Hello

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annabea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church has done many bad things over the years. I am an atheist because I am agnostic.

**And what do you think motivated the killing of millions of people by the Nazis and Communists, especially under Stalin?

It’s the direct result of militant atheism.**
 
And these words of comparison to my Faith were not at all disrespectful?

At the time people start exposing their kids to dogma, they could equally be convinced that carnivorous elephants live in the woods of North America or a jolly magical elf delivers toys with flying reindeer.
Hyperbole, not comparison. Do you find accurate statements disrespectful or a cornerstone of robust debate?
 
youtube.com/watch?v=LQ1EWMhBVSU&feature=PlayList&p=4ECF7F31E503230B&index=0&playnext=1

It’s 5 minutes, I’m not fond of linking youtube video’s…

Anyhow this particular video is in my opinion relevant to the discussion of atrocities of the recent-past versus biblical past. I highly doubt anyone will get through the whole video, or even take any of the questions posed seriously. One thing I’ve definitely noted is that hypothetical questions are more or less disregarded, but whether the topic is religion or not, to me they are the most thought provoking.
 
Psalm 13:1 “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.”
Proverbs 14:15 “The simpleton believes everything, but the shrewd man measures his steps.”
 
The… universe… ?

Is this some kind of trick question?
The universe isn’t eternal. What came before the universe. And what came before that?

If something can’t come from nothing, where did the first “thing” come from?
 
The same reasoning that says that someone with a rare disease that requires a transfusion or transplant, one for which you are the only possible donor, doesn’t have the right to force you to provide one.

I didn’t say I only relied on her bodily functions – I said that was the difference between a two-week-old embryo and you or me that affords different treatment.
You seem to be saying that the mother isn’t required to “save” the fetus’ life, because the fetus doesn’t have the right to any part of the mother’s body. However, the fetus doesn’t have a rare disorder that only the mother can cure with transfusion/transplant. The mother-fetus relationship is the natural beginning of new human life. While your example describes an extraordinary situation, the mother-fetus relationship is ordinary.

It is considered noble to donate organs, tissue, and blood, because this relationship is not ordinary. The human body wasn’t designed in order to donate organs or tissue to others. The heat wasn’t designed to be given away. The human body wasn’t designed as a blood factory to supply others.

You wish to describe the natural beginning of human life as if it is an out of the ordinary use of the human body. This is like describing the heart as generous for supplying blood to the body, or the lung as virtuous for taking in oxygen. The uterus and other of the mother’s bodily systems naturally supply the fetus with all that it needs to live. This is not an extraordinary situation. This is exactly how the mother’s body is designed to work. This is not a bodily sacrifice or a extraordinary donation. This is simply life.

Why are you viewing gestation as a disease-like situation?

You’ve failed to name the moral principle which states that some human life is exempted from the right to life.
 
I don’t reject God. I reject people’s claim of God. This wording is important. Since the idea of God is imbued with perfection, some religious people try to make atheism’s rejecting God instead of people’s claim of God somewhat akin to rejecting love, world peace, etc. I do not reject God. I reject people’s claim of God.

So what are you looking for? What kind of a God do you think there is or could be? The God I know is love.

Where is your evidence for it being mostly a Protestant phenomenon? Roman Catholics were hunting witches over a century before the Reformation. There were several Papal Bulls ordering witch inquisitions spanning centuries, and other documents from leading clergy warning of the danger posed by witches. There is evidence that the schism of the Reformation sent both sides hunting witches more than anywhere else in the fuzzy boundaries between Catholic and non Catholic lands.

Ok, you weren’t specific in your last post, when one refers to the witch hunts of Europe, we speak of the actual persecution of those thought to be witches (not the same as the inquisitions which focused on heretics), concentrated mainly after the reformation in mostly protestant countries (I am not saying that Catholics didn’t do this just to a lesser degree). However, if you speak of the inquisitions (more specifically the Spanish inquisition), then we are refering to a time period that lasted for more than 350 years, with the death toll somewhere between 3500 to 5000 people. This however, was not an inquistion brought upon by the Church (although the Church at first issued a bull consenting to allow this) but the temperal powers of Spain for the reasons of extracting the enemies of Spain disguised as Christians (Morranos were Jews and Muslims who falsely converted to Christianity to infiltrate the political/governmental hierarchy in Spain).

