Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 01:25 PM

News From Syria
December 10, 2024, 09:35 AM

New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
December 07, 2024, 09:26 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 06, 2024, 01:27 PM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?

 (Read 23193 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #60 - January 04, 2009, 12:59 PM

    Quote
    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 


    Nonsense. Do learn a bit of history. Your source - obvious from the title alone - is rubbish:
    to wit: torture was the modus operandi of the SECULAR criminal authorities and it was applied to all kinds of criminal behaviour, since criminology relied heavily on confessions, lacking other means of proving crimes - heresy and witchcraft being regarded as a CRIMINAL offences, one of many. Torture chambers were run by the SECULAR authorities.
    Also, the malleus maleficarum was published in the 15th century... and was hardly the "most venerated book in christian history". For one, the church had actively oppposed the belief in witches and witchcraft for centuries (it?s a pagan belief, actually, and TODAY "witches" are being killed and tortured in Africa - NOT by the church).
    Quote
    During the Early Middle Ages, the Church did not conduct witch trials. Canon law, in Canon Episcopi, followed the views of the church father Augustine of Hippo (AD 400) that belief in the existence of witchcraft was heresy, since according to Augustine "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit".[citation needed] The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly outlawed the very belief in witches, and Charlemagne later confirmed the law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
    Also, witch-hunts were mostly a local phenomenon in certain areas of Europe... Italy and Spain (the most catholic of European countries) being practically witch-hunt-free, btw. AND PATER Friedrich v. Spee was also among the first to oppose the belief in witchcraft and witch-hunts thus starting the end of the witch-craze in Europe.

    You should read real history - not propaganda.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #61 - January 04, 2009, 01:02 PM

    I have gone back and read the debate again, and now I'm puzzled. What exactly did sojournerlumus do to make you angry, apart from bringing up child abuse by Christian priests which I agree isnt relevant to the debate, but hardly offensive ?
    As for him throwing the first stone , well reading back:

    Quote
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

     

    In fact it was you who first said that to Baal when he started talking about programming and brought up your anti-abortion stance:

    Quote
    "Programmed to Think":

    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.

    I did not say the average muslims "thinks" this way: more kids is better.
    I said the average muslim is "programmed to think" this way: more kids is better.

    Of course in the Catholic case, we now have a virus that in many areas is now killing more adults then it is creating babies. So it will take a little time for the religion to catch up and reprogram its faithful.

    But for now the reality is, most christians against condoms & abortions, managed to convince themselves that they are on some altruistic mission to preserve life. And also sometimes the christian programming goes wrong in other ways, when some christians will go and try to preserve the lives of people from other religions as well.


    So why are you angry at sojournerlumus not Baal who has accused you of being programmed?

    Not that I want you to be angry... I'd like all forum members to get along - big happy family style   grin12

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #62 - January 04, 2009, 01:09 PM

    He obviously had nothing to say that was of any relevance, so all he did want to do was piss venom in my direction. I don?t suffer fools patiently - or not always. He poked me, and got the reaction he obviously wanted, since pissing me off was the only intention of his post. Therein lies the difference to Baal, who is wrong, imo, but wants to reason.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #63 - January 04, 2009, 01:21 PM

    Quote
    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 


    Nonsense. Do learn a bit of history. Your source - obvious from the title alone - is rubbish:
    to wit: torture was the modus operandi of the SECULAR criminal authorities and it was applied to all kinds of criminal behaviour, since criminology relied heavily on confessions, lacking other means of proving crimes - heresy and witchcraft being regarded as a CRIMINAL offences, one of many. Torture chambers were run by the SECULAR authorities.
    Also, the malleus maleficarum was published in the 15th century... and was hardly the "most venerated book in christian history". For one, the church had actively oppposed the belief in witches and witchcraft for centuries (it?s a pagan belief, actually, and TODAY "witches" are being killed and tortured in Africa - NOT by the church).
    Quote
    During the Early Middle Ages, the Church did not conduct witch trials. Canon law, in Canon Episcopi, followed the views of the church father Augustine of Hippo (AD 400) that belief in the existence of witchcraft was heresy, since according to Augustine "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit".[citation needed] The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly outlawed the very belief in witches, and Charlemagne later confirmed the law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
    Also, witch-hunts were mostly a local phenomenon in certain areas of Europe... Italy and Spain (the most catholic of European countries) being practically witch-hunt-free, btw. AND PATER Friedrich v. Spee was also among the first to oppose the belief in witchcraft and witch-hunts thus starting the end of the witch-craze in Europe.

