Will we survive religion?

[Oneiron]

So when someone gets pregnant and they abort the child within their womb, this doesn’t in any way infringe on this child’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If these innocent people can be killed in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then pretty much anything goes Mirdath.

I find it odd that people can so casually murder these innocent little babies in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but God forbid if anyone tells them they can’t have sex.

So what would you say to a mother whose pregnancy will kill her and the child both?

I am generally anti-abortion, but do believe there are cases where it is okay, a truly grey area. A mother that has, say LUPUS cannot carry a child to term. If she does it will kill her and through her death, the child. I believe that in the interest of life it is morally acceptabl to abort the fetus in the mother.
What also if the mother is on drugs and a heavy drinker, without the necessary resources to care for the child? She will be a horrid mother to begin with with those habits, not to mention the possible side effects on teh child wtill in the womb. Should she not ask for abortion and keep the child living a life of neglect?
What of the father who beats his son every day simply because he’s not his son? So his wife had a moment of weakness and cheated on him and now the child may end up beaten to death by his father. Is it better to introduce a child to this life or to have an abortion?
What of the thousands upon thousands of orphaned children, children that raised themselves, who are abused daily and believe they are worthless? What of the girl who is sexually molested from the age of three, a whore by age 13? What of teh child who is forced to share a room with upwards of 3 siblings because the single father or mother doesn’t make enough money to support a family?

So you take away a freedom, the freedom to have sex. Opinions of birth control and abstinence aside, people will whether or not they should. People will becuase it is enjoyable, because between two people who are intimate it is one of if not the most intimate expression of feeling, because you can charge for it if you look good enough and pay the bills if you have no other choice. And many people do take precautions, but birth control sometimes fails. But telling people to just not have sex is unrealistic.

In my opinion abortion is the biggest grey area of morals and should not be treated as lightly as a few sentences about a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and probably not in this thread.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now as to this, In every philosophical/theological debate I’ve ever been in step one is to agree on definitions for words you use. When debating… say euthanasia, you first have to define life and death, then define killing, suicide, active and passive euthanasia, etc. before you can effetively debate.

Likewise here Mirdath has put forth an explicit definition of what he calls fanatacism and zealot. the specific person he is referring to is included in your definition, but you’re arguiung that it’s not the same. Find a word for the same kind of person he’s talking about before you start arguing so you can both agree on word usage and actually say something worthwhile about the conversation. :banghead:

But it’s a definition which is not universally accepted by all people. The definitions that CatholicBob and myself have ‘offered’ are the more common definitions most people are familiar with.

So if Mirdath wants to use this kind of exclusive definition of ‘fanaticism’, he should at least present a justifiable reason for doing so in order to convince us to accept it. According to CatholicBob and myself, he hasn’t actually done this-- and CatholicBob has done an excellent job in my opinion of explaining why he hasn’t done so either.

As far as I can tell, Mirdath’s definition means a nihilist, someone who is fatally adhering to something. But nihilism does not always indicate fanaticism by a long shot.

Consequently, we’re still right back at the stage of trying to find agreement. No. I’m not accepting his terminalogy regarding fanaticism-- because it certainly does not apply in all situations where someone is considered a fanatic.

This is fairly simple to demonstrate. And CatholicBob has in fact demonstrated this over and over again by Mirdath to see.

So if Mirdath can actually provide a different word, or at least modify the definition he’s using, then we would be able to move past the beginning stages of agreeing on the terms. It’s what we’ve been looking for from the beginning.

 

[Oneiron]

But it’s a definition which is not universally accepted by all people. The definitions that CatholicBob and myself have ‘offered’ are the more common definitions most people are familiar with.

So if Mirdath wants to use this kind of exclusive definition of ‘fanaticism’, he should at least present a justifiable reason for doing so in order to convince us to accept it. According to CatholicBob and myself, he hasn’t actually done this-- and CatholicBob has done an excellent job in my opinion of explaining why he hasn’t done so either.

As far as I can tell, Mirdath’s definition means a nihilist, someone who is fatally adhering to something. But nihilism does not always indicate fanaticism by a long shot.

Consequently, we’re still right back at the stage of trying to find agreement. No. I’m not accepting his terminalogy regarding fanaticism-- because it certainly does not apply in all situations where someone is considered a fanatic.

This is fairly simple to demonstrate. And CatholicBob has in fact demonstrated this over and over again by Mirdath to see.

So if Mirdath can actually provide a different word, or at least modify the definition he’s using, then we would be able to move past the beginning stages of agreeing on the terms. It’s what we’ve been looking for from the beginning.

Ummm… Nihlist is not the word you’re looking for, I can assure you of that.
Friedrich Neitzsche:

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of ‘in vain’ is the nihilists’ pathos—at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

His definitions is someone that takes their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it. Someone who would kill me because I’ve had premarital sex, for instance, would be a fanatic. A nihilist wouldn’t care.

Also, you two keep saying look in the dictionary…
From teh American Heritage Dictionary:

Fanatic - A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause

That brings to mind someone driving a plane into the world trade center, someone who blows up abortion centers, someone who rounds up other cultures for extermination, a church in Utah that pickets at soldier’s funerals proclaiming thank god for dead soldiers. It brings to mind the same people that Mirdath believes are evil, and I must side with him.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ummm… Nihlist is not the word you’re looking for, I can assure you of that.

His definitions is someone that takes their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it. Someone who would kill me because I’ve had premarital sex, for instance, would be a fanatic. A nihilist wouldn’t care.

Also, you two keep saying look in the dictionary…

From teh American Heritage Dictionary:

Fanatic - A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause

So where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided from the American Heritage Dictionary?

Let me ask you this again:

Where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided?

It’s not even mentioned in your defintion.

Yes. You associate a fanatic with this. And so does Mirdath.

But a fanatic can also apply to harmless things too. Just because you both associate fanaticism with evil doesn’t mean that all fanatics are evil.

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a sports fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a sex fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a movie fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a comics fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a political fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to an art fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a dog fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to an educational fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a music fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

This is nonsense guys.

Since the defintion fanatic doesn’t require the word evil to be used, perhaps you’d both be better off using the word extremist.

Try extremist.

Or, better yet, try the word ‘evil’. I’m fairly sure the word ‘evil’ somehow refers to ‘evil’, even if the word ‘evil’ is not used in the definition.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I care, and really if you’re interested in a debate over historical validity you should consider caring too. The Torah is not an unbiased document; it doesn’t pretend to be, but its intrinsic slant towards the people of Israel makes it hard to accept some of the things it says about that people’s enemies.

Actually, I think it is an unbiased document. It doesn’t pretend to be unbiased by glossing over the sins of the chosen people either. More to the point, its rather candid depiciton of the sins and failures of Israel makes it easy to accept many of the things it says about that people’s enemies-- because God often allows thier enemies to win against them when they sin.

This is pretty much the reason that Christ is preached to the gentiles, is it not?

 

[Valke2]

In 1929 excavations began in Ras Shamra (the ancient port town of Ugarit) in northern Lebanon. This work continues. The remains of a palace discovered in the first year of excavation yielded a library containing hundreds of ancient documents that provided a wealth of information about the Canaanite religion.

What did these tablets reveal?

The texts show the degrading results of the worship of these deities; with their emphasis on war, sacred prostitution, sensuous love and the consequent social degradation.

In the ancient Phoenician city of Carthage—part of the Canaanite culture—some 20,000 urns containing the remains of sacrificed children were found.

The archaeologists at the site imformed us that the Carthaginian Tophet is the largest of these Phoenician sites and indeed is the largest cemetery of sacrificed humans ever discovered.

Child sacrifice took place there almost continuously for a period of nearly 600 years.

Kleitarchos, a Greek from the third century B.C., described this sacrifice as the heating up of a bronze statue with outstretched arms. Infants placed into these red-hot arms quickly perished.

This is not a pleasant picture for Caananite worship.

Carthaginian Tophet is now believed by some to have been a final resting place for still born children and children who died in early infancy. The story about chilodren being placed in the heated arms of a bronze statue was told by Diodorus. He was from Sicily and it is theorized that he may have been mixing up myths from his own country (regarding a bronze bull built for the purpose of roasting the king’s enemies alive).

Other historians, who seem more credible, like Polybius (200-118BC) make no mention of child sacrifice. Polybius was a general who helped destory Carthrage. He had not love for it.

Anyway, historical opinions differ.