You have to remember that Spain had just reconquered the Iberian peninsula from the Moors. And although there were other inquisitions like the Roman inquisition, these trials were for the purpose of rooting out heretics (just like the army would root out a treasonous soldier). It isn’t right per se, but it wasn’t as sinister as it was once perceived. There are probably more people who die/d of the death penalty in the U.S. (since its inception) then did from the inquistion.

In other words, there was no requirement for loss of religious belief or moral relativism to lead to such events.

Yes, because the atrocities committed under the banner of religiosity is in direct conflict with Christianity whereas the atrocities committed under Nazism and Communism there is/was no such conflict. These were ideologies that made their own moral code, that tried to create their own godless utopia. They had no higher power in order to set the standard for them, they were the standard, i.e, loss of religious belief and/or moral relativism does lead to such events.

It doesn’t seem like anyone wants the Nazi’s or the Communists on their team. They’re passed around like a hot potato. It’s more subtle than that, but it’s pointless to bicker about whose team they were on. Personally, I just see it as a shift in people’s casus belli. In previous centuries, if you were a power hungry brute, the best way to remain safe while others killed and died for you was to whip up religious xenophobia. Tell them that their enemy was evil in the eyes of God, maybe even throw in a promise of heaven to those who died in combat and you could start one of many crusades.

The Church had a valid reason to start the Crusades (it was only later in the 2nd or 3rd crusade that things got to be more about booty than protecting Christians and/or Christian land) has there was an invasion by the turks in the Holy land. In fact throughout the centuries thereafter Christian Europe was constantly threatened by Muslim hoardes trying to conquer (the battle of Lepanto and other such battles) in the name of “Allah”. What you describe above fits the image of Mohammed and his followers more than it does the CC and Catholics. Do you think if Mohammed’s followers weren’t trying to conquer the whole world we would have even had a crusade? We were not the aggressors in initiating such an event.

When Europeans got smart to that trick and were not so willing to kill or die for it, political ideology took its place. People killed and died in the name of fascism, communism, and democracy. Decades later after some victor’s justice and victor’s history, we’re ready to fight war after war to protect freedom and democracy. Exactly how we protect freedom and democracy with what we’re doing I don’t fathom.
Europeans were killing each other mostly for power. Just take a look at the history of England during the reformation, and tell me whether this had anything to do with religion?

You do not think it correct to fight for freedom in Iraq?
 
continuation . . . .

Moral relativism allows us to improve morals over time. We humans used to think it was perfectly acceptable to wage a war of conquest. A stronger nation would simply set its sights on a weaker one that was minding its own business. After killing and maiming a few tends of thousands or millions, the stronger nation would control or absorb the smaller nation. It was not that long ago that this conduct was not only considered acceptable, but noble and glorious. Today, no nation on earth would claim they are starting a war to control another nation, much less absorb it into their territory. That’s moral relativism.

No, now we force countries into poverty so we can rise to the heights of capitalism. I wonder how many untold people have died to feed the egos and greed of others. And that my friend is moral relativism (whatever’s good for me). And furthermore, it is the Church throughout time (for the most part for I know it has made mistakes of its own) that has acted as the conscience of the world in order that a standard morality be applied to all aspects of life. Imagine if people actually followed through on their christian faith, what a different world it would be?

Only some decades ago we thought it was a perfectly legitimate conduct of war to terror bomb civilian population centers. We killed innocent women, children, and elderly by the millions. We don’t do this today. Moral relativism. Centuries ago we considered chattel slavery perfectly OK. Now it’s an unpardonable crime. Moral relativism. Not so long ago we considered dueling to the death a reasonable way to settle some disputes. Today, not so much. Moral relativism.

This is hogwash, moral relativism by definition means that there is no set standard for morality (to each their own basically). And as I mentioned before the Church tried to act as the conscience of the world but with loss of power to influence (starting with the reformation) it was ignored. It’s still being ignored, and many people throughout the world are suffering for it. We are immersed in a culture of death. And chattel slavery was never accepted by the Church (not speaking of individuals in the Church but the Church as a whole). The forces of evil and good are always struggling with each other in every age. However, it is the denial of Truth that has led to the constant atrocities and evils we witness in every age. Moral relativism is a denial of the Truth that has caused people to justify their actions no matter how evil they may be.
 
This thread is now closed. Please feel free to open another thread to continue the discussion.

God bless-

Rachel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top