From what I can understand, Purple Dawn and now Catholic scientist do not think that the deaths at the hands of God are religiously motivated.
I think this is a excersise in semantic bullshit. I cant understand why anyone would say that when God commands someone to kill, then it is religiously motivated, but when god decides to do hi own dirty work, it is not.
What a load of bullshit.
This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion. An activity that I seem to notice PD is involved in quite a lot.
God killed a lot of people because they did not do what he said or did not worship him.
They did not follow the instructions of god so he killed them.
How can killing people for not following the instructions of god only count as religiously motivated when a person does it, but not when God does it himself?
Doing what god tells you to do means it is religiously motivated, but God doing what he wants is not religiously motivated?
So if I killed nearly every person on earth because they are breaking gods rules, that would be religiously motivated. Yet if god kills nearly every person on earth because they are breaking his rules, then it is not religiously motivated.
What a load of bullshit.
This question is for PD -
Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand/sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid? You are telling me that I cannot have developed my own opinions because the book I based my opinions on is not fact in your view.
Does that hypothetical situation seem sensible to you at all?
Why do you swear on the bible in court if it is just a book?
Why dont you go down to a court house and tell them that they should just throw their bibles away. the book is not true, so swearing on a bible should mean nothing. But to a lot of people it does mean something. It does not matter that it is a work of fiction.
Why do people (
Message 113) automatically give Christopher Hitchins a hard time because he wrote a negative review of Mother Teresa?
Because people develop their opinions and positions on things that are often not true. That does not make their position any less real.
How about you go talk to the Jews and tell them that they dont have to circumcise their baby boys anymore because even though they believe that they have to, you are right and they are wrong, the bible is a work of fiction so it can all stop.
Then you can head over to Africa and tell them all that condoms are OK again because the popes position is based on a work of fiction so everyone can tarp up whan they fuck from now on. (the church has recently changed their position on this issue)
Then you can tell the Jehovahs witnesses that its ok for them to have blood transfuctions because their book is a work of fiction, you are right about this and they are wrong. it does not matter if they believe it to be true. They just need to do whatever you say because you say so.
Then you can do a big 'Purple Dawn saves us all' world fucking tour. you will need to visit many nations and you can tell all of the crazy islamic extremists that there is no heaven. Their book is a work of fiction so there is no reason to perform any actions or develop any opinions using the book. They will tell you it is fact. You can nod and smile in a condescending way and just keep telling them you are right and they are wrong. Tell them that they need not develop any opinions of positions on the teachings of their book, even if they do believe that it is fact because it is not. Any they should take your word for it.
People do some very stange things and develop strong opinions based on the teachings of their favourite holy book.
People develop their opinions of morals on their holy book.
I know that you can be justified in saying that their opinion may not be valid in all debates.
But who the fuck are you to tell them that their own opinions are not valid because you do not believe that their holy book is true.
I could base my morals on the 'Clifford the Big Red Dog Books' if I wanted to. And I could do a damn sight worse. Would my moral position be invalid because the books are a work of fiction? Of course they wouldnt. Just because the events that have lead me to my current position did not happen in your view does not mean they cannot be an effective means of justifying a personal position.
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
™ Version 4.2