 

[Valke2]

Actually, I think it is an unbiased document. It doesn’t pretend to be unbiased by glossing over the sins of the chosen people either. More to the point, its rather candid depiciton of the sins and failures of Israel makes it easy to accept many of the things it says about that people’s enemies-- because God often allows thier enemies to win against them when they sin.

This is pretty much the reason that Christ is preached to the gentiles, is it not?

It’s true that the Tanakh does not shy away from higlighting the failures of the individual or the nation. Isn’t it amazing that people would and still will sacrifice their children’s lives the the sake of a religious belief?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Carthaginian Tophet is now believed by some to have been a final resting place for still born children and children who died in early infancy. The story about chilodren being placed in the heated arms of a bronze statue was told by Diodorus. He was from Sicily and it is theorized that he may have been mixing up myths from his own country (regarding a bronze bull built for the purpose of roasting the king’s enemies alive).

Other historians, who seem more credible, like Polybius (200-118BC) make no mention of child sacrifice. Polybius was a general who helped destory Carthrage. He had not love for it.

Anyway, historical opinions differ.

Whatever Valke2.

First, you issue these grave concerns about how religious fanaticism will lead to the extermination of life. And then, when I actually display for you an outrageous example of where religious fanaticism led to the extermination of life on the scale of 20,000 innocent children, you join in with the historical revisionists of Mhamed Hassine Fantar and company who claim that this is all nothing more than propaganda.

Valke2, in case you haven’t noticed this yet, Mr. Fantar and his acolytes of revisionism are the people who do very much have a vested interest in cleaning up the history of Carthage.

Lawrence Stager, the Harvard professor who actually dug up the site further back in the 70’s, and other archaeologists along with Stager, believe the Tophet was used to incinerate infants.

Fantar’s opinions face a strong challenge from a researcher at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who has been analyzing remains found by Stager’s team in the 1970s. Preliminary results seem to support the infanticide camp by the way.

Lawrence Stager, a Harvard University archaeology professor and expert on the subject, calls the revisionism a whitewash. He’s now editing a book that will include the results of long forensic analysis of charred bones he helped dig up in Carthage in the 1970s. This, says Mr. Stager, will prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Fantar and his followers are wrong. Still, he isn’t expecting to win them over. “No one really relishes having ancestors who committed such heinous acts,” he says.

Now I guess I’ll get kind of blunt here.

First you ask, "Will we survive religion?’

Then when people present to you archeological evidence that religion has resulted in the death of 20,000 innocent children, confirming your worst fears for you, you turn around and say, “Anyway, historical opinions differ.”

Will we survive religion? Yes. I’m quite sure we will.

The question of surviving stupidity, however, is an entirely different matter…

 

[Valke2]

Historical opinions do differ. And I don’t need to go back 2,000 years to see proof of child sacrifice. It is happening today, only they use explosives instead of bronze statues.

 

[rmcmullan]

I’ll have to go with “Religion is a red herring” POV. People with the same religion war freely with one another. When most of Europe was all Catholic, it was not the end of war.

A lot of religious wars are cultural wars or a war of one people against another. It’s really more effective to send missionaries if religion is the real issue but it seldom is.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Historical opinions do differ. And I don’t need to go back 2,000 years to see proof of child sacrifice. It is happening today, only they use explosives instead of bronze statues.

So is the invention of explosives the result of religion or science?

Should we get rid of science since science created explosives specifically for the purpose of killing others?

Will we survive science?

 

[Mirdath]

You’re assuming there was absolutely no form of communication going on in these days-- and yet you yourself admit this was a major trade route for most parts of the known world too (which is a good reason for God to place them right there for when the Messiah was revealed).

I’m assuming the Canaanites did not worship the Israelite deity, which is pretty correct. Did this God set up multilingual billboards in Jericho to advise them of the impending coming of the Israelites? I doubt it. So I will stand by my statement that they’d almost certainly heard of the exodus from Egypt, probably heard they were headed towards Canaan, and most likely had absolutely no clue they were about to be crushed by Joshua’s armies.

You’re also assuming that all things need to be stated in the Scriptures to the point that every particular detail can be gleaned. If you’re formerly Catholic, then you should understand the error in thinking this way.

Um, why did I ask for relevant Canaanite docs then?

