeed, I find it amusing in a sad fashion that individuals who would never even remotely consider attempting to perform brain surgery without first obtaining a medical education or design a nuclear weapon without first studying physics could believe themselves capable of grasping the complexities of the more complex aspects of Christian theology without devoting a substantial amount of time studying the historical context and linguistic syntax of the original languages that the theology was expressed in.
doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 12:52 PM
There’s no getting around bias. They’re inherent to everyone. The first bias that has to be addressed is whether or not there is even a God, because atheists approach every religious text skeptically based on this presupposition alone. You have to first show them that this presupposition is illogical before you start discussing the minutiae of the historical accounts in the Bible. It’s just like the minimalist/maximalist debate regarding the Exodus and the invasion of Canaan. Minimalists are minimalists because they approach the text skeptically because they want the Bible to be false because of its claims.
PRCalDude on August 24, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Why in the world did you put the word “feel” in scare quotes? Is that a kind of “Christian feel” that means “feel, but not really”?
In any case, you can deny it all you want. Other Christians on this board admit to feeling guilt, and your entire “Christ DIED for you!” boilerplate is designed to inspire guilt. And it’s a fact that people who feel guilty and low are going to try to seek a “fix” for the problem (that you helped to create). If it brings people to Christ, then it’s okay, right? That’s not a rhetorical question. I want you to answer it. Is it okay to make people feel horrible about themselves if it helps to bring them to Christ?
Think about Jesus dying a horribly painful death for your sins that you continue to do to this day. Do you “feel” guilty now?
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:31 PM
doriangray,
You must be getting upset.
Translation: “You’re a liar. You’re weak. You’re arrogant. You’re a hypocrite. You’re incompetent. But don’t take any of that personally, I’m just trying to have a conversation with you.”
I get it, doriangray. You think I suck! Can you lay off the “Christian love” now, please?
Okay, then let’s try this. Christianity is a misanthropic and guilt-based religion, and thus I don’t think it’s a good religion to follow. Are my criticisms of Christianity valid, or is my inability to appreciate Christianity caused by some character flaw in me? I’m really thinking that you believe it’s due to one of my many character flaws that you feel a great need to point out to me, but I’ll give you the opportunity to explain how you truly feel.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM
That is why I subscribe to the Apologetics method called “Presuppositional Apologetics.”
Yes, I really do admire John Warwick Montgomery, who is a scholar specializing in “Evidentialist Apologetics.” I have most of his excellent books in my library. I have recommended them to others throughout the years.
But at the end of the day, Presuppositional Apologetics is the best way to gain greater clarity and precision concerning fundamental, ultimate issues.
ColtsFan on August 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM
It depends on the bias. Not all biases are wrong. I’m biased against rape, for instance. Yep. I’m completely and totally closed-minded on the subject of rape. It’s wrong. Period.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I stated I did not particularly feel guilty when I became a Christian. I did recognized that I was guilty. I used quotes to try to differentiate between feelings and fact. I have and do experience feelings of guilt. My main point is that guilt is objective, whether or not feelings go along with it.
My most overwhelming feeling regarding the cross is that of gratitude.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 1:47 PM
ColtsFan, I have JWM’s History and Christianity. It is terrific. I referenced it way up above at on August 21, 2007 at 8:10 PM under the revised title. I think it’s the only one I have. Do you have any particular favorite recommendations?
INC on August 24, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I read what you wrote. That’s why I asked how you feel *now*.
It was a labor, but the truth finally comes out! Your religion, by design, makes you feel guilty and thus bad about yourself.
And the feelings do, in fact, go along with it. They’re powerful feelings of culpability and shame, aren’t they? I should know. I used to feel them, too.
But certainly there are some feelings of guilt aren’t there? Some tiny, fleeting feelings of shame? I mean, look at Jesus there on the cross, painfully heaving himself up on the cross to catch each excruciating breath. That’s what the little platform is for under his feet: so he’ll have a way to push himself up for each breath and thus extend the duration of his horrible death. Just look at him suffering. The perfect, sinless man did it all for you. Your sins put him there. He’s an innocent man, but your sins did that to him. In that sense, you are culpable for his very death every time you sin, and you still keep on sinning and torturing Jesus. You torture him to death all over again every single time you sin because he dies for every single sin you commit.
