Richard Dawkins- The Root of All Evil

[GreenGannon]

Let’s keep things in perspective. The reply you made prompted my response, to which GreenGannon took offense. He was foolish enough to do so in written form, and things proceeded from there.

Yeah, whatever.

When I say counterattack, let me explain what I mean, so that there can be no mistake. But first allow me a short prologue: If you can believe it, religion is a minor province in the kingdom of my life. I don’t practice a religion, nor do most of my friends. Artistically, religion is a curiosity and source for inspiration. Philosophically, it gives me much to consider. Politically, it is the source of much debate, suffering, and strife. But it isn’t a big part of what I do, or who I am. Most of the time, therefore, not only am I not “attacking” religion, I am not even thinking about religion.

How can one be actively denouncing and belittling those who practice religion, and yet not even be thinking about it?

Knowing that, you might look at my topics of discussion here on the Compendium and wonder, then, why I am so aggressive toward religion. My answer has been that I am counterattacking religion in response to some wrong that it has already committed—and answer which you either do not understand or refuse to accept…maybe a little of both.

But should your blame instead be directed at humans? For if religion causes strife, and religion is made by man, then does the true fault not lie in man and man alone? Do not mistake me as one who turns a blind eye to the destruction and pain religion has caused, though I do not pretend to think that a lack of religion would prevent it at all.

Remember what started this thread: Legend posted links to a short documentary by Professor Richard Dawkins about religious faith as the major source of conflict and manmade suffering in this world. I assume you didn’t watch it and don’t plan to, so you will have to take my word for it that the content of his documentary is not some unprovoked hit job. It has all the tone and language of somebody who feels besieged. It is a counterattack—in other words, a defensive action. I and others in this thread proceeded to expand upon the documentary with our own personal insights.

Laying my pride down for the moment, I will admit that I have not watched the documentary. I will, however get around to it before the end of the week. How long is it though, so I can plan accordingly?

It is important that you recognize the difference between “counterattack” and “unprovoked attack.” We are not simply being malicious for the heck of it. I for one am a peaceful person; I resent destruction and resist needless confrontation. People like me want to go about our lives, working for our own self-enrichment as well as the betterment of the world that has given so much to us. Religion, were it not so aggressive, would provoke no response from me whatsoever. But it is that aggressive, and I do not have the luxury of ignoring it—nobody does—which is what all of this is about.

What I disagree with is that religion is inherently aggressive. Firstly, I believe in religion as an absolute truth--Christianity specifically--but I will at the same time declare that it cannot exist in pure form. No matter which way this is being looked at, everything agrees with once concept: At the root of all this, the fault lies with man. Irregardless of what a religion may or may not be, it has the potential to be used for great harm. But if it was not religion, it would be something else.

A man and his church are not what you believe them to be. For over a decade the Religious Right in America has seized control of all three branches of government, framed the way news is reported in the media, attacked the scientific establishment, attacked civil liberties, attacked women and minorities, attacked the separation of church and state, and attacked the First Amendment’s implicit guarantee of freedom from religion. It begins with leaders like James Dobson, but it ends with ordinary people in ordinary churches committing extraordinary wrongs.

The religious right, which as I understand does not refer to someone who is simply a Republican and a Christian, but rather exists very deeply in the right-wing, is not quite as numerous as you may believe. Having contact with several other Christians, and a few churches, I can tell you that most of us are far more moderate than you might think. The religious right are, however, much louder than the rest of us.

There’s an old cliché that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not quite true. Power doesn’t corrupt…it emphasizes what we already are. In a way, you might say that power frees us to be our true selves.

Well, yes and no. It's not that power will completely corrupt you, but it tends to magnify whatever character flaws may be present.

Well, fundamentalist Christianity has achieved a great deal of power in the United States, and we have therefore glimpsed its true nature: Your religion, Sentenal, is one part bully, one part tyrant, and one part murderer. Your religion wants to intimidate us, control our lives, and destroy any who oppose it. This is broadly known as Christian Dominionism, and you can read up on it at your leisure. But you won’t, so here are the three central concepts of Christian Dominionism:

Really? Because I didn't see that last time I read my Bible.

Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

I believe that it started as such, but the purpose of it's original nature is secondary to it's primary reason for existing: A society free from persecution, to live free--though within reasonable confines (i.e. No mudering)--and to be able to subscribe to any belief or way of thinking. This is the primary goal for the United States in my mind, and it should precede all other things.

Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

This is not true of all Christianity, indeed many of us are taught to be tolerant.

Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

While the punishments may not quite be appropriate for this day and age, the laws seemed to work rather well. Certainly a direct paste would be laughable at best, but I fail to see how--first having removed all the God-related laws and the excessive death penalties--those laws would not be a good starting point to grow from.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, such a philosophy is both aggressive and invasive. Christians in America have brought war upon their own country, not by firing guns but by refusing to teach science in the classroom, refusing women the right to control their own bodies and lifestyles, refusing gays the right to marry or adopt, refusing blacks and other minorities the opportunity to stand as equals…and on and on. I don’t need to list the news stories of the past decade. We both know where this country has been. And I believe with much trepidation that, if it had the power to do so, fundamentalist Christianity would indeed revive the medieval practices of torture and murder.

One of those I would fight you tooth and nail--verbally of course--and another I am sure we could reach a reasonable compromise, the others I make no excuse for. Not even that last bit, which I would certainly agree that certain people (I'm looking at you Pat Robertson!) would likely return to those practices.

Nor is it just your violent, backward little fundamentalist resurgence here in the Earth’s most powerful nation. Islam has made its mark all over the world, and doesn’t need to worry about reverting back to the Dark Ages because it is already there. I don’t need to tell you, Sentenal, what the problems are with Islam, because you hate that religion already, and I would just be preaching to the choir. My point in bringing it up, then, is simply to note that the entire planet is under attack either by this religion, that one, or the other. As science and materialism preclude all that is supernatural from manifesting itself in our lives, religion is forced to retreat further and further, speaking in metaphors and allegory. Some of the faithful refuse to accept that; they see their scripture as the literal truth. In their zeal, they bring war to us all.

I do not see faith and science as contradictions. I see them as complimentary.

When I say counterattack, I am not talking about one little thread on an insignificant message board in some obscure corner of the Internet. Your earlier post, and GreenGannon’s anger at my reply to it, gave me the opportunity to carry on with a counterattack that never truly ends.

To an attack that never really began.

As bullies, you fundamentalists can’t take it when your victims strike back at you. As tyrants, our rebellion makes you feel insecure and vulnerable. As murderers, you simply hate us for the fact that we and our way of life continue to exist at all.

Or we simply wish you'd stop calling us stupid for believing in God. That's really all I'd like.

I’m sorry, Sentenal. When you swear by that Good Book of yours, you are putting on the uniform of my world’s enemy. You, and GreenGannon, for all your sweetness of character and weakness of intellect, are legitimate targets.

As with all your insults, and your overflowery language, you are inciting us to attack. You claim to only be on the defense, yet your posts seem to almost want to be goading us into arguing.

In another world I would leave you alone, but in this world I cannot afford to do that.

Yes you can. Just simply say "I don't believe what you believe". I'll respect that and leave you be.

The day your people stop preaching outside the church,

So it's only OK to talk about the Bible in church? Or did you mean that as a general statement to which you actually want us to back off a little where politics are concerned?

[Radical_Dreamer]

In another world I would leave you alone, but in this world I cannot afford to do that.

Yes you can. Just simply say "I don't believe what you believe". I'll respect that and leave you be.

See, this right here is the root of the problem in this thread. No one is saying you won't. But the world is filled with people for whom having their own beliefs is not good enough. These people are willing to murder rather than live in a world without nonbelievers. These people are dangerous, indeed, peaceful coexistence between these extremists and the rest of the world is impossible. The point of the video, which you are welcome to debate, is not that all theists are terrorists, but rather, that religious extremism is a logical conclusion of the way religious institutions work, and thus, they are the root of said evil.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Actually Lord J, one little fact, you didn't give me many quotes. Almost every single one you did was in the Afterlife, and that doesn't really count. In fact, it supports my idea that we should not punish non believers in this world, because in the afterlife, it will happen any way.

[ChronoMagus]

I still lack to see how a religion that condemns the violence against innocents and condemns the concept of suicide somehow can be "inherently violent."  And this not only the view of most Muslims, but it is fact in the Qur'an.  How can any religion that follows something like the Ten Commandments, which says "Thou shalt not murder," be inherently violent?

The actions of what individuals do is not what makes up a religion. A religion is based upon the ideas of its creator.  The creator represents the religion.  According to your logic Lord J, if one white guy killed a black guy then all white people are evil.  Same vice verca.  If there is a single bad Republican or Democrat then the entire idealogy behind Republicans or Democrats are completely flawed.  That kind of generalization is flawed.  Religion for the vast majority is not inherently violent.  People maybe, even clergy.  But religion itself is not.

[Lord J Esq]

But should your blame instead be directed at humans? For if religion causes strife, and religion is made by man, then does the true fault not lie in man and man alone?

This is the distinction between ignorance and willful ignorance. Unless you wish for humanity to go extinct, there is no point in blaming humans for being imperfect. We are born in ignorance; there is nothing we could have done to instead be born into wisdom. But there is every opportunity for us to reject our ignorance rather than cling to its blissful embrace. Growing up means making mistakes and learning from them.

So, no, I have no interest in blaming humanity itself for the mistake that is religion. Blame for its own sake is fruitless. But as a tool, blame might provoke change in others. Therefore, it makes good sense only to blame those wrongdoers who are still alive today and may be capable of changing their ways.

Do not mistake me as one who turns a blind eye to the destruction and pain religion has caused…

I believe that you are capable of being reasonable. But I wish you would quantify that sort of statement, rather than resting on your laurels after having made only the vaguest of platitudes.

Laying my pride down for the moment, I will admit that I have not watched the documentary. I will, however get around to it before the end of the week. How long is it though, so I can plan accordingly?

The three parts together add up to the better part of an hour. If you have the time to repeatedly read my posts and reply to them, you have the time to watch Dr. Dawkins’ documentary. But will you consider it to be worth your time? I doubt it.

What I disagree with is that religion is inherently aggressive. Firstly, I believe in religion as an absolute truth--Christianity specifically--but I will at the same time declare that it cannot exist in pure form.

How can an “absolute truth” not exist in “pure form”? On one hand, you are saying that your interpretation of your religion is imperfect. On the other hand, you are saying that your religion itself, separate from your interpretation, is perfect. But if you are incapable of perfect judgment, then how can you be so certain of your religion’s absolute truth? You can’t! Certainty is a logical state of mind that, in order to be rational, requires a physical reason. By your own premises, either your religion can be perfectly understood and is known to be an absolute truth, or it cannot be perfectly understood and is therefore not an absolute truth.

It is this simple process of reason which forces the devout to fly into the comforting arms of faith, because only faith can allow one to sidestep logical contradictions—which is precisely why it is so dangerous.

The religious right, which as I understand does not refer to someone who is simply a Republican and a Christian, but rather exists very deeply in the right-wing, is not quite as numerous as you may believe. Having contact with several other Christians, and a few churches, I can tell you that most of us are far more moderate than you might think. The religious right are, however, much louder than the rest of us.

Maybe so. On an individual level, I understand that you are not personally responsible for the opinions of those held by other members of your community. However, on a social level, you do owe it to your community to not let these nutcases run amok. As fellows in the same religion, it should be people like you who are the loudest antagonists of villains like Dobson. But you remain silent. Only liberals wage any meaningful campaign against fundamentalist Christianity. And that leaves me to make one of two conclusions: Either you are not as moderate as you think, or you are not virtuous enough to take a stand against the people who are giving Christianity such a bad name.

The closer somebody else’s philosophy gets to yours, the harder on them should your scrutiny be—and hardest of all on yourself. You don’t see it on the Compendium, but I spend more time scrutinizing people who are likeminded than with people like you. The result is purifying.

There’s an old cliché that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not quite true. Power doesn’t corrupt…it emphasizes what we already are. In a way, you might say that power frees us to be our true selves.

Well, yes and no. It's not that power will completely corrupt you, but it tends to magnify whatever character flaws may be present.

Power also “magnifies” whatever strengths may be present, which is why I phrased it like I did: Power emphasizes what we already are. As to whether power is inherently corruptive, my jury is still out—but thus far I have seen no proof of it. (And you may debate me on that point at my delight.) If anything, the frustration of not having power seems to be what corrupts us.

Really? Because I didn't see that last time I read my Bible.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you read your Bible—the whole thing? I mentioned Christianity has revealed to itself three parts: bully, tyrant, and murderer. You say you don’t see that in your Bible. I say you haven’t been reading it. I was going through the Book of Luke not long ago, and one passage stood out to me so repugnantly at the time that I can still remember it now. It is an example of the “tyrant” part of Christianity. It is also a quote by Jesus himself, for what it’s worth:

27 A great multitude of the people followed him, including women who also mourned and lamented him.

28 But Jesus, turning to them, said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, don't weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.

29 For behold, the days are coming in which they will say,'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.'

I think you’re aware by now that sexism against women is the form of prejudice I hate the most. Well, here in Luke we have the quintessential Christian definition of women, spoken by Jesus, boiled down to three short verses: Women are not people; they are women (verse 27), whose sole meaningful purpose on this world is to bear and raise children (verse 29) rather than lead their own lives. That sounds like tyranny to me…and of half the human species, no less.

Oh, you see…I know Scripture. And what your tyrant god witnessed in fear, I repeat with anticipation:

5 God came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built.

6 God said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do. Now nothing will be withheld from them, which they intend to do.

Imagine, the human species choosing its own destiny! That is anathema to any organized religion. To this day Christians are taught to be god-fearing, because fear is the body of tyranny. You fear damnation, you fear your own pleasure and pride, you fear being alone, you fear living a meaningless life and dying an empty death, you fear the “sinners” who crawl all over the planet, and you fear the machinations of intangible evil deities. Imagine what would happen to the ranks of Christianity, if that religion were not so tyrannical! “God” may be able to topple our towers from the comfort of a storybook, but in the real world he is only as strong as his followers.

You don’t see tyranny in your Bible? Why, it’s even written right there on the cover: “The Holy Scriptures.” Holiness means obedience. This is a book that claims you as its property before you read even a single page. God loves his sheep, all right.

Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

I believe that it started as such, but the purpose of it's original nature is secondary to it's primary reason for existing: A society free from persecution, to live free--though within reasonable confines (i.e. No mudering)--and to be able to subscribe to any belief or way of thinking. This is the primary goal for the United States in my mind, and it should precede all other things.

Why, then here we are in agreement! But why all the ideological contradictions? The alleged Christian values of love and tolerance suggest a liberal way of life—like accepting that women are their own masters; paying taxes to fund public health and education as well as help the poor and the needy; encouraging loving gays to marry and live as a family; taking great pains to preserve the health of our environment; and so on. Then there’s the little matter of waging war that kills dozens of thousands of people for no good reason. I wonder what Jesus would have said about that.

If you truly believe in a society free from persecution, where people can choose their own way of life, then why on Earth are you a conservative? I commend your reply.

Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

This is not true of all Christianity, indeed many of us are taught to be tolerant.

You should read more history. Sectarian strife has marred Christianity since the Gnostic purges of millennia ago—and that’s merely within the broader Christian faith. Never mind what Christians have done to non-Christians. Most of it is unprintable, anyhow.

You, Gannon, as an individual, may or may not practice a doctrine of tolerance. But Christianity itself has survived for two thousand years by utterly slaughtering its enemies, both within and without. And that is still true even today, as we see not only that denominational prejudices continue to prevent a unified American Christianity from emerging, but that Christians of every stripe all over the world continue to persecute those who are different from them, and meanwhile expend tremendous energy proselytizing to the weak and vulnerable people both in rich societies and in the third world.

And let us not forget the simplest Christian teaching of all: “Join us or your soul will burn in Hell for eternity.” That’s not exactly what I would call tolerance.

Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

While the punishments may not quite be appropriate for this day and age, the laws seemed to work rather well. Certainly a direct paste would be laughable at best, but I fail to see how--first having removed all the God-related laws and the excessive death penalties--those laws would not be a good starting point to grow from.

Okay. Cut out the “God-related laws” and the “excessive death penalties,” and report back to me with what’s left. We’ll go from there.

But, before you do that, need I point out the obvious? A code of laws that makes no reference to a god would be secular, and therefore could be inspired by any book or set of teachings. It would also be contrary to your objection earlier that America was originally founded as a Christian nation, which implied you believe it should continue as such.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, such a philosophy is both aggressive and invasive. Christians in America have brought war upon their own country, not by firing guns but by refusing to teach science in the classroom, refusing women the right to control their own bodies and lifestyles, refusing gays the right to marry or adopt, refusing blacks and other minorities the opportunity to stand as equals…and on and on. I don’t need to list the news stories of the past decade. We both know where this country has been. And I believe with much trepidation that, if it had the power to do so, fundamentalist Christianity would indeed revive the medieval practices of torture and murder.

One of those I would fight you tooth and nail--verbally of course--and another I am sure we could reach a reasonable compromise, the others I make no excuse for. Not even that last bit, which I would certainly agree that certain people (I'm looking at you Pat Robertson!) would likely return to those practices.

I give credit where credit is due. If you decide to disavow yourself of some of the above ideology, then by all means I applaud your decision.

As bullies, you fundamentalists can’t take it when your victims strike back at you. As tyrants, our rebellion makes you feel insecure and vulnerable. As murderers, you simply hate us for the fact that we and our way of life continue to exist at all.

Or we simply wish you'd stop calling us stupid for believing in God. That's really all I'd like.

Don’t take my rhetoric personally. Maybe you’re a fine individual on the whole. Rather, it is your religion at issue, here. I am tireless in showing the devout what it is they have signed up for. Specifically, we are talking about religious faith. Faith is an ignorant thing, inherently. By definition, it defies reason and evidence to support a desired conclusion rather than a necessarily justifiable one. If you have a problem with being ignorant, then you should have a problem with religious faith. Again, this is something Dr. Dawkins’ documentary attempted to point out.

I’m sorry, Sentenal. When you swear by that Good Book of yours, you are putting on the uniform of my world’s enemy. You, and GreenGannon, for all your sweetness of character and weakness of intellect, are legitimate targets.

As with all your insults, and your overflowery language, you are inciting us to attack. You claim to only be on the defense, yet your posts seem to almost want to be goading us into arguing.

You see it as the ol’ chicken and the egg, then? You wish to use my counterattack as a reason for you to counter-counterattack, and I cannot stop you from making that choice. But this isn’t a paradox, and you shouldn’t see it as such. Instead, perhaps you should use what I say not  as an opportunity to fight, but as an opportunity to learn. I can’t well fight back without opening myself up to your counter-counterattack. I call your faith ignorant; I say your religion makes you part of the problem; I trample over things you hold dear. Obviously you can take that as an “incitement” for you to attack. But what to make of me is not a foregone conclusion. You can achieve some real personal growth here, and avoid a fight at the same time. You don’t even have to agree with me; you just need to doubt yourself. Remember what I said earlier about scrutiny, and being hardest on yourself? You could certainly benefit from some of that.

The day your people stop preaching outside the church,

So it's only OK to talk about the Bible in church? Or did you mean that as a general statement to which you actually want us to back off a little where politics are concerned?

I mean both. Evangelism fares poorly amid society in general; worse still in a political setting.

In another world I would leave you alone, but in this world I cannot afford to do that.

Yes you can. Just simply say "I don't believe what you believe". I'll respect that and leave you be.

See, this right here is the root of the problem in this thread. No one is saying you won't. But the world is filled with people for whom having their own beliefs is not good enough. These people are willing to murder rather than live in a world [with] nonbelievers. These people are dangerous, indeed, peaceful coexistence between these extremists and the rest of the world is impossible. The point of the video, which you are welcome to debate, is not that all theists are terrorists, but rather, that religious extremism is a logical conclusion of the way religious institutions work, and thus, they are the root of said evil.

Bravo! That’s well-said, and worth repeating. Religious extremism is a logical conclusion of the way religious institutions work. The blindness of faith, the opportunism of demagogues, and the absoluteness of morality all lend themselves to this world’s misery. If all religion disappeared tonight, I do not think Earth would wake up a paradise come tomorrow morning. But, nevertheless, I can think of no single institution whose complete destruction would do more to benefit humanity.

And, as to this thread, I admit my motives: People of good conscience have two choices when it comes to dealing with religion: We can defend ourselves in war, or we can stand idle and be massacred. That’s a pretty easy decision.

Actually Lord J, one little fact, you didn't give me many quotes. Almost every single one you did was in the Afterlife, and that doesn't really count. In fact, it supports my idea that we should not punish non believers in this world, because in the afterlife, it will happen any way.

Zeppy, you tried this trick on me before, and got stung. Remember when you denied ever saying that you believe husbands should be allowed to beat their wives, and I quoted the post where you had said exactly that? Well, if you didn’t learn then, maybe you’ll learn now:

http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php?topic=2505.msg46205#msg46205

I won’t reproduce the whole thing there, because I gave you 21 pages of quotes from across the entire Qur’ran. We were discussing the reasons by which Islamic militants justify their militancy, and there were more than enough quotes inciting Muslims to fight and kill nonbelievers to erase any doubt as to Islam’s ability to support the interpretations of terrorists. And my point was well-made: Your version of Islam is no more legitimate than theirs, because the holy writings support countless different interpretations, and no one has the authority to speak for God that theirs is the truest.

Your “little fact” is more of a “little fib.” History does not shape itself to your convenience, you know…

I still lack to see how a religion that condemns the violence against innocents and condemns the concept of suicide somehow can be "inherently violent."  And this not only the view of most Muslims, but it is fact in the Qur'an.  How can any religion that follows something like the Ten Commandments, which says "Thou shalt not murder," be inherently violent?

“How,” indeed. How about this:

Kill Nonbelievers:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

Death to Followers of Other Religions:
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be killed. (Exodus 22:19)

Kill by Stoning Fortunetellers:
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Death for Adultery:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Death for Fornication:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Kill Witches:
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)

Kill Homosexuals:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

Death for Hitting Your Parents:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

Death for Cursing Your Parents:
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

Christians love to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow, and how. For instance, that line about killing homosexuals is their chief argument against homosexuality. They pick the “abominable deed” part as still being operative, but choose to ignore the execution part. Well, if they can pick and choose how the Bible is to be interpreted, then so can I, and I would pick the whole thing up and choose to throw it out with the rest of the junk mail.

As for Islam, do I even need to bring up the Qur’ran again? Just click on that link I provided to refresh Burning Zeppelin’s memory.

The actions of what individuals do is not what makes up a religion. A religion is based upon the ideas of its creator.  The creator represents the religion.  According to your logic Lord J, if one white guy killed a black guy then all white people are evil.  Same vice verca.  If there is a single bad Republican or Democrat then the entire idealogy behind Republicans or Democrats are completely flawed.  That kind of generalization is flawed.  Religion for the vast majority is not inherently violent.  People maybe, even clergy.  But religion itself is not.

On the contrary, some individual people who are religious may be decent, but religion itself is evil through and through. Your examples demonstrate your lack of understanding on this point. For instance, if a white person kills a black person, that does not make all white people evil. What is the reason for the killing? If the doctrine of white supremacy convinces that white person to kill the black person, then it is the doctrine of white supremacy which is in the wrong—not white people themselves. The racial example you concocted is called a straw man argument, and is a logical fallacy. Likewise to the political example.

Religion is based upon faith. Faith is the proverbial root of all evil for which Professor Dawkins titled his documentary.

[Daniel Krispin]

Kill Nonbelievers:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

Death to Followers of Other Religions:
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be killed. (Exodus 22:19)

Kill by Stoning Fortunetellers:
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Death for Adultery:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Death for Fornication:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Kill Witches:
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)

Kill Homosexuals:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

Death for Hitting Your Parents:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

Death for Cursing Your Parents:
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

Okeedokee... I'll try and play a moderating part. I’m going to start by urging you to look at the whole issue impartially and historically. I think you’ve failed to notice some historical resonances in the various faiths, and that societal shifts have influenced religion just as religion has influenced society. Don't worry: I'm not going to go on the offensive here, I merely have some complaints about how the argument itself was handled - hopefully you'll take it not as a counteroffensive, but merely an admonition. I'm also not going to say anything that's not accepted by general scholarship, so there shouldn't be any issue here. Nor am I going to try and vindicate anything - I'll leave you with your opinion - just point out that, at least in certain regards, your fire may be overshooting the battlements, so to speak.

Firstly: just a reminder that that which you quoted is actually the Jewish belief for the most part, and is the framework of Jewish law, not Christian - so take it up with the Jews, and not the Christians. Any non-legalistic protestant Christian will say that all the law can do is condemn and kill. And what you quoted there was, of course, the Law. But, recall, the law of Moses, and of the Hebrews. Except for the one from Proverbs of course... but that is more of a prediction, than condemnation, and is very typical of Middle Eastern wisdom literature. And there is the point you must understand from an impartial historical framework. It is inconceivable - and foolish - to think that the Bible, such as it is, is a work wholly apart from everything else. It might be unique, but proven in the story of the Flood, its roots lie deeper in the general mythological history of the area.

Certain aspects differ, of course, but you must recall that the Mosaic law bore much resemblance to other law codes of the area - such as the Code of Hammurabi, written some five hundred years earlier. Many of those condemnations - the crime-punishment things - are actually no different at all than what everyone else was doing. Rather than holding them alone accountable, hold all of humanity in that age accountable. Even the covenants are classified as Suzeran-Vassal and Royal Grant treaties. The covenants with God, therefore, were done in a manner as if God was a king, and the people a vassal state, following the societal forms at that time. That's an accepted fact of history.

Likewise the harshness is echoed in many different systems of government. You want repression of women? What about ancient Greece, where they properly were not allowed out of the home or speaking to men not part of the family? To say 'what god wills' and that people are to be killed for impiety... if you read any other ancient literature, it is rife with those themes. Greek tragedies, Roman epics (how about the story of Sextus and Lucretia, where Lucretia the noble wife is raped by Sextus, son of king Tarquinius Superbus. After denouncing the villain, she kills herself. This, in Roman society, was seen as the proper and honourable way for a matron to act - religion excluded!) - Judeo-Christianity was hardly unique, save for their stressed monotheism. As such, you must at needs widen your target to include all religions, not just Islam and Christianity: Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, Sikhism, and in retrospect Greek, Roman, and all those sorts, are equal targets, and should in all fairness be equally attacked. As should the societies that bred those, I must add. I think I know your argument here, however, and that is that, even as Christianity and Islam is larger, so the oppression is larger. That itself is a valid statement for the most part. However, that holds only true in the effect part of things. At the heart the morality of each religion is no different, and as such it is not fair that only two should bear the burden of them all. They would each act relatively the same if given the chance.

With this I'm not denying what either party has said - after all, I believe Josh is at odds with religion, and I have not attempted to draw that as a whole out of his line of fire, I've only pointed out what he's shooting at. I'm inviting him to say more and to the point, and to strengthen his argument with better quotes. My purpose here is just to hopefully clarify certain aspects so as to make the argument cleaner.

Returning to the subject at hand, you must recall the distinction between the old and new testaments. One is based upon the law, the other grace. It is selective quoting to do as you did and only take things from the Law, which is only half of what there is to Christianity. If you are to truly chastise it and properly call it into account, I would urge you to know your sources better. If you were conducting an experiment, with two different systems in order to perform an analysis, what you have just done is the equivalent of taking samples from only one system, and drawing conclusions thereon. Even I, wholly unknowledgeable in anything Muslim, could see that the quotes from the Koran spoke to nothing, nor could I follow a logical progression from a promise of eternal damnation to the execution of temporal judgement. One does not preclude the other, and logically speaking they should be often exclusive. Maybe there are quotes that urge war in the Koran, but none of those showed it to me. Likewise long ago when you quoted the New Testament - it was evident you did not have a theological grounding to understand what was said. Certain quotes you used as proof were referring, in fact, to Old Testament cleanliness laws, which were no means of repression but rather an attempt at hygiene in an unhygienic age. I’m not certain if you are aware of this, but there are many other such laws relating to touching of dead bodies, and so on, that make a person ‘unclean’ which, spoken of as coming from God, actually make perfect sense from the view of hygiene, and are nothing short of an ancient instruction manual for good health. So, in the end, I would quite recommend you actually read and quote yourself, rather than quoting someone else who is doing the quoting (unless I missed my guess, this is what you did, as I cannot see you compiling that on your own for a single post.) Check your sources, essentially, and make certain that you know what you are talking about. I’m not taking sides here - I’m not denying that you can call the religious to account for things - but you must be more precise than this. Otherwise you run into the problem I had when I first argued with you, when I took you to be a relativist based on your atheism. I considered all atheists to be relativists, and treated you as such. But I didn't know with what I was arguing, and so much of what I said misfired. Know your adversary. Would you write a report on a novel using quotes lifted from the text on scanning without reading through everything and knowing the contexts? Which makes for the more compelling argument?

So don't be angry at me for saying this, but you haven't made a good case with your quotes this far. It hasn't really brought across the feeling that you know what you're talking about, and that you're actually shaking things up with profound knowledge. Again, this isn't saying your arguments are invalid based on what you're trying to say - I'll leave that to the others to argue; indeed, you bring up, if nothing else, a good question - but only that your supporting evidence such as you have presented it has been a little for a lack. Where are the numbers? The hard data, and the contextual quotes?

On that note, you must understand how much of philosophy and history the New Testament ties into. It's not some obscure religious tract. When the gospel of John begins 'In the beginning was the Word...' this was no strange profession. The idea of a Logos, a Word, had existed in philisophical circles for some time. Other people at the same time were thinking in very similar ways, and the Stoics were in philosophy a similar group to the Christians. Read Seneca some time, and you will see someone who was largely agnostic (the Stoics believed only in a World Soul, or Nature) speaking of moderation, restraint (even the villification of things for pleasure is a Stoic idea), and all such things in a very similar way to the Christians of the time. As such, many of the things you would condemn in Christianity are in fact not unique to the religion, but rather echoed seperately even by those who had no belief in traditional religion. Again, it comes down to understanding the social structures of the time.
      
Finally, in terms of the actions of governments based on said systems, I will here refrain from taking sides as there are sufficient proponents of both that I am not needed. But in fairness to both I must say that all are almost equally guilty of bloodshed, the religious, the agnostic, and atheistic alike. For the first, we have ever waged holy war from the battles for control of Delphi, the campaigns of Assyria, to Crusader battles waged under the cry of ‘God wills it’. For the other side, we have the Mongols exterminating the Chinese - for the Mongols were generally atheistic; and we have Stalin, responsible for how many deaths in Ukrained? Both sides can be called into account, and both do evil. If one cannot excuse the religious, neither may the atheists be forgiven of Stalin, probably the worst dictator of all history to this time. And that is a fair and impartial rendering of the matter - I have told the evils of both sides.

I’m not harping on you, Josh. You know I’ve made my peace with you. I’m trying to help you get better at arguing your point, and not make the wrong points, as it were. If you want to be convincing, and win the battle, I can tell you these shots aren’t going to work. I'm trying to sit back and see both sides, honestly (if I wasn't reasonable, I'm sorry; I know, I'm terrible at trying to be middle-ground. If everyone wants me to, I'll go away now.) The problem is, right now it just looks like you're going on a rant, and the other group, reeling from a typically powerful speech is scrambling to put together hasty defenses. But must it truly be like this? I know you are absolutely opposed to the idea of religion, but a calm and concerted effort often avails more than a powerful strike. So I'm trying to stand between you two and see the middle ground, but it's difficult. I'd far rather see a discussion without insults or such harsh declamations. Anyway, if I've spoken wrongly in any of this, I beg the forgiveness of truth, and may anything false be promptly forgotten.

So, don't take this as a hostility against any party. I just saw some inaccuracies and hopefully cleared them up. That said, you can get back to the discussion or, if you prefer, argument - and hopefully both do better for it. I hope I was helpful, rather than just an annoyance.

[ChronoMagus]

As for the Qur'an, do you honestly believe I trust any form of English translation?  I have the Arabic version of the Qur'an and much of it is so vague, so completely open to interpertation that any person can perverse it to make it seem blood thirsty.  Why do you think it remains to be the only sacred book out of the three semetic religions that has not changed at all for over 1300 years.  Its so vague that idiot clerics can perverse it for corrupt meanings, liberal scholars can interpert it for different meanings just as easily, and millitants can use it to scare/inspire their followers.  That's the glory of the Qur'an.  Vagueness and symbolism.  Only simpletons read it word for word.

And are you saying that if we give up faith and religion somehow human nature will magically change and stop being violent?  That evil will be gone from this world forever and humans will prosper in an atheist utopia never to worry about an afterlife or deity?  Religious groups may have caused violence, but the reasons they cause violence is hardly religious.  Palestine and Israel don't fight because of faith.  They fight because they like that strip of land.  They fight because both of them view it as home and think only one is permitted to have it.  Allah didn't say "Murder the Jews!"  God didn't say "Kill the innocents living in the Holy Land!" 

And don't tell me common street crime is also caused by religion.  Somehow if we give up faith we will stop the poverty in inner-city and end gang violence?  Of course!  Its so obvious that the indiscriminate killing of that gangsters commit has a deep religious meaning.  I mean Jesus totally said shoot random people on the street.

Religion may have caused some wars, but it is not the core of religion itself that caused these problems.  I mean did God order Christians to go into the Holy Land and murder every group of people they met including fellow Christians or did the Pope and commanders of knights order that?  Does it say in the Qur'an to use suicide bombs on innocent people or did the heads of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda order those missions?

Even without faith humans will continue hating each other, continue fighting each other, continue oppressing each other, and continue killing each other.  Sure it won't be "In The Name of God," but does it matter?  When I hear a person dies I could not care at all about their religion.  Religion is caused by birth 99% of the time.  People are born usually into religion.  Its not their fault for being Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Bah'ai, or Atheist usually.  What is important is their actions.  Their morals and characters.  Thats how I judge a person.  Thats how I judge myself.  I could not care at all about what those literalistic translations say.  I know within me that an honest kind good Atheist is much more likely to go into a heaven he did not believe in than some suicide bomber who tried to reach to heaven by killing himself and innocents.

@Daniel Krispin:  Thank you for treating all sides equally.  Or at least trying.  It's an admirable thing.

[Daniel Krispin]

I don't think I succeeded, though. At best I think I just avoided the more dangerous ground.

[Legend of the Past]

Yes, well, some Orthodox Jews do kill for those reasons. Sounds pretty evil, eh, Dan? I'd say that if Religion wasn't there, many deaths and wars could be avoided, wouldn't you agree?

[Radical_Dreamer]

As for the Qur'an, do you honestly believe I trust any form of English translation?  I have the Arabic version of the Qur'an and much of it is so vague, so completely open to interpertation that any person can perverse it to make it seem blood thirsty.  Why do you think it remains to be the only sacred book out of the three semetic religions that has not changed at all for over 1300 years.  Its so vague that idiot clerics can perverse it for corrupt meanings, liberal scholars can interpert it for different meanings just as easily, and millitants can use it to scare/inspire their followers.  That's the glory of the Qur'an.  Vagueness and symbolism.  Only simpletons read it word for word.

Only simpletons blow themselves up in crowded malls because they think that there being that many fewer nonbelievers will somehow make the world a better place. If everyone in the world were educated and intelligent, religion (and a host of other current causes of violence) wouldn't matter. You say that this is the glory of the Qur'an, that it is open to interpretation. That is also what makes it dangerous. The evil interpret the text to convince the stupid to join them.

And are you saying that if we give up faith and religion somehow human nature will magically change and stop being violent?  That evil will be gone from this world forever and humans will prosper in an atheist utopia never to worry about an afterlife or deity?  Religious groups may have caused violence, but the reasons they cause violence is hardly religious.  Palestine and Israel don't fight because of faith.  They fight because they like that strip of land.  They fight because both of them view it as home and think only one is permitted to have it.  Allah didn't say "Murder the Jews!"  God didn't say "Kill the innocents living in the Holy Land!"

Of course not. There will still be violent and evil people in the world. But there would be one less major cause of bloodshed in the world. You seem to be misinterpreting what was said. Josh is saying that removing religion would remove much, but not all of the evil from the world. Your response seems to say that since doing so would not remove all the evil from the world, it is not a worthwhile endeavor. I beg to differ. Just because removing some evil from the world won't remove all of it doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile.

And don't tell me common street crime is also caused by religion.  Somehow if we give up faith we will stop the poverty in inner-city and end gang violence?  Of course!  Its so obvious that the indiscriminate killing of that gangsters commit has a deep religious meaning.  I mean Jesus totally said shoot random people on the street.

This is refering to statistics that show that there is less crime in more secular societies. It's not a direct causal relationship. Praying doesn't lead to theft.

[Sentenal]

...Wow, you guys posted alot.  Well, in my sleepiness, Josh asked me to go on the record on this:

Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

-Define "Christian Nation".  If by Christian nation, you mean elected officals who are Christians, then yes.  If you mean Christian nation, as in the nation being controlled by the Church, and therefore a Theocracy, then no.
-I can respect other religions, just think they are wrong.  However, if by "other versions of Christianity", like Mormonism, I won't respect that, as it is a perversion of my religion.
-No.  Our Constitution governs this country, not the bible.  I am free to follow the bible, and do what it commands within the framework of the Constitution.  The Bible is not a political document.

[Lord J Esq]

Firstly: just a reminder that that which you quoted is actually the Jewish belief for the most part, and is the framework of Jewish law, not Christian - so take it up with the Jews, and not the Christians.

For all your efforts, Daniel, I think you missed or ignored the point. At the time, ChronoMagus was speaking of the Ten Commandments, another Jewish contrivance that exists in the Old Testament—and one that has also been embraced by Christianity. It’s just as I said: Christians love to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they’ll follow. They’re hypocrites. They want to accept the Old Testament where it suits them—and the New, for that matter—but when it becomes inconvenient, they chuck it out the window with the very same excuse of “It’s just obsolete Jewish law” that you provide for us here. I even touched on this when I spoke of the homosexual example; go back and reread it, that you might be further educated.

It is inconceivable - and foolish - to think that the Bible, such as it is, is a work wholly apart from everything else. ... Certain aspects differ, of course, but you must recall that the Mosaic law bore much resemblance to other law codes of the area - such as the Code of Hammurabi, written some five hundred years earlier.

I have no problem accepting the Bible in its historical context. What I do have a problem with is people who want to base modern laws on the moral premises of thousands of years ago.

With this I'm not denying what either party has said - after all, I believe Josh is at odds with religion, and I have not attempted to draw that as a whole out of his line of fire, I've only pointed out what he's shooting at. I'm inviting him to say more and to the point, and to strengthen his argument with better quotes.

So, you want me to cite passages from the New Testament, then—as if that makes any difference. You people always do this; you always deny the cruelties laid out in your holy book until somebody throws them in your face. You must know they’re in there, but instead you willfully and deliberately lie so as to deceive others into accepting your moral rectitude as Christians and your intimacy with the Absolute Truth as defined by your God Almighty. You’re an intelligent man, Daniel—and by this point you are an experienced one as well. You should know better than to try and pull the wool over my eyes. For your troubles, I took the trouble to research eleven twenty examples of cruelty in the New Testament:

No Fourth Amendment
Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11)

Obedience Above All
Jesus says, “He that is not with me is against me.” Remind you of anybody? (Luke 11:23)

The War God
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34-36)

Ignorer of the Sick
Jesus refuses to heal a Canaanite woman’s possessed daughter, despite her worship. She then proceeds to outreason him, and is granted her plea. (Matthew 15:22-26)

No Interfaith
Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to Hell. (John 14:6)

Book Burnings
The first Christian book burning occurs when Paul’s converts at Ephesus burn 50,000 silver pieces worth of books. (Acts 19:19)

Jesus Does Not Love All His Creatures
Homosexuals and their supporters are “worthy of death.” (Romans 1:31-32)

Women Are Sex Objects
Paul explains that “the natural use” of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. (Romans 1:27)

The Earth Means Nothing
The Religious Right often uses these verses to condemn environmentalists. (Romans 1:25)

Slavery of the Mind
Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ. (2 Corinthians10:5)

The God of Deceit
God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to Hell. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

A Fate Worse than Death
Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:28-29)

What Isn’t a Sin?
Whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God. (James 4:4)

Christian Intolerance and Infighting
The basic message of Christianity is “believe or be damned” and from this flows intolerance toward all non-Christians. But, as these verses show, Christian intolerance is often directed toward believers as well. Each group of Christians accuses the others of being “false teachers” of “damnable heresies” who will soon be damned to Hell. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

Associating with Sinners Is a Sin
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. (2 John 10) (Sorry, Daniel…didn’t mean to put a mark on your record.)

Christianity on Women
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Men are superior to women since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, they shouldn't be discouraged because they shall “be saved in childbearing.”  (1 Timothy 2:11)

Righteous Are Those Who Give Their Daughters for Rape
Lot, who in Gen.19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapists and later (19:30-38) impregnates them, was a “righteous man.” (2 Peter 2:8 )

Sexual Double Standard
Males are holy to God, not females. (Luke 2:23)

Abandon Your Family
Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. (Mark 10:29-30)

The Evil Power of Women
Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended—as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. (John 20:17)

Try and blame the Jews for that, Daniel. Try and apologize for the Bible on grounds that it is an obsolete document written for a bygone era. Christians need their Bible as some ridiculous proof of their religion’s veracity, yet the Bible itself is its own source of invalidation—Old and New Testaments alike.

Anyway, if I've spoken wrongly in any of this, I beg the forgiveness of truth, and may anything false be promptly forgotten. ... That said, you can get back to the discussion or, if you prefer, argument - and hopefully both do better for it. I hope I was helpful, rather than just an annoyance.

Right…

Look, Daniel, I believe you mean well, and you seem to have some knowledge of history. But when it comes to theology, and using your critical mind to tie together logical arguments on religious subjects, your bias obviates your usefulness. We’ve seen that in the past and we see it now. You are welcome to participate in this discussion however you like—goodness knows you’re the least of my concerns in this thread, and I have no authority nor the desire to dismiss you—but if you really want to be “helpful,” as you put it, then deceitfulness on behalf of your own prejudices, and irrelevant historical distractions from the point, are not the way to do it.

As for the Qur'an, do you honestly believe I trust any form of English translation?

I don’t buy that. What part of “kill the nonbelievers” is a translation error?

That's the glory of the Qur'an.  Vagueness and symbolism.

That book’s very same “vagueness and symbolism,” as well as the powers conferred on individuals by their own faith and sense of self-righteousness, has lent itself to centuries of ruthless bloodshed. Some “glory.”

And are you saying that if we give up faith and religion somehow human nature will magically change and stop being violent?

No, I did not say that. I said I can think of no institution whose destruction would do more good for humanity than religion. I even qualified my statement by explicitly acknowledging that religion’s demise would not usher in a paradise. Either you didn’t read that, or you read it and didn’t like it.

Religion may have caused some wars, but it is not the core of religion itself that caused these problems.  I mean did God order Christians to go into the Holy Land and murder every group of people they met including fellow Christians or did the Pope and commanders of knights order that?  Does it say in the Qur'an to use suicide bombs on innocent people or did the heads of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda order those missions?

Religion is to blame for all of this. It is people’s religious faith that has made these detestable actions possible. That was my point all along. You could not have picked a more damning example against your argument.

Religion is caused by birth 99% of the time.  People are born usually into religion.  Its not their fault for being Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Bah'ai, or Atheist usually.  What is important is their actions.  Their morals and characters.  Thats how I judge a person.  Thats how I judge myself.

We agree that people bear no fault for being born or raised into a religion. But they do bear fault for continuing to embrace it once their cognitive minds mature into something capable of critical thought and self-reflection. You might incredulously ask yourself, “Who in this life would choose to be ignorant?” But adult believers do it every day. Damn right I fault them for that.

I could not care at all about what those literalistic translations say.  I know within me that an honest kind good Atheist is much more likely to go into a heaven he did not believe in than some suicide bomber who tried to reach to heaven by killing himself and innocents.

You “know within” yourself? I just referenced passages from the Bible that explicitly damn to Hell all those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. What makes you right and the book wrong?

@Daniel Krispin:  Thank you for treating all sides equally.  Or at least trying.  It's an admirable thing.

Am I the only one who sees the humor when somebody on one side of a debate puts on sheep’s clothing and goes into the middle, espouses some passionate plea for compromise, and then returns to his cohorts to great praise and much shoulder-slapping? Yes, Daniel, thank you for treating all sides equally! Or at least trying. It’s an admirable thing. Where’s that emoticon…ah yes:

...Wow, you guys posted alot.  Well, in my sleepiness, Josh asked me to go on the record on this:

Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

-Define "Christian Nation".  If by Christian nation, you mean elected officals who are Christians, then yes.  If you mean Christian nation, as in the nation being controlled by the Church, and therefore a Theocracy, then no.
-I can respect other religions, just think they are wrong.  However, if by "other versions of Christianity", like Mormonism, I won't respect that, as it is a perversion of my religion.
-No.  Our Constitution governs this country, not the bible.  I am free to follow the bible, and do what it commands within the framework of the Constitution.  The Bible is not a political document.

The same old refrain gets tired for everybody, including me, so I’ll make it quick: If you believe that this nation should not be a theocracy, and if you respect other religions, and if you believe the Bible is not a political document, then how on Earth do you account for your affiliation with the Republican Party, which has made all of those things part of its platform? Is it the “lesser of two evils” for you? You’d rather the Republicans take us back to the Dark Ages than the Democrats gain control and impose what you call “socialism” on everybody? Pft!

[GreenGannon]

Heh, it's funny because you make it sound like being a Republican is a crime for which we must explain ourselves.

[Daniel Krispin]

So, you want me to cite passages from the New Testament, then—as if that makes any difference. You people always do this; you always deny the cruelties laid out in your holy book until somebody throws them in your face. You must know they’re in there,

I didn't deny it, though I actually couldn't think of any myself.

but instead you willfully and deliberately lie so as to deceive others into accepting your moral rectitude as Christians and your intimacy with the Absolute Truth as defined by your God Almighty. You’re an intelligent man, Daniel—and by this point you are an experienced one as well. You should know better than to try and pull the wool over my eyes. 

Um.... no. I didn't lie, nor did I make any assumptions based upon morality. I actually wanted you to do just what you did: look for some more pertinant quotes, New rather than Old. You have, and your argument is now clearer. What deception is there in that? I'd written out some replies to it all, but figured my input isn't really needed. Sure, I took issue with some - others I agreed with. But at this point, I'll leave it to the others to argue. My purpose, which was to moderate the discussion to be more to the point, is achieved, and it would be foolish of me to overstay my purpose. I might at a later time do so, but come to think of it: who really cares? So that's the proof of my good-will here: I won't press my own agenda, but rather consider what you said for my own sake.

But on a side note, actually, I'm interested in if you see atheistic Communists in the same way as the religious. Both had tracts that were to be followed that were mangled in the course of the belief becoming widespread. And if religion caused suffering, Communism in the old Soviet Union did so as well. You hold to account all religious, the all accountable for the sins of a few, and claim that a flawed reading cannot be an excuse for misuse. By that logic, all left-wing communists bear the mark of those millions of Ukrainians and, until they fess up for it and admit the error of their ways, they are unforgivable. How do you answer this? Likewise, if you consider the hedonists an extreme sect of atheism, should not, if the Muslim religion as a whole is responsible for certain extremists, should not all atheists bear the responsibility for the hedonists? What's your opinion on this matter, then? I really don't know - nor am I going to assume - what you think. Likely you've already considered this, but I've not been able to reason how you can reconcile it, so please enlighten me.

Am I the only one who sees the humor when somebody on one side of a debate puts on sheep’s clothing and goes into the middle, espouses some passionate plea for compromise, and then returns to his cohorts to great praise and much shoulder-slapping? Yes, Daniel, thank you for treating all sides equally! Or at least trying. It’s an admirable thing. Where’s that emoticon…ah yes:

*Sigh*
No, you're not the only one, Josh. Why do you think I responded to that saying 'I don't think I succeeded'? My wish was to be middle-ground, but it didn't work out like I wanted it to. Actually, I said: 'I don't think I succeeded, though. At best I think I just avoided the more dangerous ground.' That's an admission of failure - I didn't put on sheep's clothing, Josh. If I had, I wouldn't have thrown up my hands at the end and said 'I suppose this didn't work out like I wanted' after being told 'good job', would I? I looked at it afterward thinking... wait, both sides equally... so why am I only critiquing Josh on his arguing? Well, it looks like I couldn't quite swing it. And so to remove any thought that I was trying to decieve, I'll admit I failed. That better?

Anyway, that's about all I think I'll say on these issues. I'm really not inclined to do much further. I'll keep watching it progress, but I don't feel my input will be needed too greatly. Whatever you reply, I'll read it, but won't rebuttle with my own. Seeya.

[Lord J Esq]

Heh, it's funny because you make it sound like being a Republican is a crime for which we must explain ourselves.

My work is to point out contradictions. Sentenal has some very typical Republican beliefs, but his rejection of the Dominionist label puts him at odds with much of that.

Once upon a time, there was nothing so criminal about being a Republican. But in my lifetime the Religious Right has infected the GOP like a cancer, installing many Christian fundamentalists in the Congress and, lately, the White House. Is the United States a theocracy yet? No, but one of its two major political parties is, and that’s a clear and present danger to the very existence of our nation. If I had to lay out the specific crimes of voting Republican, they would be treason and crimes against humanity.

You can go for the pragmatic solution and vote Democrat, or cast a vote of protest and align yourself with some third party…but in this day and age I very much doubt the ethical defensibility of voting for a Republican at the state or national level.

Am I the only one who sees the humor when somebody on one side of a debate puts on sheep’s clothing and goes into the middle, espouses some passionate plea for compromise, and then returns to his cohorts to great praise and much shoulder-slapping? Yes, Daniel, thank you for treating all sides equally! Or at least trying. It’s an admirable thing. Where’s that emoticon…ah yes:

*Sigh*
No, you're not the only one, Josh. Why do you think I responded to that saying 'I don't think I succeeded'? My wish was to be middle-ground, but it didn't work out like I wanted it to. Actually, I said: 'I don't think I succeeded, though. At best I think I just avoided the more dangerous ground.' That's an admission of failure - I didn't put on sheep's clothing, Josh. If I had, I wouldn't have thrown up my hands at the end and said 'I suppose this didn't work out like I wanted' after being told 'good job', would I? I looked at it afterward thinking... wait, both sides equally... so why am I only critiquing Josh on his arguing? Well, it looks like I couldn't quite swing it. And so to remove any thought that I was trying to decieve, I'll admit I failed. That better?

First of all, I owe you an apology for that particular remark. I said in one paragraph that I believe you meant well, and I said it honestly, but then I turned around and accused you of being insincere in your appeal for a middle ground. I apologize for that; it was out of line. You still evoke a strong response from me, despite the fact that we have both resolved to get along better together. I don’t think I ever fully recovered from your comments on women the first time we debated; I remember that as the only time I ever lost my temper on the Compendium, and it has given me a prejudice against you that I must continually strive to overcome.

I will take you at your word today, and accept that you simply failed to achieve that middle ground despite your efforts. And here’s my olive branch to you: Don’t let yourself be offended out of a discussion with me. My indignation is not with you or anybody else here, so much as the religion itself. We all lose out, myself included, when an argument becomes so intolerable that certain participants simply withdraw into their own, private worlds and decline any further involvement.

So, you want me to cite passages from the New Testament, then—as if that makes any difference. You people always do this; you always deny the cruelties laid out in your holy book until somebody throws them in your face. You must know they’re in there,

I didn't deny it, though I actually couldn't think of any myself.

And what does that imply as to the inviolability of the Bible? You speak of these dichotomies between Old and New, law and grace, letter and spirit…but to what end? If I can show you that Jesus was as human in his temper as the rest of us, and just as bigoted and small-minded—as I did, and can continue to do—what does that say about the credibility of the Christian faith? What does it say about the integrity of your own beliefs? Is it unreasonable for me to hold the Eternal Lord of Heaven to a higher standard than you or me? People speak as though Jesus were a merchant of peace, and, according the Bible, he oftentimes was. But then there are all these episodes of Jesus’ cruelty, pettiness, bigotry, and hypocrisy. What of those?

Even if we assume the Bible to be legitimate—which I do not—the Bible itself reads no better than a pamphlet of party propaganda…gracious and wise on the veneer, yet childish and just plain mean when challenged. Forgive me the blasphemy, but if I were Jesus, I would not want this book to be my champion on Earth.

My purpose … is achieved, and it would be foolish of me to overstay my purpose. I might at a later time do so, but come to think of it: who really cares?

That was a rhetorical question, I know, but there is a serious answer to it. I think it is false modesty for you to pretend that nobody cares about what you have to say. If you were truly modest, you would not have pointed out your own modesty, nor implied your wisdom and prudence by stepping into a debate only just long enough to achieve the smug satisfaction of stepping right back out of it.

You hope that others really do care about what you have to say. And you also wish that you could say your piece and be seen as humble and sagacious. Your pride is that you want others to glorify your counsel, but at the same time praise you for your humility. But whenever you try to achieve this, you end up getting into a trench war with somebody like me. So, failing in your primary ambition, your next desire is to stake out an unassailable position by simply declining to accept a fight. You reject the trial by fire. And what does this achieve for you, other than a boost to your own ego and a much smaller audience for your teachings? Not much.

I have seen it happen to others. If you fold inward on yourself, you will become bitter and more cynical. If you fight and fail, you will become frustrated and petty. What it all points to is that your ammunition in this war of ideas is not strong enough. You need more knowledge; you of all people participating in this thread should be able to appreciate that. You also need to overcome the bias that dooms your campaigns from the start. You cannot argue a position of faith using the techniques of logic. The two are incompatible.

I wish you would spend more energy in discussion with me rather than in debate. Zeal Palace is a great place for that to begin; I have foresworn my argumentative feistiness there. Believe it or not, I detest the dirty antics of trench warfare. Questions are my specialty…not this. You could achieve so much more by checking your prejudices at the door and simply indulging your intellectual curiosity.

So, please, no more false modesty. Either contribute to a debate or don’t, but don’t style yourself as the arbiter when you clearly have an interest in the outcome.

But on a side note, actually, I'm interested in if you see atheistic Communists in the same way as the religious. Both had tracts that were to be followed that were mangled in the course of the belief becoming widespread. And if religion caused suffering, Communism in the old Soviet Union did so as well. You hold to account all religious, the all accountable for the sins of a few, and claim that a flawed reading cannot be an excuse for misuse. By that logic, all left-wing communists bear the mark of those millions of Ukrainians and, until they fess up for it and admit the error of their ways, they are unforgivable. How do you answer this? Likewise, if you consider the hedonists an extreme sect of atheism, should not, if the Muslim religion as a whole is responsible for certain extremists, should not all atheists bear the responsibility for the hedonists? What's your opinion on this matter, then? I really don't know - nor am I going to assume - what you think. Likely you've already considered this, but I've not been able to reason how you can reconcile it, so please enlighten me.

First of all, I want you to acknowledge that bringing the extraneous subject of atheism into this subject does nothing to exonerate religion, and attempting to make that connection would be the tu quoque logical fallacy. Now, you are styling your remarks as a “sidenote,” so I will treat them as such, but I do want it to be clear that, where religion on trial is concerned, any discussion of atheism is off-topic.

Having made my disclaimer, let’s get to work. “Atheism” cannot inherently be treated as a religion. Belief in some kind of god is akin to a character stat of the mind. Atheism is not like having an opposite value for that stat; it is akin to not possessing the stat at all. When you speak of atheism you are speaking of it as though it is a sort of “religion in the negative,” which is incorrect. The absence of something is not the same as the opposite of it—as evidenced in the three words moral, immoral, and amoral. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a deity, and nothing more is inherent to it.

It is only when atheism becomes associated with a faith-based doctrine that it might be taken for a religion. Remember, at the root of every religion is faith—the belief which has not been justified. There are some flavors of atheism which do indeed turn on matters of faith. That is a show of willful ignorance, and is as inexcusable as any other religion. Pragmatically speaking, the offense is slighter than that of theistic religious faith, but I won’t attempt to defend that point and you may therefore discount it as an editorial.

However, having said all of this, I now look to your specific interest in my thoughts on “atheistic Communists” and hedonists.

The Communist Party used religious-style appeals and thinking to indoctrinate the Soviet people and shape their way of life. The Soviets may have variously denied the existence of your god, but they had another god to worship in place of him—Communism—and their religion was the Communist state itself. That isn’t true atheism. If you want me to give a rebuke, my rebuke is given to any government or ruling political party that deifies itself.

As for hedonists, here is a case of your misinterpretation of atheism as a “religion in the negative.” Here there is no such thing involved, and so there can be no transmission of culpability from hedonists in particular to atheists in general. Indeed, I would not believe until shown proof that all hedonists are atheists. In any case, I would not consider modern hedonism to be particularly extreme at all; society can go a long way solely with a pleasure-pain philosophy—well beyond the people’s basic material needs. Finally, because I know you will mention it if I do not preempt you, let me say that, when hedonistic policies lead to suffering for some in exchange for pleasure for others, then the basic hedonistic principle has been violated and so hedonism itself can still not be assigned the blame you seek for it.