Really?

He favored them because the Messiah was going to be born from amongst them-- the Savior of the World. And since he had promised them this from long ago, he had to keep his promises to their fore-fathers – otherwise he would be a liar. So he chose them to clear the land in preparation for the coming of the Messiah who was to be born there.

Yes, really. He didn’t go make a quick covenant with the Midianites just before the time of Gideon. That’s all I said and all I meant.

However, under the Christian Covenant, as Ephesians 6:12 points out, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Nonetheless, the Messiah had to come first before they would be ready to move out into the world.

Sometimes I wonder if the gnostics were right about the Demiurge.

No. They were not minding their own business. They were doing horrible things in that area. Extremely horrible things which are some of the most horrible crimes against humanity ever read throughout history.

So what? They were not alone in their practices yet God didn’t seem to see fit to stop Aztec mass sacrifices. If human sacrifice is a prerequisite for bringing down the wrath of God humanity would have been exterminated in the Stone Age.

Wrong. The natural law has been written on the hearts of all people right from the beginning-- just as I pointed out already…

Even your ideas of the natural law (which I still do not accept in the slightest) do not comprise an explicit deal with any God.

So there really is no excuse for someone not knowing that murdering, lying, adultery and stealing was not wrong. They don’t need the fullness of the revelation of the Judeo-Christian faith to understand this either-- especially since many cultures and faiths already understood this well before Moses gave the Law.

That would be the social contract – hurt society, and society will punish. It’s as old as Hammurabi. If you want to call that the work of the holy spirit, go ahead, but it’s not going to win you any points in a debate with anyone who doesn’t believe in a holy spirit

So when someone gets pregnant and they abort the child within their womb, this doesn’t in any way infringe on this child’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I’m going to say one thing on this and then, if you want more, start another thread and I’ll show up.

The unborn are generally not protected by the social contract – though with the recent cases in which people have been charged with two counts of murder for killing a mother and fetus, this is changing slightly in America at least. Until they are born, they make no contribution to society and are, I would say, proto-human. I believe life begins at conception; I believe humanity is a process starting at birth which some people sadly never reach the human end of.

My apologies. But when a non-Judeo-Christian archeological source cites detailed descriptions of proceeses which are confirmed by archeological digs of some 20,000 urns containing the remains of sacrificed children – in the ancient Phoenician city of Carthage, part of the Canaanite culture no less – I tend to beleive that the reports are fairly accurate as far as I’m able to detemrine.

And when neither of these sources actually disproves the Scriptural claims (and actually does the opposite by confirming the processes described in the Scriptures), I’m left with no real reason to doubt the Scriptural record.

Good for you. It’s still irrelevant. I questioned the morality of the genocide against the Canaanites and how their kings could have had warning to get out (and why anyone could condemn them for not acting on the advice of prophets of a foreign god they didn’t believe in). Answer me, please?

 

[Mirdath]

But it’s a definition which is not universally accepted by all people. The definitions that CatholicBob and myself have ‘offered’ are the more common definitions most people are familiar with.

Common among your peer group, perhaps; but in all my life those words have had the connotations I indicated and expressly defined. You have a better one? Say it out here and I’ll use it.

So if Mirdath wants to use this kind of exclusive definition of ‘fanaticism’, he should at least present a justifiable reason for doing so in order to convince us to accept it. According to CatholicBob and myself, he hasn’t actually done this-- and CatholicBob has done an excellent job in my opinion of explaining why he hasn’t done so either.

I’ve given painstakingly complete and clear definitions of the terms I am using and why I am using them (in case you forgot, it’s because they are the closest terms in English to what I mean). Like I said, feel free to read any nonsense word you like in place of ‘fanatic’ and ‘zealot’ – however, you have absolutely no cause to claim I am remiss in definition or explanation.

As far as I can tell, Mirdath’s definition means a nihilist, someone who is fatally adhering to something. But nihilism does not always indicate fanaticism by a long shot.

Nihilists adhere to nothing – come on, Nihilo’s in your name, you should know what it means. If you want a good book about them I recommend Dostoevsky’s The Possessed. Fanatic (blrmfzl) nihilists are indeed one group I consider a menace.

Consequently, we’re still right back at the stage of trying to find agreement. No. I’m not accepting his terminalogy regarding fanaticism-- because it certainly does not apply in all situations where someone is considered a fanatic.

So give me a better word and I’ll use it. I’m extremely good with English but I can’t think of anything closer to what I mean (other than ‘extremist’ which is on about the same level and which I’ve already explained my disdain for) and I can’t pull new words out of thin air (here’s looking at you, blrmfzl).

This is fairly simple to demonstrate. And CatholicBob has in fact demonstrated this over and over again by Mirdath to see.

Where? His analogies of sports fans I’ve responded to time and time again saying ‘by the definitions I have given you, this is not so’ yet he refuses to see that.

So if Mirdath can actually provide a different word, or at least modify the definition he’s using, then we would be able to move past the beginning stages of agreeing on the terms. It’s what we’ve been looking for from the beginning.

Have you not seen the many, many times I have done exactly that? How much longer must I repeat myself to get that through to you and Bob? I’ve said ‘I do not include the simply devout in this definition’, I’ve said ‘by the definition I’m using there are sports fanatics who riot and there are people who are really, really into sports who do not’, explicitly excluding people who are not ravening menaces to people and society. If you can’t even read my posts entirely, why are you bothering to argue with me? This boggles the mind.

Where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided?

On page 3. Multiple times.

Mirdath:

By my definition fanaticism is evil – however, dedication and devotion are not.

Mirdath:

Fanaticism by my definition is unequivocally immoral and evil. It’s possible to be really into something without being a fanatic.

Again, how many times must I repeat myself?

Try extremist.

I’ve given my reasons for aesthetically disliking that term, and I see it as roughly equivalent with ‘fanatic’ and ‘zealot’ anyway.

Also… This post indicates to me that maybe, just maybe, you’d be shooting yourself in the foot by proposing that word.

Or, better yet, try the word ‘evil’. I’m fairly sure the word ‘evil’ somehow refers to ‘evil’, even if the word ‘evil’ is not used in the definition.

I have used it, I have reused it, I have turned it upside-down and danced on it. Look at me quoting myself for your convenience here, will you, and stop claiming I’m not defining terms because I’ve been doing exactly that since first requested while you and Bob sit there and post knee-jerk responses accusing me of being a subpar rhetorician for not doing things I’ve done all along.

 

[Mirdath]

Now I guess I’ll get kind of blunt here.

This isn’t blunt, this is the question that’s been asked all along!

First you ask, "Will we survive religion?’

Then when people present to you archeological evidence that religion has resulted in the death of 20,000 innocent children, confirming your worst fears for you, you turn around and say, “Anyway, historical opinions differ.”

Polybius is certainly an accessible source. And he is right that historians differ on the subject – you yourself presented the example of Mr Fantar. He has a perfect right to doubt either of the sides in the debate; you chose to disbelieve Fantar, he doubts Stager.

Sergio Richini also claims the Tophet was a necropolis, not a sacrificing-ground. The thought of a blood libel against the Carthaginians is extremely plausible to me.

So yes, he is right – historical opinions differ.

Will we survive religion? Yes. I’m quite sure we will.

The question of surviving stupidity, however, is an entirely different matter…

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. - Einstein

I personally think we may be too stupid to kill ourselves off

Should we get rid of science since science created explosives specifically for the purpose of killing others?

Science created explosives for the purpose of blowing up things. This also includes buildings, natural landforms, kids’ fingers on the Fourth of July – they’ve got plenty of peaceable use.

Will we survive science?

Start your own thread and I’ll be there arguing about grey goo just as fervently as I’m arguing about jihad and crusade here.

 

[Oneiron]

So where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided from the American Heritage Dictionary?

Let me ask you this again:

Where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided?

It’s not even mentioned in your defintion.

Yes. You associate a fanatic with this. And so does Mirdath.

But a fanatic can also apply to harmless things too. Just because you both associate fanaticism with evil doesn’t mean that all fanatics are evil.

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a sports fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a sex fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a movie fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a comics fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a political fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to an art fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a dog fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to an educational fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

A fanatic as defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause could apply to a music fanatic-- with no reference to someone that’s taking their view to such an extreme that they can justify murder to achieve it .

This is nonsense guys.

Since the defintion fanatic doesn’t require the word evil to be used, perhaps you’d both be better off using the word extremist.