    You should read real history - not propaganda.


    You should read real history - not propaganda.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
          

    Christianity, Torture and Physical Abuse

    *For more than a thousand years Christianity set the standards. During that time many suffered physical abuse. Prisoners were tortured in Bishops' torture chambers. Noses were split, ears cropped, tongues bored, backs whipped, foreheads and cheeks branded, limbs crushed or cut off. And it was not only prisoners who suffered. Slaves were thrashed to death. Uncooperative potential converts were physically coerced. The insane were tortured by monks and nuns. Christian parents beat their children. Christian Schoolmasters beat their pupils. Christian husbands beat their wives. Canon law specifically permitted wife-beating, so it took place at level of society. All this has changed through the gradual adoption of secular ideas, and the Churches have now ceased to oppose such changes. Now we learn from the mainstream Churches that Jesus has always been against all kinds of beastly behaviour, and that the correct Christian view is similar to that of modern liberal social workers. *


    http://www.christianityandhumanrights.com/_torture.html

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #64 - January 04, 2009, 01:24 PM

    eh... is that idiotic, a-historical propaganda-rant supposed to take the place of a sourced, reasoned argument to tackle mine? Well - it fails abysmally. Roll Eyes
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #65 - January 04, 2009, 01:29 PM

    eh... is that idiotic, a-historical propaganda-rant supposed to take the place of a sourced, reasoned argument to tackle mine? Well - it fails abysmally. Roll Eyes



    The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract." 

    (Oliver Wendell Holmes)  

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #66 - January 04, 2009, 01:30 PM

    eh... is that idiotic, a-historical propaganda-rant supposed to take the place of a sourced, reasoned argument to tackle mine? Well - it fails abysmally. Roll Eyes



    The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract." 

    (Oliver Wendell Holmes)  


    yeah, and now that qoute is taking the place of reasoning and facts? All you bring is prejuidice and propaganda claims. Generalising nonsense is not the same as an argument, you know.  Roll Eyes
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #67 - January 04, 2009, 01:43 PM

    eh... is that idiotic, a-historical propaganda-rant supposed to take the place of a sourced, reasoned argument to tackle mine? Well - it fails abysmally. Roll Eyes



    The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract." 

    (Oliver Wendell Holmes)  


    yeah, and now that qoute is taking the place of reasoning and facts? All you bring is prejuidice and propaganda claims. Generalising nonsense is not the same as an argument, you know.  Roll Eyes



    Do bother to read the link (including the last paragraph),  it is neither prejudice nor propaganda:


    http://www.christianityandhumanrights.com/_torture.html

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #68 - January 04, 2009, 01:44 PM

    I did read it. It is hogwash and propaganda. Not to mention that putting up links to biassed sites isn?t the same as making an argument. Roll Eyes
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #69 - January 04, 2009, 02:11 PM

    eh... is that idiotic, a-historical propaganda-rant supposed to take the place of a sourced, reasoned argument to tackle mine? Well - it fails abysmally. Roll Eyes



    The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract." 

    (Oliver Wendell Holmes)  


    yeah, and now that qoute is taking the place of reasoning and facts? All you bring is prejuidice and propaganda claims. Generalising nonsense is not the same as an argument, you know.  Roll Eyes



    Do bother to read the link (including the last paragraph),  it is neither prejudice nor propaganda:


    http://www.christianityandhumanrights.com/_torture.html

    Seriously Blas, that you should link to this site and claim that it isn't propoganda is astonishing.  And somehow wikepedia is propoganda?  Do you think the Jews blew up the twin towers as well?
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #70 - January 04, 2009, 02:51 PM

    Quote from: Baal
    Logical Fallacy: Two False Negatives.
    A person can make a choice AND still can be programmed to make that choice.

    A person makes a decision mostly based on: the information and resources available as well as set precedents and acceptable norms. There is plenty of room (days, weeks, years, generations) to program a person before he takes that decision.


    I don't see how this fits with the usual definition of 'programmed'. 

    Main Entry:
        2program
    Variant(s):
        also programme
    Function:
        transitive verb
    Inflected Form(s):
        programmed or programed; program?ming or program?ing
    Date:
        1896

    1 a: to arrange or furnish a program of or for : bill b: to enter in a program
    2: to work out a sequence of operations to be performed by (a mechanism) : provide with a program
    3 a: to insert a program for (a particular action) into or as if into a mechanism b: to control by or as if by a program c (1): to code in an organism's program (2): to provide with a biological program <cells programmed to synthesize hemoglobin>
    4: to predetermine the thinking, behavior, or operations of as if by computer programming <children are programmed into violence ? Lisa A. Richette>

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/programmed

    I would assume that the way you have been using the term fits with 4.  As soon as you say that choice exists, it is no longer possible to say that the behaviour was predetermined.

    Of course, you can say take the philosophical position that there is no choice but I don't see how you can have both programming and choice.

    Quote from: Baal
    wrong question then!


    Hardly.  From your answer I understood that you also see yourself as programmed.  Given that it is very common for the non-religious to talk about the religious as being 'programmed' in a way that they themselves aren't, this is an important clarification.
    Quote from: Baal
    Side Point: You give too much credit to our capacity for making a free choice. Why do you do that? Is it important for you to believe that our choices are 'free choices'? Does the world makes more sense to you when you maintain the belief that choices we make, are 'free choices'? I am curious to know if you put a lot of thought into it in the Past, or if you are just reacting to my attack on some comfortable Truth that you always took for granted.


    How much is too much?  Making choices is simply and everyday experience - as I suspect it is for you also.  I haven't used the word 'free' so please don't put words into my mouth.

    Quote from: Baal
    The chances of me eating Fava bean in the morning at least once a month is a good 90%. Your chances could be anywhere from 0.1% to maybe 50%. Why is it a difference? What else is different between us? At what point did I choose to like the taste of this tasty feces-looking pasty Brown vegetable in the morning?


    Who cares.  Your experiences have provided different influences to your choices than mine do but as long as choice exists, your behaviour hasn't been programmed by your experiences - just influenced by them.
    Quote from: Baal
    The example I put forward is still valid. A Christian grows up to think life is precious, a muslim grows up to think chastity is precious. I will add a few more if discussing Christianity sends you on tangeants, a Sikh grows up to think fighting is cool, some indians grow up to think eating meat is disgusting, some think eating mice is cool.

    No it isn't.  You attempted to explain Christian choices relating to abortion and contraception in terms of a subconscious programming aimed at increasing the numbers of Christians (and hence Christians helping people from other religions was a malfunctioning of their programming).  The fact is that as Dio has explained, this explanation fails to explain Christian behaviour on the issues you mentioned anywhere near as well as the fact that they really believe that life is precious.  Of course, someone growing up as a Christian may well be strongly influenced in that direction by his family and community but it may also be the case that someone becoming a Christian later in life, adopts these beliefs and amends their choices accordingly.

    Quote from: Baal
    Now you and me can disagree on the reason why our precious Christian grows up to think "Life is precious", but I will have to insist we do it on a different thread. And I request that you treat my example for what it is, in regards to this subject.

    I have treated your example as it is.  By looking to 'programming' rather than simply examining the beliefs you have made a howler.

    Quote from: Baal
    I do diminish our own responsibility. I know we do not like to think like that but it is True. We do not like to think about 'diminished responsiblity' because we have, an entire system of reform and punishment, built on the premise that each of us is responsible for their action, and will only be punished for "our own action". But hey, the system is not perfect.

    As for freedom of speech, In the West, we do not tolerate spreading of hate and murder (except perhaps in the USA although it is highly frowned upon). Why so? because we do not want to 'influence' 'impressionable' youth?

    What does the word 'impressionable' mean to you?

    And do you honestly believe that, once we become adult we become 'impervious' as opposed to being 'impressionable'? Or is it perhaps, that as we become adults, we just become better at building defences?

    Now you put a bunch of kids in good schools and give them good homes, then on average, those kids will excel over kids in broken homes and in bad schools.

    Two girls from a similar simple background, On a fateful day at the state college, One goes to meet a guy that will become her future wonderful husband, and the other one goes to get inducted in a cult.

    Both village bumpkins were vulnerable to cults, but One got caught and the other escaped not knowing how lucky she was that day.


    None of this contradicts anything I have said.  But such influences does not result in the 'programming' (i.e. elimination) of choices.
    Quote from: Baal
    Believing does *not* preclude programming and sub-conscious motivation. Even as the person might think they are making a 'free choice'.

    I didn't say free choice.  I'm sure the choices are highly influenced and encumbered - but they are still choices.

    Quote from: Baal
    A person justifying child marriage, coming from an entire society that has an unusually high number of justifications for child marriages, he states, that he believes child marriage is okay for reasons A and B and C and D. Why do I have to give a high credence to the reasons he gives me? He is programmed to think like that. He was even fed those reasons. A nd perhaps his programming was so successful that he came up with some of his own reasons to justify the habit. Screw his reasons. His reasons are only a tool out of many other tools, that I can use to get a glimpse of his psychology and of how he was built.

    His reasons are significant because they are things you need to deal with in order to encourage him to choose differently - no matter how they got there.  Saying 'well you say that because you were programmed' actually provides no insights at all (and as you have shown often leads to mistakes) and encourages the belief (both in you and him) that change is not possible (or else needs some kind of violent 'reprogramming'.).

    Quote from: Baal
    Is it their own? and why so? because they have their name on that choice? because they signed that choice and proclaimed it as their own choice made by their own free will under no stress or duress or threat or harm?

    Yep.  In fact its their own choice even if it is under stress or duress or threat or harm.

    Quote from: Baal
    Well too bad. Because, I do not believe them. The choice was made by them. It came from them. It was their own voice and hand writing.

    Then we agree.

    Quote from: Baal
    But the information that went into formulating that choice, was not theirs. And people are predictable particularly, to doctrines that predate the human they influence by centuries and/or own a disproportionate amount of resources relative to this human they influence.

    Which means that others are responsible for the information or other input they provide - but not for the choice.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #71 - January 04, 2009, 03:10 PM

    Quote from: Blas
    I apologise if I am off topic. If it offends maybe a moderator will move it.
    I thought it was legitimate to object to Sparky's deduction.

    Sparky seems to reach the conclusion: Christians are anti abortionists therefore  *Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable*. This seems bad logic to me.

    That would indeed be bad logic.  Fortunately that isn't what I said.  I took it as assumed that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable and that this provided a better explanation of the fact that many Christians are against abortion and contraception (for Catholics) than their 'programming' to increase the numbers of Christians.

    Here it is again in case you've forgotten:
    Quote from: sparky
    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.


    You then wanted to challenge whether Christian teaching actually is that all human life is valuable.

