To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16980
16979  |  16981
Subject: 
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:23:07 GMT
Viewed: 
4853 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:

Back up there, schoolboy.

Easy there, zealot.

:-) Mine was a wordplay on "Schuler".  The dirty dealer meant no harm...

  Okay, I withdraw my sharp rejoinder.  But I hasten to add that it may be
unwise to engage in name-based wordplay if one's name is John.

How about an alleged belief in Christ?

Belief in *what exactly* about Christ?  This is an extremely contentious issue
among Christians.

  Well, it would seem to me that a professed Xtian would have to believe, at
least nominally, in the divinity of Christ as the Son o' God.  Lots of
people accept that Jesus the man existed.  I do--I mean, why not?  Muslims
generally accept it, and so do Jews, if I recall correctly.  But was he
divine?  That's another matter.  Belief in the divinity of Jesus would
appear central, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.
  Parenthetically, I seem to remember someone fairly highly placed in the
history of the faith (Paul, perhaps?) acknowledging that if the Resurrection
were false, then Xtianity on the whole would collapse.  Ring a bell for anyone?

Your willingness to lump athiests into one bunch is exactly illustrative
of your bigotry

Dave!!  That is what *RM* did to Christianity, Jews, and Muslims!  But all I
hear is that *I'm* the "shockingly bigotted" one, and it's coming from *him*!

  Actually, the way I read it, his post indicated an ironic turnabout by
grouping the various religions in the same way that athiests were summarily
grouped.  Of course it's objectionable to homogenize a body of different
people; that's the whole point!  Richard's post also pointed out the problem
of praying in glass churches:  if one sees no problem in castingating a
group on the basis of a tiny minority of its members, then one must be
willing to condemn one's own group on the basis of a few of it's own members.

I would venture to say that in the history of the world the blood on
athiests' collective hands is a drop in the ocean compared to the blood on
theists' hands.  Truly religion elevates the character of man to its noblest
stature!

I doubt it, but I'm not sure I want to go there, or would see a point to it.

  The point, simply put, is to demonstrate that it's shockingly bigoted to
accuse athiests in general of greater violence or bloodshed than their
spiritually enlightened peers.  Even if we lump Pol Pot and Hitler(1) and
Stalin among "athiests," the number of dead at athiests' hands is still tiny
compared to those killed by "theists(2)," since I flatly don't believe that
every murder commited at those dictators' commands were carried out by
athiests, even if they were carried out in the name of The State.  The
theists who committed those murders may have done so under duress, but they
are then hardly innocent of the killings.

But I think that you are wrong WRT your facetious religion statement.  Many of
mankind's greatest literary (or whichever category you choose) achievements
were done in the name of religion.

  Speaking as a liberal arts major with a vested interest in this particular
topic, I say "so what?"  If I paint a swell rendition of the crucified
Christ, does that mean I have carte blanche to commit centuries of brutal
murder?

    Dave!

(1) Sorry Larry--I just can't stop mentioning Hitler in this
    thread about persecution based on one's beliefs.  Hmm...
(2) I know, I know--"I'm grouping theists under one heading."
    Well, if the theist in this debate is okay lumping athiests
    together based on their non-belief in God (however feeble
    a unifier that may be), I think it's appropriate in this
    discussion to group theists in a single category based
    generically on their belief.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) In loo of that point I see if I can refrain. (...) You are wrong. Maybe more on that later. (...) At this point it wouldn't matter. The resurrection is a faith-based event. (...) *I* am the one who ironically brought the atheists into the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) :-) Mine was a wordplay on "Schuler". The dirty dealer meant no harm... (...) Belief in *what exactly* about Christ? This is an extremely contentious issue among Christians. (...) Dave!! That is what *RM* did to Christianity, Jews, and (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR