Comments on: That Old Time Religion http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:47:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Janet Holmes http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5348 Janet Holmes Sat, 09 May 2009 09:15:01 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=2747#comment-5348 While murder was prohibited in one of the commandments, (though of course it is a bit uncertain what the ten commandments are as there is more than one list of commandments in the Bible and they don't agree on all points) killing people is mandated in many other contexts. Witches are to be killed, children who dishonour their parents are to be killed and many other infractions call for killing people. To say nothing of those unfortunate enough to reside is the "Promised Land" before the Hebrews got there and started slaughtering their way from one end to the other on the express instructions of their god. Those who claim that Yaweh has instructed them to kill certain people have never had any trouble finding justification in the Bible. It is an extremely bloodthirsty collection of documents. Even Jesus said "I come not to bring peace but the sword". To suggest that those coreligionists whose behaviour embarrasses you, cannot be genuinely of the faith is to use definitions to suit yourself. Muslims apologists are very fond of this sort of thing too. This is of course partly where the trouble started, one group insisting that another were not 'true' christians which therefore meant they were fair game for being tortured and killed. So the whole thing goes round and round in a circle of definitions! The idea that anyone would be harmed in any way over beliefs which have no shred of supporting evidence is appalling, but it is certainly nothing new. While murder was prohibited in one of the commandments, (though of course it is a bit uncertain what the ten commandments are as there is more than one list of commandments in the Bible and they don't agree on all points) killing people is mandated in many other contexts. Witches are to be killed, children who dishonour their parents are to be killed and many other infractions call for killing people. To say nothing of those unfortunate enough to reside is the "Promised Land" before the Hebrews got there and started slaughtering their way from one end to the other on the express instructions of their god.
Those who claim that Yaweh has instructed them to kill certain people have never had any trouble finding justification in the Bible. It is an extremely bloodthirsty collection of documents. Even Jesus said "I come not to bring peace but the sword".
To suggest that those coreligionists whose behaviour embarrasses you, cannot be genuinely of the faith is to use definitions to suit yourself. Muslims apologists are very fond of this sort of thing too. This is of course partly where the trouble started, one group insisting that another were not 'true' christians which therefore meant they were fair game for being tortured and killed. So the whole thing goes round and round in a circle of definitions!
The idea that anyone would be harmed in any way over beliefs which have no shred of supporting evidence is appalling, but it is certainly nothing new.

]]> By: Emma http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5169 Emma Wed, 06 May 2009 22:32:16 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=2747#comment-5169 First of all, I did not say that religion and politics were integrated, I said that the church and politics were integrated. those are two different things, as, by church I meant, priests, bishops and cardinals, and all forms of church LEADERSHIP, not the denomination as a whole. Is that clarified a bit? Also, I'm sorry that when I said that these people were doing this in the name of christianity, you misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that they did it under the GUISE of its being "In the name of christianity". you are right in saying that doing something in the name of christianity, is at least in part motivated by religion, but doing something under the guise of its being done in the name of christianity, is not. What the conflict was over, was that each denomination thought that they had sufficient scriptural proof for their view on baptism. I myself, believe that if a child is born into a believing family, they should be baptized as an infant. But a new believer should be baptized, of course, as a believer. It gets me too that people might be killed or harmed over this issue, and therein, you see, lies my point. That if these "believers" were doing this, "in the name of the church", then they must not have been real believers. Because the practice of murder is strictly forbidden in the ten commandments, so this simply could NOT have been done as a religious act. Does that make sense? First of all, I did not say that religion and politics were integrated, I said that the church and politics were integrated. those are two different things, as, by church I meant, priests, bishops and cardinals, and all forms of church LEADERSHIP, not the denomination as a whole. Is that clarified a bit?
Also, I'm sorry that when I said that these people were doing this in the name of christianity, you misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that they did it under the GUISE of its being "In the name of christianity". you are right in saying that doing something in the name of christianity, is at least in part motivated by religion, but doing something under the guise of its being done in the name of christianity, is not. What the conflict was over, was that each denomination thought that they had sufficient scriptural proof for their view on baptism. I myself, believe that if a child is born into a believing family, they should be baptized as an infant. But a new believer should be baptized, of course, as a believer.
It gets me too that people might be killed or harmed over this issue, and therein, you see, lies my point. That if these "believers" were doing this, "in the name of the church", then they must not have been real believers. Because the practice of murder is strictly forbidden in the ten commandments, so this simply could NOT have been done as a religious act. Does that make sense?

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5165 James Tracy Wed, 06 May 2009 21:35:38 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=2747#comment-5165 You can't say that it was political and not religious and then say that politics and religion were integrated. You might say that it was both political and religious but your strange attempt to completely remove the obvious religious aspect of such violence from the picture strikes me as both strange and desperate. To do something in the name of Christianity is of course to do something that is, at least in part, religiously motivated. Whatever you happen to believe that the ritualistic water dipping means is neither here nor there without any good evidence to justify it. That people might actually be killed or harmed over different but equally unsubstantiated claims concerning such practice is what really gets to me. You can't say that it was political and not religious and then say that politics and religion were integrated. You might say that it was both political and religious but your strange attempt to completely remove the obvious religious aspect of such violence from the picture strikes me as both strange and desperate. To do something in the name of Christianity is of course to do something that is, at least in part, religiously motivated.

Whatever you happen to believe that the ritualistic water dipping means is neither here nor there without any good evidence to justify it. That people might actually be killed or harmed over different but equally unsubstantiated claims concerning such practice is what really gets to me.

]]> By: Emma Perkins http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5156 Emma Perkins Wed, 06 May 2009 17:50:41 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=2747#comment-5156 It was not violence over ( to quote you) "adults ritualistically dipping themselves in water". It was actually not realted to religion at all. Politics at that time were integrated into the church, as the church dominated the government. That violence you refer to, was a political issue over, probably territory, influence, economic problems, or trade arrangments that would have benifted either of the denominations.... all simply in the NAME of christianity, and no more. Just like the crusades. Mant of the crusaders could not have cared less about spiritual state of the Arabs, but what they were really interested in was the land gained in the name of spiritual conquest! It is really sad to see the bad name that such "Christians" have given the Christian faith. Have I got my point across? I hope so, as it is so important to clear this up! Also, these adults, were not simply "ritualistically dipping themselves in water", we christians believe that baptism is so much more than that. It is a sign and seal of GOD's covanent with us, and *signifies* more than meets the eye. I do ask you... How much of the bible have you read, as you seem to a have a limited perspected of what is really in there It was not violence over ( to quote you) "adults ritualistically dipping themselves in water".
It was actually not realted to religion at all.
Politics at that time were integrated into the church, as the church dominated the government.
That violence you refer to, was a political issue over, probably territory, influence, economic problems, or trade arrangments that would have benifted either of the denominations…. all simply in the NAME of christianity, and no more.
Just like the crusades. Mant of the crusaders could not have cared less about spiritual state of the Arabs, but what they were really interested in was the land gained in the name of spiritual conquest!
It is really sad to see the bad name that such "Christians" have given the Christian faith.
Have I got my point across? I hope so, as it is so important to clear this up!
Also, these adults, were not simply "ritualistically dipping themselves in water", we christians believe that baptism is so much more than that. It is a sign and seal of GOD's covanent with us, and *signifies* more than meets the eye.
I do ask you… How much of the bible have you read, as you seem to a have a limited perspected of what is really in there

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/05/that-old-time-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5070 James Tracy Tue, 05 May 2009 03:22:30 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=2747#comment-5070 Ugh. Who knew so much violence resulted over the issue of adults ritualistically dipping themselves in water? Ugh. Who knew so much violence resulted over the issue of adults ritualistically dipping themselves in water?

]]>