|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4680 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral high ground | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4680 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
PD,
I am glad that I can count patience among my personal attributes.
quote: I know you dont see it. What I cant work out is how it is possible for you not to see it. You keep missing it over and over and over again. I will try in this post one last time to explain this to you. After this you may have to just step out of the discussion as you cannot grasp a quite important part. If you cant understand this point, you will not be able to make any sensible comments. One more time with feeling... We have a new person, his name is Donald. Donald has reached his own personal position in regards to his moral superiority with careful thought. This is the point you are not getting. Donald has used his own beliefs to develop his position on morals. In Donalds case, the events and situations he either personally witnessed or knows about and believes are true have been used to develop his own opinion in relation to moral superiority. This does not mean that Donalds beliefs need to be applied to all other people. That would make no sense. But Donalds beliefs need to be taken into account when in discussion with Donald. If Donald counts those deaths when he is establishing his position in regards to moral superiority, then why should we not? This does not mean that the biblical deaths need to be applied to the religious tally for all of the people on the religious side. You keep missing that point. The biblical deaths need only be taken into consideration for the people that include those deaths in their calculations when establishing their moral superiority. You keep suggesting that I am trying to add the deaths in the bible to the religious tally for all of the religious side. This is an error on your part. Look at the statements you have quoted -
PurpleDawn writes: His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally. now look at my statement -
Butterflytyrant writes: My position is - A person who believes that the deaths in the bible really occured, needs to count those deaths in the death toll. See how in your version, you are referring to the entire religious sides tally whereas in my quote, I am referring to a single person- "a person".
quote: PurpleDawn writes: Still not seeing the difference. I know you're not. Amazing isn't it. I am as surprised as you are.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4680 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
PD,
It isn't the religious person using the numbers from his religious book, it is the religion-free person using the numbers. You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book. If they have arrived at their position of moral superiority by counting the death toll of the respective teams, then they need to make sure that they count the deaths in the bible. Only those who belive that the biblical deaths did occur need to do this. Protillo, as you have pointed out, does not believe that the deaths in the bible really occured. So he does not need to add the deaths in the bible to his count. A bible literalist, who makes a statement like 'I believe that my faith has caused less deaths than yours' needs to add the deaths that he has counted that have lead him to establishing this position. I realise that I was unclear in the very first message, however I have made it clear since then. I have made it clear that the deaths in the bible need only be taken into account for the people who believe that the bible is a historical document. from Message 80From my experience, the people who lean towards the religious moral high ground claim also lean towards the idea that the bible should be taken as a recording of reality. Because of this, I will include the deaths in the bible. For you personally, these deaths dont count because your personal opinion is that the bible is not a recording of reality. For others who do not share your position (they do exist) the deaths in the bible need to be addressed. from Message 80Other people on this forum do not agree (with you) and they will need to address the deaths in the Bible. from Message 87You have stated your position. You have stated that you do not believe that the bible is a a factual document. That means that you no longer have to discuss this element of the debate. You have already covered your position and have no more to say on that oarticular subject. Fine. Great. Gold star for you. You have stated your position and no longer need to discuss it anymore. The people who do need to deal with the deaths of the bible are those who believe that the bible is a factual document. You do not believe that the bible is a factual document so this excludes you. get it? or do you need to post another comment stating exactly the same thing? let me put it another way... If you do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then you do not need to respond to the post regarding deaths in the bible. from Message 95I am aware that YOU do not believe that the bible is a factual document. What this means is that YOU do not need to account for the deaths in the bible if/when you decide to address the OP. The particular beliefs of the individual replying are relevant. If the person replying DOES believe that the bible is a histoically accurate book, then THAT PERSON needs to take those deaths into account. As there are people on this forum who DO believe that the bible is a factual book and the deaths that occured in that book DID actually occur in reality, then THOSE PEOPLE need to take them into account. from Message 95Group 1 - The people who believe that the bible is a factual document believe that the deaths in the bible really occured. These people need to take the deaths of the bible into account when they deal with the moral superiority issue because THEY BELIEVE that they really occured. Group 2 - The people who do not believe that the bible is a factual document. This group need not deal with the deaths in the bible when they beal with the issue of moral superiority because THEY DO NOT BELIEVE that they really occured. from Message 95 I understand that each individual religious person has their own interpretation of the scripture and they believe that their interpretation is the correct one. Each person reaches their position with their particular version of religion behind them. If a person comes to their position of moral superiority combined with the belief that the bible is a historical document then that person needs to deal with the biblical death toll. If a person comes to their position of moral superiority but do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then they do not need to deal with the biblical death toll. The person who is stating their positions belief is important. from Message 95Person A believes that they have a claim for moral superiority because they are a member of a particular religious group. Person A puts foward the claim that 'atheist regimes' have a much higher death toll than their brand of religion in order to support the position of moral superiority they hold. Person A believes that the bible is a historically accurate document. This means that person A believes that each and every death in the bible acctually occured. Given this information, person A needs to justify their claim regarding the death toll including all of the deaths they belive have occured. This includes the deaths in the bible. Notice from that last example where I stated 'person A' many times. Notice how 'person A' is singular. Its not refering to all religious people or the entire opposition to the OP. It id referring to 'person A' (whoever person A may be).
An individuals own position of morality, if based on death tolls, must include all of the deaths that individual believes occured.
from Message 95 How could it be any other way? If an individual believes that the deaths did occur then they include them in their own calculations to establish a position of moral superiority. I am including deaths in the bible for those individuals who include the deaths in the bible. For those who do not believe that the deaths in the bible occured, then I do not include them. If a person is basing their position of moral superiority on their religions death toll, and they believe that the deaths in the bible actually occured, then those deaths, fictional or otherwise, need to be taken into account.
from Message 95 They need to be taken into account if the person staing their opinion believes that the deaths occured. Let me try it another way to hammer this home. Lets say my position was that I am morally superior to everyone else. I state that I am morally superior to everyone else because my religion has killed the fewest people. I point out that athiest regimes have killed 10 million people. I believe that my holy book is a factual document. In my holy book, followers of my religion kill 20 million people. Given this information, my position falls apart. How would it be possible for me to claim moral superiority (based on death tolls) if the death toll that I believed to have occured actually exceeds the death toll of athiest regimes? It does not matter if the deaths in my holy book actually occured or not. My belief that they occured is what defeats my position. If a person has based their position of moral superiority on a death toll and they believe that the bible is a factual document, then it is necessary for them to include the deaths in the bible into their count.
from Message 108 I have corrected you on this point on enough occasions now that you should not be making the same error.
If the religious book contained numbers of deaths caused by religion-free people, would you want those numbers used in the tally? The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. If a person had developed their position of moral superiority through that religious book, then I will give a tentative yes. You would need to be a bit more specific about what you are saying though. Perhaps give an example of what you mean.
The quote you provided in the OP does not bring up the deaths in the Bible. I know what you point is, I'm disagreeing with it. Your continued repetition of the same mistake indicates that you do not know what my point is in relation to this issue. I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 296 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
In Message 62, Portillo states: Biblical atrocities are fictional. Myths and fables. Ah, right, I missed that. My apologies. I thought that Portillo was considerably more literalist than that. In that case I agree with you. If Portillo is is content to acknowledge that these stories are fictions, then it is inappropriate to use them. It still might be appropriate with another, more literalist member, but not with Portillo, at whom the thread was originally aimed. Of course, it does leave me wondering why Portillo has such a problem with evolution, when he's willing to dismiss half the OT as myth and fiction, but that's another discussion entirely. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Yes I do understand that you feel the death toll should be relative to one's belief that the Bible is a true representation of history. I'm disagreeing that that is a legitimate way to tally atrocities. If we stick to keeping the tally to what the person believes to be true, then that can also impact the opposing list as I pointed out with Hitler. Like I said, what one believes to be true, doesn't make it true.
quote:Then let's look at a few from the Bible list you provided. (I'm not going to hunt for those without verses.)
Do you see the trend here? In these stories, God is the boss. Disobedience is judged harshly in some cases. Dr. Adequate described in Message 39 the double standard that has appeared concerning these lists. Just because God is in charge in these stories and kills, helps kill, or orders killings doesn't mean the killings were done for a religious reason. These are judgment killings or battles. In these stories, God has that authority, just like the leader of a country. Show me the one's you consider to be killings for a religious reason. ABE: Please note what that religious reason is. Edited by purpledawn, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4680 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hey Granny Magda,
but not with Portillo, at whom the thread was originally aimed. Inspired by Portillo, but not aimed at only him. From the OP -
quote: I have aimed the challenge at any who believe that religious people stand on moral high ground or are morally superior/can make morally superior judgements or decisions etc and use death tolls or acts of violence to establish this claim. Portillo has advised that he does not see himself as morally superior. Which does make me curious what his point was when he brought it up. But that is for another thread. My challenge is open to everyone. I am also interested in the thoughts of others who have faced this particular claim. After PD and I have ironed out the current issue, I will start to discuss some of the other posts. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Genesis 7 - The one who created the people destroyed the people because he didn't like their behavior. Not a religious reason. Genesis 19:26 - Lot's wife was not turned to salt for a religious reason. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for a religious reason. Exodus 12:29 - The first born of Egypt were not killed for a religious reason. Same for the drowning in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-28) So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You aren't in the Bible. We are looking at the stories and the reasons for the deaths according to the stories. Give me the religious reason for the deaths within the stories you quoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4418 days) Posts: 258 Joined:
|
My point was that most people here dont believe in the historicity of the Bible, but when it comes to atrocities, suddenly the Bible comes alive.
And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
We can discount all the atrocities in the Bible stories, there is still ample evidence that no religion has ever been better at genocide than Christianity.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You aren't in the Bible. We are looking at the stories and the reasons for the deaths according to the stories. Give me the religious reason for the deaths within the stories you quoted. I did. "Because God wanted them dead".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In Message 39 you pointed out the inconsistencies in labeling atrocities.
This is inconsistent. You should either blame atheism only for atheism-motivated atrocities (i.e. people put to death because they wouldn't renounce theism) in which case your figures for atheism would suddenly become much much smaller ... ... or you should put in the "religion" column every atrocity when theists were in charge, in which case you should add in (for example) the 40 million people killed by the theist Genghis Khan. In Message 122, BFT basically said it is about the reason for the deaths, not the belief or lack there of of those causing the deaths or ordering the deaths. IOW, religion motivated atrocities.
The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. Your response of "Because God wanted them dead" as the religious reason for the deaths, doesn't fit. In the flood story, a supreme being killed all but a few people. He brought them into the world and he took them out. There's nothing religious about it. Just because he's a supreme being doesn't make it a killing for religious reasons. According to the story how was this atrocity motivated by religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
anglagard writes: You forgot the Taiping Rebellion, no biggie, everyone seems to forget the Taiping Rebellion for some reason. Only killed 20 million at least, number 5 in all deaths caused by war, obviously influenced by Hong Xiuquan's interpretation of the work of Christian Missionaries. This is a strawman; apples & oranges. First, scores of wars involved religious aspects. Did you even read what your own Wiki link said about these wars and the number killed in them?
quote: This civil war led by a heterodox Christian convert. He, like so many pseudo professing Christians, acted counter to the tenets of Jesus and the apostles of the NT. Neither war troop casualties, tallied on both sides of a war or famines, etc, come under the definition of genocide. OTOH, RCC bloody perpetrators of the Inquisitions brutally tortured and murdered so many protesting true Christians who refused to recant and become subservient to the authority of the popes and bishops of Rome. Pious appearing despots professing Christianity persist in practices opposite to apostolic principles. They are as the religious Pharisees and Sadducee's, who Jesus soundly denounced as murderous snakes and vipers. The proponents of the fallacy that Christianity has been responsible for genocide have been posting mis-characterizations about true Christians and true Christianity. Relentless rants of several forum posters, regarding atrocities perpetrated under orders of ruthless rulers, wrongfully target real Christian followers of Christ and Christianity, respecting doctrines of scripture.
quote: You can click on the term, heterodox in your link, in which the following definition of the term is stated.
quote: BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My point was that most people here dont believe in the historicity of the Bible, but when it comes to atrocities, suddenly the Bible comes alive. Whereas you presumably think these atrocities were real. What should we do, split the difference? But real or not, if you think they were real, and if you're a fan of the God whom you think ordered them, then this does have a bearing on whether you occupy the moral high ground. If you're a genocide fan, that incurs the same moral odium whether or not I think the genocide actually occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your response of "Because God wanted them dead" as the religious reason for the deaths, doesn't fit. In the flood story, a supreme being killed all but a few people. He brought them into the world and he took them out. There's nothing religious about it. Just because he's a supreme being doesn't make it a killing for religious reasons. According to the story how was this atrocity motivated by religion? Round and round we go ... If I killed someone "because God wants them dead", that would be a religiously motivated atrocity, wouldn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You tell me. If you killed someone because an atheist wants them dead, is that an atheism-motivated atrocity? That doesn't work with the flood since God did the killing, not a person.That doesn't work with Lot's wife since God turned her to salt, not a person. That doesn't work for Sodom and Gomorrah since God did the killing, not a person. That doesn't work for Er since God did the killing, not a person. That doesn't work for all the first born in Egypt since God did the killing, not a person. That doesn't work for the drownings in the Red Sea since God did the killing, not a person. From your Message 39, I understood the difference to be about the actual reason for the killings, not just who ordered the killings or who carried out the killings.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024