There.
Don’t you feel just a little bit guilty now? Just a little, tiny bit?
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Good point. And that gratitude provides a motivation for holiness, for saying “No” to sin, and “yes” to Christ-honoring living. Gratitude flowing out of the cross eliminates any legalism whatsoever. It is like Christmas Day every single second.
JWM’s book, SUICIDE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY is an absolutely must for anyone. You can also get that same book here.
Other absolutely MUST-HAVE books by JWM are the following:
Situation Ethics
Christianity for the Tough Minded
God’s Inerrant Word
Faith Founded on Fact Absolute Must-Have book!!!
Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question
Human Rights and Human Dignity
Where is History Going?
The Shape of the Past
JWM is a spectacular scholar. I am not Lutheran, but I have learned much from him.
ColtsFan on August 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM
If we don’t accept any flaws in ourselves, then how are we to improve? You don’t think you are the pinnacle of humanity are you?
As for John Wayne Gacy, I never met the man, nor do I know what biochemical abnormalities he may have suffered from. For all I know, he may have had an insatiable biological lust that he held back for as long as he could in some heroic fashion. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be held responsible for his actions, but people do things for reasons. Punishment is there to help us make the right decision, but just because I haven’t done something doesn’t mean there isn’t a circumstance where if I faced the similar struggle I wouldn’t have eventually succumbed. In a human sense, yes the crimes he committed were worse than any that the rest of us have done. That doesn’t make the rest of us better people, because we only know that about ourselves to the extent that we have been in particular circumstances. God knows us in totality.
In any case, we need to own up to whatever mistakes we have made. We can call that guilt or we can accept forgiveness and move on. I would say the central point of Christianity is forgiveness, not guilt.
pedestrian on August 24, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I think that’s the “chickenhawk” argument, a la Jesus.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Loundry,
That true, moral objective guilt is gone. Gone forever. That’s what counts.
Thanks for the list, ColtsFan.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Don’t you guys get it Loundry knows nothing about the bible. He is Googling it, and just throwing out verses to jerk your chain.
I have shown his ignorance in the study of the bible. This is his way of getting attention.
It is useless, he doesn’t understand the simplest of doctrine. He is relying on some anti-Christian site to state his positions…he has none of his own. I have seen these many times on these sites. With probably a little Googling myself I would find the exact site he is quoting.
When challenged with something “off site” he does not answer or he changes the subject.
I showed him the most basic example of Hebrew to contest his statements, and it confused him to the point of quoting some straw man quote that he googled from the bible.
Others of you have some excellent comments, too bad you let a troll hijack the post.
Don’t feed the troll.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 2:18 PM
ColtsFan, I forgot, I do have God’s Inerrant Word ed. by JWM. It is absolutely terrific. I’ll start to check out the others.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Of course not. I make many mistakes. So do you. But that doesn’t answer my question. You have taken this, “I never said that!” tack with me several times, so now I’m giving you the opportunity to answer without me putting any words in your mouth.
Are my criticisms of Christianity valid, or is my inability to appreciate Christianity caused by some character flaw in me?
None of that has anything to do with Romans 3:23, which states that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god”. That includes you: you fall short of the glory of god. It also includes John Wayne Gacy: he fell short of the glory of god. I’m not talking about the “human sense” that you describe. I’m talking about the godly sense, in which there is absolutely no moral difference between any of us and John Wayne Gacy (Rom 3:23). We’re all equally sinful because we all fall short.
Am I correct about your religion?
You can’t be forgiven unless you’ve first done something wrong; i.e., you’re guilty of something, that’s why you need forgiveness. The guilt and the forgiveness are inextricably intertwined.
I’m guessing it’ll take supernatural forgiveness if you were born rotten, a bone fide John Wayne Gacy right out of the oven no matter what you do or don’t do. Something tells me you conveniently sell the solution along with the problem.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:21 PM
right2bright, I see your point, and it’s valid. Sometimes I do step away, other times I want to clarify for those who will read and not comment.