    Quote from: Blas
    I live in a region called Occitania which stretches from Northern Italy through Southern France almost into Spain.
    In the 13th Century, the Pope ordered a Crusade (Albigensian Crusade) to punish the local heretics...up to 1.000.000 people(men women and children) were brutally murdered by  *friendly* Christians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 

    Which you can take up with Dio.  But I don't look to the behaviour of people in the 13th C as the source of Christian teaching.
    Quote
    And what about Luke 19.27? Not the word of the Lord? Depends on one's perspective / interpretation.

    No, I said that it was a parable - not that is wasn't the 'word of the Lord'.  Because it is a parable it is describing a spiritual reality using an earthly story.  So if you want to use it to say that 'Jesus will judge 'his enemies' on the day of judgement and that this judgement won't be very pleasant, I wouldn't have a problem.  It is something that is repeated numerous times in scripture.  But if you want to use it to say that Jesus is telling his disciples to go off and kill people who are his enemies then you are up a creek without a paddle.

    Even your unattributed 'Jesusneverexisted' copy/paste doesn't contradict that.

    For reference:  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm

    I'm glad to see you're working so hard to steer clear of propoganda...
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #72 - January 04, 2009, 08:19 PM

    Luke 19:11-28

    While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. 12 So He said, " A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.  13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this  until I come back.'  14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'  15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.  16 "The first appeared, saying, ' Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'  17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'  18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'  19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'  20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;  21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'  22 "He said to him, ' By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?  23'Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'  24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'  25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'  26 " I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." 

    28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
    NASU

    So tell me... what does this parable mean and refer to?

    "At 8:47 I do a grenade jump off a ladder."
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #73 - January 05, 2009, 09:43 AM

    Quote from: Pazuzu
    So tell me... what does this parable mean and refer to?


    Invest well (i.e. for the glory of the king) the resources (life, money, abilities, etc) that have been entrusted to you because judgement is coming.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #74 - January 05, 2009, 09:47 AM

    Sparky: Read your post. Will reply tomorrow after work.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #75 - January 05, 2009, 12:12 PM

    Just read thru this topic. Trying to catch up after a hectc last 2 weeks. I never knew of increased progeny as something Muslims should pursue. But I did discover it a couple years ago in reading scripture.

    For instance Sunan Abu Da'ud satates in 11:2045 - A man came to the Prophet and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: "No. Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you."

    So those who are more intimate with such scriptures eg. Imams could conceivably use that hadith encourage their flock to mulitply to increase the ummah.

    The next is more indirect but predicts Muhammad would have the largest following on the day of judgement.

    SB 71:606: Allah's Apostle said, "Nations were displayed before me; one or two prophets would pass by along with a few followers. Then a big crowd of people passed in front of me and I asked, 'Who are they?'" It was said, "It is Moses and his followers". It was said to me, "Look at the horizon. Behold!? There was a multitude of people filling the horizon. Then it was said to me, "Look there and there about the stretching sky! Behold!? There was a multitude filling the horizon. It was said to me, "This is your nation out of whom seventy thousand shall enter Paradise." Then the Prophet entered his house without telling his companions who the 70,000 were. So the people started talking about the issue and said, "It is we who have believed in Allah and followed His Apostle; therefore those people are either ourselves or our children who are born in the Islamic era.? When the Prophet heard of that, he came out and said. "Those people are those who do not treat themselves with Ruqya, nor do they believe in bad or good omen from birds nor do they get themselves cauterized but they put their trust only in their Lord."

    Also the need for contraception is negated in the next hadith because Muhammad claims that whether or not one uses any form of prevention if Allah wanted a child to be born they will be, regardless.

    SB 62:137 - We got female captives in the war booty and we used to withdraw before ejaculation (avoid pregnancy) to ensure better price for their ransom. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "There is no need because each soul that is destined to exist will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #76 - January 05, 2009, 12:21 PM

    Oh, there is no denying it exists within the texts, I just didn't think it was the main motivation for breeding when muslims I knew chose to have another baby.

    I certainly never lay back and thought "this is for the ummah".  Tongue

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #77 - January 05, 2009, 12:23 PM

    Oh, there is no denying it exists within the texts, I just didn't think it was the main motivation for breeding when muslims I knew chose to have another baby.

    I certainly never lay back and thought "this is for the ummah".  Tongue


    your hubby would have done something wrong, if that had been foremost in your mind at the time. cool2
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #78 - January 05, 2009, 12:24 PM



    your hubby would have done something wrong, if that had been foremost in your mind at the time. cool2


    Yeah, no doubt, he wasn't awesome, but he certainly wasn't always "lay back and make it for the team" either.  Cheesy

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #79 - January 05, 2009, 12:59 PM


    Seriously Blas, that you should link to this site and claim that it isn't propaganda is astonishing.  And somehow wikepedia is propoganda?  Do you think the Jews blew up the twin towers as well?


    I didn't reply to Diotima because her Wikipedia link pointed to "witch-hunts" conveniently forgetting the role of Inquisitions.

    The Malleus Maleficarum was written and used by inquisitors dealing with heresy and apostasy. (see also Formicarius)

    *The Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptised members of the Church (which, however, encompassed the vast majority of the population in Catholic countries).
    Secular courts could still try non-Christians for blasphemy. (Most of the witch trials went through secular courts.)*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

    The Christian church murdered, tortured, mutilated and destroyed millions of lives both directly through the Inquisition and indirectly through all of the wars they incited.

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #80 - January 05, 2009, 01:02 PM

    Quote from: Blas
    I apologise if I am off topic. If it offends maybe a moderator will move it.
    I thought it was legitimate to object to Sparky's deduction.

    Sparky seems to reach the conclusion: Christians are anti abortionists therefore  *Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable*. This seems bad logic to me.

    That would indeed be bad logic.  Fortunately that isn't what I said.  I took it as assumed that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable and that this provided a better explanation of the fact that many Christians are against abortion and contraception (for Catholics) than their 'programming' to increase the numbers of Christians.

    Here it is again in case you've forgotten:
    Quote from: sparky
    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.


    You then wanted to challenge whether Christian teaching actually is that all human life is valuable.

    Quote from: Blas
    I live in a region called Occitania which stretches from Northern Italy through Southern France almost into Spain.
    In the 13th Century, the Pope ordered a Crusade (Albigensian Crusade) to punish the local heretics...up to 1.000.000 people(men women and children) were brutally murdered by  *friendly* Christians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 

    Which you can take up with Dio.  But I don't look to the behaviour of people in the 13th C as the source of Christian teaching.
    Quote
    And what about Luke 19.27? Not the word of the Lord? Depends on one's perspective / interpretation.

    No, I said that it was a parable - not that is wasn't the 'word of the Lord'.  Because it is a parable it is describing a spiritual reality using an earthly story.  So if you want to use it to say that 'Jesus will judge 'his enemies' on the day of judgement and that this judgement won't be very pleasant, I wouldn't have a problem.  It is something that is repeated numerous times in scripture.  But if you want to use it to say that Jesus is telling his disciples to go off and kill people who are his enemies then you are up a creek without a paddle.

    Even your unattributed 'Jesusneverexisted' copy/paste doesn't contradict that.

    For reference:  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm

    I'm glad to see you're working so hard to steer clear of propoganda...


    In the words of Blackadder, you turn and twist like a twisty turny thing.

    My reasoning is more straight forward.
     
    I am very satisfied that throughout history, high ranking Christians(Popes, Cardinals, Bishops etc..)  have wilfully and knowingly instigated suffering and killings.
    This fact leads me to believe that they were indifferent to human life rather than value it.

    On Sunday, March 12th, 2000, the Pope John Paul II apologized for the "errors of his church for the last 2000 years."
    He made a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

    Every religion can boast pious teachings, the truth is that Christianity is as Christianity does.
    It seems to me more motivated by greed for Power and Riches than Piety and Love for human life. 


    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #81 - January 05, 2009, 01:04 PM

    Quote
    The Christian church murdered, tortured, mutilated and destroyed millions of lives both directly through the Inquisition and indirectly through all of the wars they incited.


    bring proof for your laughably inaccurate generalised allegations.
    fyi: "the" inquisiton didn?t even exist. just for starters... Roll Eyes

    Jesus, the crap one has to read over and over again...

    check this out, for starters:

    Quote
    Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

    or this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

    and this:
    http://religi3.securesites.net/christianity/inquisition.htm

    just stuff I googled quickly.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #82 - January 05, 2009, 01:56 PM

    Quote from: Blas
    I apologise if I am off topic. If it offends maybe a moderator will move it.
    I thought it was legitimate to object to Sparky's deduction.

    Sparky seems to reach the conclusion: Christians are anti abortionists therefore  *Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable*. This seems bad logic to me.

    That would indeed be bad logic.  Fortunately that isn't what I said.  I took it as assumed that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable and that this provided a better explanation of the fact that many Christians are against abortion and contraception (for Catholics) than their 'programming' to increase the numbers of Christians.

    Here it is again in case you've forgotten:
    Quote from: sparky
    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.


    You then wanted to challenge whether Christian teaching actually is that all human life is valuable.

    Quote from: Blas
    I live in a region called Occitania which stretches from Northern Italy through Southern France almost into Spain.
    In the 13th Century, the Pope ordered a Crusade (Albigensian Crusade) to punish the local heretics...up to 1.000.000 people(men women and children) were brutally murdered by  *friendly* Christians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 

    Which you can take up with Dio.  But I don't look to the behaviour of people in the 13th C as the source of Christian teaching.
    Quote
    And what about Luke 19.27? Not the word of the Lord? Depends on one's perspective / interpretation.

    No, I said that it was a parable - not that is wasn't the 'word of the Lord'.  Because it is a parable it is describing a spiritual reality using an earthly story.  So if you want to use it to say that 'Jesus will judge 'his enemies' on the day of judgement and that this judgement won't be very pleasant, I wouldn't have a problem.  It is something that is repeated numerous times in scripture.  But if you want to use it to say that Jesus is telling his disciples to go off and kill people who are his enemies then you are up a creek without a paddle.

    Even your unattributed 'Jesusneverexisted' copy/paste doesn't contradict that.

    For reference:  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm

    I'm glad to see you're working so hard to steer clear of propoganda...


    In the words of Blackadder, you turn and twist like a twisty turny thing.

    My reasoning is more straight forward.
     
    I am very satisfied that throughout history, high ranking Christians(Popes, Cardinals, Bishops etc..)  have wilfully and knowingly instigated suffering and killings.
    This fact leads me to believe that they were indifferent to human life rather than value it.

    On Sunday, March 12th, 2000, the Pope John Paul II apologized for the "errors of his church for the last 2000 years."
    He made a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

    Every religion can boast pious teachings, the truth is that Christianity is as Christianity does.
    It seems to me more motivated by greed for Power and Riches than Piety and Love for human life. 

    In which case your discussion is with someone else.

    My initial statement which was regarding Christian teaching regarding the value of all human life and you claimed this to be untrue.  Given that you have failed to provide any evidence that Christian teaching is not that all human life is valuable you have not demonstrated your claim.

    The fact that you attempted to support your claim with a quote from the bible shows that your backtracking now is just that.

    Christianity is as Christianity teaches - whether you think so or not.

    Cheers,
    sparky
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #83 - January 05, 2009, 04:01 PM



    fyi: "the" inquisiton didn?t even exist. just for starters... Roll Eyes

    Jesus, the crap one has to read over and over again...

    check this out, for starters:

    Quote
    Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

    or this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

    and this:
    http://religi3.securesites.net/christianity/inquisition.htm

    just stuff I googled quickly.