Try extremist.

Or, better yet, try the word ‘evil’. I’m fairly sure the word ‘evil’ somehow refers to ‘evil’, even if the word ‘evil’ is not used in the definition.

From the definitions, extreme and unreasonable.

Extreme - going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc

Unreasonable - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational

So what we have is someone going to the utmosts and any great length in action, habit, opinion, etc. who is not reasonable or rational, and without sounds judgement. I think the definition of a fantatic is plain to see as someone who wouldn’t stop due to reason or fear of hell.
Personally I think you just don’t want to give the point over to Mirdath. Or myself. It’s plain as day what fanatic means when you define the words, someone who’s so into one thing that they no longer care about rational rules and a normal way of thinking. Simply because the word has begun to be used in different ways does not mean you should simply accept the most common-use definition, they’re not always right.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m assuming the Canaanites did not worship the Israelite deity, which is pretty correct.

But the Canaanites did understand that murdering, lying, stealing and adultery were wrong. They can’t blame their disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God as an excuse for not understanding this either.

Mirdath:

Did this God set up multilingual billboards in Jericho to advise them of the impending coming of the Israelites? I doubt it.

Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse Mirdath.

God wrote the Law into the hearts of all people since the beginning. And when when gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law-- since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.

Mirdath:

So I will stand by my statement that they’d almost certainly heard of the exodus from Egypt, probably heard they were headed towards Canaan, and most likely had absolutely no clue they were about to be crushed by Joshua’s armies.

They knew they were doing wrong since the law was written on their hearts since the beginning. They also knew that their gods were false even if they didn’t have access to the fullness of Judaism’s revelation. They also knew that God had delivered them from the Egyptians. They knew that the Israelites were headed in their direction – they had spend 40 years is a deserts that, in total, should only take several week to cross – and they knew that the Israelites were claming that their God had given them their land. I’ve even provided examples within the Scriptures where the people the Israelites interacted with also admitted they knew destruction was coming upon them-- and that it was the God of the Israelites who was giving this land to these Israelites.

Believe what you want Mirdath. This area knew that something big was moving into this area-- and they knew that is was because of their own sins that this ‘foreign god’ was going to demolish them.

Mirdath:

Um, why did I ask for relevant Canaanite docs then?

What exactly are you looking for?

Mirdath:

Yes, really. He didn’t go make a quick covenant with the Midianites just before the time of Gideon. That’s all I said and all I meant.

Could you explain this further?

Mirdath:

Sometimes I wonder if the gnostics were right about the Demiurge.

So let me get this straight, you sometimes think that God as displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures may be nothing more than a blind idiot god?

So what? They were not alone in their practices yet God didn’t seem to see fit to stop Aztec mass sacrifices. If human sacrifice is a prerequisite for bringing down the wrath of God humanity would have been exterminated in the Stone Age.

In these areas outside of the region of the promised land, God was more forgiving until the time of the Coming of the Messiah.

"Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

God often shows patience to those who act in ignorance and unbelief, in the hopes that these people will come to God.

Another example of this can be seen with Paul himself…
1 Timothy 1:12-14:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service.

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Now, before you ask the next question I know you’re going to ask, I’ll ask it for you…

Why did God not display this same patience with the peoples around the “promised land” like he did with the rest of the world, such as the Aztecs for example?

 

[Oneiron]

Why did God not display this same patience with the peoples around the "promised land" like he did with the rest of the world, such as the Aztecs for example?

Because the Israelites wanted that specific land and so accorded it god given, much the same way Americans slaughtered and forcefully relocated millions of Native Americans because this land was “given to us by god.”

 

[Mirdath]

But the Canaanites did understand that murdering, lying, stealing and adultery were wrong. They can’t blame their disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God as an excuse for not understanding this either.

They also understood that human sacrifice was ‘good’. And they probably generally behaved themselves by those rules and punished criminals who did not like any other society.

Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse Mirdath.

God wrote the Law into the hearts of all people since the beginning. And when when gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law-- since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.

The entire point of baptism of desire is that people who do not know of God’s laws yet behave as morally as they can (without knowing those laws) in a search for God are among the saved. If God’s laws were written on the hearts of all people, why would God have called Moses up to Sinai’s peak and given him stone tablets? Why would he have picked a favorite tribe? Baptism of desire is the doctrine that not all people know God or God’s laws but strive to be as moral as they can see. People are not without excuse so long as they strive for good.

They knew they were doing wrong since the law was written on their hearts since the beginning. They also knew that their gods were false even if they didn’t have access to the fullness of Judaism’s revelation. They also knew that God had delivered them from the Egyptians. They knew that the Israelites were headed in their direction – they had spend 40 years is a deserts that, in total, would only take several week to cross – and they knew that the Israelites were claming that their God had given them their land. I’ve even provided examples within the Scriptures where the people the Israelites interacted with also admitted they knew destruction was coming upon them-- and that it was the God of the Israelites who was giving this land to these Israelites.

They did not know their gods were false. Who worships a god known to be false? Look in your own Deuterocanonicals, the book of Daniel, Bel, and the Snake. When gods are proven false their worshipers vanish.

Your examples are later, after Jericho and Ai fell. Unless and until you can prove that emissaries were sent to Jericho demanding a surrender in the name of God, you have no point to make – and even that would leave the question of how the Canaanites can justly be condemned for refusing to listen to prophets of a god they would have considered false.

Believe what you want Mirdath. This area knew that something big was moving into this area-- and they knew that is was because of their own sins that this foreign God was going to demolish them.

One, yes. Two, they as a society had their own moral standards by which they were probably doing pretty well on the whole. The Jewish God was foreign to them, and false – they had their own gods, who had not punished them because they had committed no grievous sins against them.

What exactly are you looking for?

I believe I specified it quite exactly. Go read my post again, I’m getting tired of looking back and quoting myself for your convenience.

Could you explain this further?

The Israelites remained God’s favored tribe no matter their ‘state of grace’, if you will. He delivered them into the hands of Midian but the leaders of the Midianites had no moment corresponding to God’s pact with Abram or Ismail or Moses.

So let me get this straight, you sometimes think that God as displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures may be nothing more than a blind idiot god?

The Demiurge is not a blind idiot god, that’s Azathoth from H. P. Lovecraft’s stories! Seriously, the phrasing is exact – didn’t know you were a fan (not fanatic ).

The Demiurge is simply evil. Which is somewhat more in line with testing Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac (even pulling out the carpet and yelling ‘psyche!’ at the last moment), sending Israel to commit genocide, etc. I don’t believe it, but like I said, sometimes I can’t help but wonder…

 

[Mirdath]

In these areas outside of the region of the promised land, God was more forgiving until the time of the Coming of the Messiah.

Then he had to have had a reason for that – obviously, as an omnipotent God, he could have cleaned it all up with a snap of his fingers. What was that reason?

God often shows patience to those who act in ignorance and unbelief, in the hopes that these people will come to God.

Yeah, I’m really banking on that

Now, before you ask the next question I know you’re going to ask, I ask it for you…

Why did God not display this same patience with the peoples around the promised land like he did with the rest of the world, such as the Aztecs for example?

I’d asked you that several posts up, and I just asked you again. Got an answer? I don’t, and I find the thought that he did just that entirely nonsensical and without reason.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Because the Israelites wanted that specific land and so accorded it god given, much the same way Americans slaughtered and forcefully relocated millions of Native Americans because this land was “given to us by god.”

No. God really did give this promised land to the Israelites-- and the people who lived there knew they were coming too.

But God did not give North America to Europeans. Europeans sinned against both God and these people when they took it violently without God’s approval-- effectively decieving the Native Americans and breaking almost every treaty they made with them.

Likewise, in a similar manner but not quitre the same, God did not give the lands around the Middle East to Muslim nations. More specifically, God allowed the Muslims to move throughout the world, conquering by the sword, because many Christians were beginning to pervert God’s ordinances by conquering by the sword shortly before this time. God allowing the Muslims to conquer by the sword was allowed by God in the hopes that we Christians would change our attitude. Eventually we did-- and the Muslim influence began to decline again as a result of our repentence. More recently, many basically Christian nations have resumed this kind of war-like ferver to spread democracy at gun-point if necessary-- and God is one again allowing the Muslims to put us in our place again, just like he did long ago when Christianity was attempting to conquer by the sword (cf. Justinian I for example).