INC on August 24, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Yes, because it is so much better to deny a incontrovertible reality than to make anyone feel bad. Sorry but the concept of sin inherent in Christian theology isn’t about making anyone feel guilty, its about getting people to face reality. It’s about personal responsibility and getting individuals to accept that they are responsible for their actions.
Newtons third law of motion applies to more than just physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to individual codes of conduct as well. Every action or interaction in your life has a consequence to it. Those consequences may be positive or they may be negative but they will exist.
No, not even remotely, do I acknowledge my responsibility for the actions in my life that resulted in the necessity of his act, yes I do. While I myself bear no direct responsibility for the actions that resulted in original sin I am not free from the consequences of those actions.
The actions which set in motion original sin continue to this very day to have profound consequences. Just as I had no personal choice in the color of my skin, hair, eye’s or my gender does not negate the reality of what they are. Hence I feel no guilt what-so-ever over being a white male with brown hair and blue eyes.
I am however what I am, and as such responsible for my actions and how I conduct myself. Likewise having been born a human being under the curse of sin which I inherited from my ancestors I had no control or responsibility for this incontrovertible reality. However, my lack of personal responsibility for the actions of my ancestors does not suspend or eliminate the chain of consequences set in motion by my ancestors.
That chain of consequences set in motion by my ancestors is as equally constrained to continue by Newtons first law as any physical object. Until acted upon by an equal or greater force that chain of consequences will remain in motion.
Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was just such a equal or greater force acting on that chain of consequences known as sin. No one forced Jesus Christ to die on the cross, he did it willingly out of love for his father and love for his father creation.
Hence I feel no guilt what so ever over his crucification. I do on the other hand recognize that because of circumstances beyond my control it was impossible for me to please god, that being the consequences of my ancestors actions. My ancestors culpability stops however at my personal actions. It is my own actions for which I bear responsibility.
The Apostle Paul clarified this far more eloquently than I could ever hope to.
doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I think you are focusing on certain aspects, and forgetting that there is an entire framework in which the pieces fit together. I’m hammering away at this because a key step for my understanding Christianity was recognizing that the parts I didn’t understand or like, I would set aside for a time, accepting that they were there for a reason and eventually I would get the bigger picture. You let us know in your earlier comments that you are bothered by the guilt aspect of Christianity, and I was hoping I could tie that in to other aspects to put it in better perspective for you.
100% agreement there.
Not sure what you mean. I’ve got nothing to sell. There are cult versions of Christianity that are oriented towards fundraising, and I’ve met several victims of that, but the genuine article is free.
Did anyone read the Time article Drudge linked to about Mother Theresa? Very interesting.
pedestrian on August 24, 2007 at 2:36 PM
right2bright,
I’d generally written you off, but it seems like you need a little more attention yourself.
First of all, your precious cud study:
Simply throwing out gelah and ‘alah shows nothing. The translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV all translate Deut 14 including “rabbits … chew the cud” and “[ruminants] chew the cud”. If it merely (and vaguely) means “a general movement after chewing” (as you claim it does), then the translators, more competent and knowledgeable in Ancient Hebrew than you, would have translated it as “a general movement after chewing”. As I’ve stated many times, your argument is with them, not with me. You are saying that the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV screwed up royally when they wrote “rabbits chew the cud” because they should have written “rabbits generally move after chewing”. What else did they translate incorrectly? You should let me know soon so that I can know when to stop relying on the KJV, NIV, and RSV as accurate sources of Biblical information.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:37 PM
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Considering his last post to me (Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM)I find that I must accept your assessment of the situation. There is simply no way that he could have so grossly misunderstood what I posted were his intentions any other than to provoke, which is quintessentially the nature of a troll.
Furthermore after his assertion
his glaring lack of just such knowledge and misapplication of what little he does have available seems to verify your supposition that he is googling rather than quoting anything that he actually understands.
doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Loundry is carrying on several different conversations at the same time. I think it is often easy to read things from someone you don’t know in a way that does not pick up on all the satire and irony that was intended.
pedestrian on August 24, 2007 at 2:52 PM
pedestrian,
I appreciate your improved tone, thank you!
I don’t object to the entire framework of Christianity. I only object to the bad parts of Christianity. But, as I said before, the good parts of Christianity are indeed good, but they don’t make the bad parts good, too.
Mercy? Awesome!
Benevolenece? Rad!
Guilt? That sucks rocks!
“Born rotten”? I hate it like poison!
If you can give me a Christianity that retains all the mercy and benevolence but kicks the guilt and “born rotten” aspects to the curb then I’d chug that kool-aid. I just don’t see how you could pull it off as long as Christianity ain’t Christianity without the gospel.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Your straw man obviously illustrates why you think they way you do about atheists. You assuming to know what atheists think is similar to how Republicans assume they know what Democrats think when in reality all you’re doing is assigning your biases to the other group.
Nonfactor on August 24, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Thanks, his response to me says that. It is rudimentary in translations to not be able to use certain words exactly as they are phrased. The Hebrews had a limited number of words so the words are dependent on the context. The modern day interpretors understood that, and note that in their discussion on what phrases to use. Any one studying the bible would understand that right off, and would have read the discussions about using certain words and why. Most bibles disclose that, and certainly every “study” bible does. Funny how he has missed that in his grand research.
It is a known fact, things like articles and definitive and on-definitives, change the whole meaning of a phrase. That is why some of the newer bibles are a little different. As computer studies of ancient texts (primarliy from UCI and their ancient text computer programs) allow the cross study of those ancient languages they make subtle changes. The bible still must use limited words because adding seven more words to descibe each action would make the bible unyielding to read. The bible would be literally thousand s of pages longer. They had seveal words for love, but only love used in modern texts. Several words for wine, but only one used in modern texts. A simple phrase like “I am” becomes something off the charts when studied in its original texts. Hundreds of examples, that is why Watchtower of the Jehova’s witness fame is so ironic when you know the true meaning of a Watchtower.
If you choose any bible study, this will be pointed out…further proof of no bible study foundation, not even the simplest.
That is why some bibles still use the word “kill” instead of “murder” in the ten commandments. No one disputes the work “murder” is more accurate. It is not a matter of being right or wrong, it is a matter of being more accurate. If someone argues, you usually point it out and they say “thank you” I now understand. Something some people cannot grasp.
However, the orignal texts are still availible and are referred to when you meet something like this “cud”. This is discussed at the most basic level of seminary. That the only true accurate word (actually words), is from the historical biblical text…everything must be compared to that, or you get these ridiculous arguments that the bible is incorrect.
These are arguments of fools, not of educated scholars.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 3:22 PM
doriangray,
I think you meant to type “Yes [it is okay to make someone feel bad if it helps bring them to Christ], because it is so much *worse* to deny a incontrovertible reality than to make anyone feel bad. Your response was long and cogent, and I didn’t think you were trying to be sarcastic with me.
If what I thought you meant to write is, in fact, correct, then I accept that Christianity is (at least, partially) a religion about winning converts by making people feel bad about themselves. I find this to be harmful and manipulative. Your defense is to say that it is “true anyway”. I can appreciate the love and forgiveness parts of your religion, but can you honestly expect me to respect the “It’s okay to hurt people” part of it?
If you don’t feel guilty about Jesus’ horrible death on the Cross, then what, specifically, *do* you feel guilty about in regards to your religion? If it’s nothing, then that’s fine, you would just be a rare Christian.
I understand that this “original sin” concept is part of Christian dogma, but it is not Biblical.
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Deut 24:16
I don’t see how you can be held culpable for the actions of your ancestors if “each is to die for his own sin”.
Please forgive me for not responding to giant swaths of Scripture. That’s not an argument. Why not just say, “Go read the Bible” and save yourself the trouble?
That was in response to my (ballsy) assertion that I know the Bible almost better than anyone here, and I submit to you that your criticism of me, particularly the “glaring lack of … knowledge” is grossly unfair. You must remember that I made my assertion after you wrote this:
And you were, in fact, dead wrong. Jesus himself stated that those people who didn’t do five specific works would braise in hell for zillions of years (Mat 25:31-46). So if anyone deserves to labeled with a “glaring lack of knowledge” then it deserves to be you, because you falsely stated that hell was reserved only for the Devil, his angels, and those with the mark of the Beast, and then had the nerve to follow it up with, “To suggest that anyone else will is to make conjecture that is unsupported by the actual text of the bible.” Will you have the humility to admit that the atheist apostate showed you up on biblical knowledge? You’ve been strangely silent on that point since I trumped your hot air with the words of Jesus Christ himself.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 3:24 PM
That reminds me of the “NIV Study Bible” that I used in High School. Consider another weird thing Jesus said:
I remember the footnote in my study bible almost verbatim, because I took great comfort in it at the time. The footnote read, “Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation. He is saying that we have to take extreme measures in avoiding sin.”
In other words, the purpose of the footnotes in a “Study Bible” are to play, “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means.”
That defense doesn’t fly in regards to Deut 14:7. If your scholarly and learned translation is correct, then those incompetent hacks who translated the KJV, NIV, and RSV could easily have written, “rabbits generally move after chewing”. Instead, they screwed up, grossly violating your wisdom, and stupidly wrote, “rabbits chew the cud”. I don’t see how that would add thousands of pages, since it’s only one extra English word to avoid making the Bible say something that is flat-out wrong.
Which flying animals have four legs? I notice you haven’t yet given me a gelah or an ‘alah to defuse that bomb.
Except the translators of the KJV. *They* thought that “kill” was the correct word to use in Ex 20:13. But since you are skilled in Hebrew, why don’t you tell us the Hebrew word that was translated into “kill/murder” in Ex 20:13? Perhaps going back to the original Hebrew will be instructive as to which English word is a more accurate translation since the experts disagree.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 3:40 PM
right2bright,
I also want to add that I generally move after chewing.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 3:43 PM
BTW, if he would pick up a study bible, he would see that our description of a rabbit and cud is accurate. All of the study bibles (he listed) have, as a footnote, the description as a rabbit is cud because of regurgitation. The bible scholars were quite aware of this…apparently one (or two) bible scholars on this have not read a study bible.
I am sure he could reach out and grab one of his many study bibles and find this out. (sarc)
Loved to watch them twist in the wind.
ooops, I guess our scholar is a little wrong…a little more study by him would help. Looks like Google let him down.
Braaaaaahaaaaaaaw…
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 3:48 PM
That’s very well put, and I think it’s funny that we draw two very different conclusions from it. I think it’s wonderful that someone would love me so much to endure that, and I don’t feel guilty for being loved.
This seems to me to be your primary objection to Christianity (correct me if I’m wrong on that please). I don’t really know any Christians who go around feeling guilty all day. Maybe you do. If the guilt aspect is what your criticisms of Christianity stem from then I don’t think your criticisms are valid. You seem to have almost a hatred towards it, to the point of researching it just to prove to others how ridiculous their beliefs are. You seem uncomfortable to just live with your own beliefs.
I don’t think you have a ‘character flaw’, but I am trying to understand why you spend so much time on this issue. I know you don’t think it’s a good religion to follow, but do you see Christianity as a threat to your well being, on the same level as radical Islam?
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments and am not trying to insult you, I just want to get some kind of context as to where those comments are coming from. Thanks.
BadgerHawk on August 24, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Is that really what the study bible’s footnote says (in “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means!” fashion) in regards to Deut 14:7? Because it would then be even *more* wrong! Rabbits do not regurgitate their meals. Instead, they eat the “first pass” of feces directly from their own anus. (Sorry if that’s news to any rabbit-eaters out there!) I suppose that still qualifies as “generally moves after chewing” to you, but it does NOT qualify as “regurgitation”.
It is you, not I, who is claiming to be the Hebrew scholar. I’m relying on the scholarship of those who translated the NIV. The Bible says that some flying animals have four legs. Wiggle your way out of that one, scholar.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Think we can hit a 1000 comments by end of the weekend?
Lawrence on August 24, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Badgerhawk,
I wrote that partially to prove that, yes, I have been a Christian before. But I don’t find that beautiful or wonderful any more. I thought “The Passion of the Christ” was a Christian snuff film. The whole “get excited about watching a man being tortured to death!” makes me sick to my stomach. It was only palatable when I bought into the “I’m bad” stuff that my religion had taught me.
I object to the gospel. I think it’s harmful because it’s misanthropic and designed to inspire guilt. That’s my primary objection to Christianity: it hurts people by making them think that they were “born bad” who then have to go get a “fix” in church. People are not born bad. “Imperfect” does NOT imply “just as immoral as John Wayne Gacy”, but that’s the only conclusion one can draw after reading Rom 3:23.
My secondary objections are the other teachings of Christianity, such as pacifism, meekness, sloth, and self-mutilation. Insomuch that those mandates are ignored only makes Christianity fake.
I do not deny that I have a very low opinion of the “born bad” ideology. Do I hate it? I think hate is too strong a word to use. But you have to remember that in most forums, especially conservative forums, Christians (such as you) are quite comfortable with dominating and ruling the discussion. How often have you come across an individual who does NOT hate Christians but has a deep knowledge of the Bible, a good understanding of Christianity, and specific objections to certain, harmful aspects of your religion? I understand how it may seem to you that I’m uncomfortable with just living with my own beliefs, but can you also see that, in another light, I’m merely standing up for what I believe? If Christians retain evangelism in hostile territory as their religious right, then I think it is fair (this is America, after all) that I retain the exact same right, particularly when the only aspects of your religion that I object to are those that I deem cause harm.
Islam is one-thousand times worse. This is why Christians and non-Christians must be allies. This is also why you need to understand why I am not a Christian. You reject my ideology, and I’m okay with that. You need to be okay with my rejection of my ideology, and I want you to understand that it’s not based on blind anti-Christian hatred. I have specific objections to Christian philosophy, and I hope you understand what they are by now. We all as Americans have the right to pursue whatever ideology that we want to (or don’t want to) as long as it doesn’t deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property.
Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 4:48 PM
If you were the scholar you would have a study bible and know that’s what it means. Sheesh, you are stubborn and stupid. Read it, then read it again, then again, and it will begin to sink in. Don’t you understand how the bible is written and translated (look at the footnotes fool). When my son was 8 he could have told you that. What site are you using to get your mis-information? I would like to know, because no way would a normal person make such strange unrelated, arguments. It has to come from a Christian or Jewish hate site.
What site are you using? or What reference are you using?
I am using Stong’s Hebrew Concordance with Greek and Hebrew Lexicon as my base reference book.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I think that’s what you meant. I’m fine with you not wanting to be a Christian, and thanks for helping me to understand where you’re coming from. A lot of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and it doesn’t bother me at all. I was just hoping for some insight as to how and why you got to where you are. I don’t agree that Christianity is ‘guilt based’, but your point was well made and I respect your opinion. I even like challenges to my faith every once and a while, because in the end I think I come through a little bit stronger.
I made this same point in one of my earlier posts. I think the right to choose is the best right any human being has.
I think my conversation with you is finished. I enjoyed it, and thanks for answering my questions.
BadgerHawk on August 24, 2007 at 5:27 PM
No telling but I’ve definitely found the thread I need to battle those bouts of insomnia!
Bradky on August 24, 2007 at 6:33 PM
846th!!!1!!
jdpaz on August 24, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Politics doth make strange bedfellows of us all.
Religion and politics often create alliances of theological opposites. Christians and Jews work together on almost everything. Christians and Mormons are usually on the same side of the fence (What the hell happened to Harry Reid?). And, Christians and atheists can work together on security issues but don’t have as much common ground on matters of social conscience. Islam is such an ideology of hatred and killing that I don’t see how Christians and Muslims share much in common. As soon as you reach a tipping point with Muslims they start killing those who think differently.
Mojave Mark on August 26, 2007 at 12:37 AM
I believe this is called “Christian love”.
It’s actually impossible to understand such a thing, given that even the most ardent Christian apologist is forced to admit that the original autographa no longer exist. The question of how the Bible was *compiled* is entirely a different matter. (It was done by committee.)
It’s called “my brain”. I’m sure you would love for it to be a website because then you could attack the website instead of responding to my argument. (Which flying animals have four legs?) I guess you’re just going to have to be content with slurring me for the time being, and you seem very content with that.
Loundry on August 27, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Wwwwwhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
That is the sound of that statement going right over my head, and I did not understand it at all.
Would you please explain?
Thank you.
William
William2006 on December 4, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 7 8 9