    I can show hundreds of links that confirm the existence of the Inquisition but of course my links would be propaganda.

    Therefore you must be right, the Inquisition never existed, neither did Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Peter Waldo or the Cathars.

    One of you crazy religious leaders, John Paul II sent a letter on June 15, 2004 addressed to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the release of the  Report of the International Symposium on the Inquisition. 

    In it, he reiterated the apology he made in his Apostolic letter Tertio millennio adveniente. He also repeated the petition of forgiveness he offered on the year 2000 Day of Forgiveness (March 12). This apology, he stated, would be  valid  for the  dramas linked to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds they have caused in the memory.
    He was apologizing for something that never happened.

    To close, Diotima Grumpy, you have an insulting bad mouth, so this is my last reply to you.


    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #84 - January 05, 2009, 04:03 PM


    In which case your discussion is with someone else.

    My initial statement which was regarding Christian teaching regarding the value of all human life and you claimed this to be untrue.  Given that you have failed to provide any evidence that Christian teaching is not that all human life is valuable you have not demonstrated your claim.

    The fact that you attempted to support your claim with a quote from the bible shows that your backtracking now is just that.

    Christianity is as Christianity teaches - whether you think so or not.

    Cheers,
    sparky


    Get real.
    There are interminable ways to sound impressive to yourself, and even a few that may impress others.
    Do you think you have managed either?

    Cheers.

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #85 - January 05, 2009, 04:04 PM

    Oh, man... worse than I thought.  idiot2 ... where did I say, no Inquisition existed?  Thinking hard
    I said THE Inquisition did not exist - there were several, in fact - many.
    And it?s pretty obvious, you don?t wish to deal with the facts and numbers and historical background presented in the links I posted... why is that? Well, let me guess... that?s because the debate IS over for you, and not because of my "bad mouth". Wink lipsrsealed
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #86 - January 05, 2009, 04:15 PM

    I can show hundreds of links that confirm the existence of the Inquisition but of course my links would be propaganda.

    Therefore you must be right, the Inquisition never existed, neither did Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Peter Waldo or the Cathars.



    That's a new one. 'The Inquisition did not exist'. I've always heard that the Inquisitors were not real Christians, they interpreted the bible incorrectly. Now the apology has gone a step further to obliterate the event from history.

    Soon there will be no crusades, no conquering of the America's and forced conversions, no slavery amongst the Christians and no witch hunts.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #87 - January 05, 2009, 04:18 PM

    I can show hundreds of links that confirm the existence of the Inquisition but of course my links would be propaganda.

    Therefore you must be right, the Inquisition never existed, neither did Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Peter Waldo or the Cathars.



    That's a new one. 'The Inquisition did not exist'. I've always heard that the Inquisitors were not real Christians, they interpreted the bible incorrectly. Now the apology has gone a step further to obliterate the event from history.

    Soon there will be no crusades, no conquering of the America's and forced conversions, no slavery amongst the Christians and no witch hunts.


    Eh... do you ALSO suffer from a terminal inability to read what is written? If you bothered to actually read what I wrote, and the links I provided, you?d notice that Blas is blatherin, when he says I deny the existence of Inquisition.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #88 - January 05, 2009, 04:21 PM


    I said THE Inquisition did not exist - there were several, in fact - many.


    Well that can easily be misread as if to say there were no inquisitions. As your original post did not qualify.

    So my previous post is based on that understanding.


    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #89 - January 05, 2009, 04:24 PM


    I said THE Inquisition did not exist - there were several, in fact - many.


    Well that can easily be misread as if to say there were no inquisitions. As your original post did not qualify.

    So my previous post is based on that understanding.




    yah, well - if you don?t get beyond a certain level of literacy... or bother to read further (since any doubts were cleared up in my next post, long before you replied).  Roll Eyes
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »