It's frightening to see religion poisoning our military, but it's happening. A group of generals is facing disciplinary action for promoting an evangelical religious organization, and they admit to being oblivious to the problem of a general declaring that his "first priority is his faith in god", or in supporting a fanatical Christian group that wants to target foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and other representatives for conversion to Christianity. These fellows lent the dignity and responsibility of their positions to a weird cult, and now they defend themselves with this particularly chilling argument:
Brooks told investigators he believed he did not violate any rules. Due to Christian Embassy's long tenure of working with Pentagon employees, Brooks said he saw the group "as a sanctioned or endorsed activity."
Catton's response was similar. Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," he told investigators, and he believed he was taking part in a program approved by the Defense Department.
So because they blindly assumed that Christian proselytization was a normal activity for high-level military leaders, they went ahead and contributed to a movie that portrays our government as a hotbed of Christian crazies … which is true, unfortunately, but we don't need to pretend that that is a good thing.
You can watch the whole movie — it's an embarrassingly treacly pile of crap in which politicians and soldiers profess their reliance on morning bible study and advice from the Lord to do their jobs. For instance, it's got representative Gresham Barrett of South Carolina piously declaiming the moral guidance he's been given, saying "You have to think about what's right, what's right for the country" while the video shows a picture of him smilingly shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. It's got Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson providing his solution to the "war on terror": "What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Christian Embassy, by the way, seems to be affiliated with Bill Bright and the Campus Crusade for Christ — that's all we need is crusaders taking over the military.
These displays of piety from our leaders always make me want to sit them down and pin them down on precisely how Jesus is advising them. They seem bereft of any sense of ethics at all, which is making Jesus look like a right clueless bastard whose sole interest is in promoting the careers of self-serving maggots like Tom Delay.
- Log in to post comments
Jesus would use the missile to burn the unbelievers. Or so Revelations would have us believe. Matthew's Gospel is a bit different.
In my post Catholicism's Politically-Motivated Ignorance I call for Catholics (and Christians alike) to admit that joining the military is a sin on grounds of the ten commandments and other Bible passages. The military and theism is obviously contradictory, and expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical.
I predict zero meaningful punishment for these clowns. After all, why would Bush punish his own kind?
It's really sad those idiots can't grasp the fact that if there really was a god we wouldn't need a military.
Slightly off topic, but relevant if only to remind us that the US military has not been entirely taken over by morons. I heard an excellent program this morning on BBC Radio 4. An interview with Joe Darby, who for those who do not know was the person who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraid. You can listen to the program here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ram/tue0900.ram
You will need RealPlayer.
...I call for Catholics (and Christians alike) to admit that joining the military is a sin on grounds of the ten commandments and other Bible passages. The military and theism is obviously contradictory, and expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 7, 2007 10:16 AM
You could not be more wrong.
Mt 8:5-13
Salt,
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Salt, would you like to offer your interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13 and how it relates to what Tom said? Please.
I haven't actually seen a tremendous amount of overt proselytizing or direct pressuring of soldiers toward Christianity in the Army. Few people have ever asked me about my beliefs. They're usually weirded out enough that there's this very liberal scientist in their midst that we have plenty of conversation fodder without really getting near faith. If anyone is really interested, though, I had an interesting conversation recently with my company CO, that started out like this:
Major 'X': "So, do you actually believe this notion that the Earth is millions of years old?"
Me: "Well, actually, no. I believe that the Earth is billions of years old."
It went from there...
Salt,
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM
Matt, the KJV has quite a few misinterpretations of the original Greek.
It's "Thou shall not commit murder". Quite a difference.
You might also note that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion for his military participation. Matter of fact, Jesus never condemned any soldier for being a soldier.
No accident, the theocrats are targeting the military. They are trying to take over leadership of the academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs.
This is all part of the xian domininionist/reconstructionist movement. They are actually close, having controlled the house and senate until 2006, owning the president, and almost owning the Supreme court. They are also targeting the court systems.
I used to think that the US would be too smart to put a noose around its neck and jump. Toynbee pointed out that 19 of 22 civilizations imploded from within.
In the battle of light against dark, dark wins a lot. The odds say sooner or later the American empire will fall. Who is to say that the death cults won't be wielding the knife? Don't mistake a sense of right or wrong or wishful thinking for a very real possibility.
Salt,
The KJV may well have lots of mistranslations, but that is not the point. I doubt many Christians in the US can read the original can they ? The simple fact is that the most widely used English version of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".
I still would like to know how come you missed the fact it says that.
An addendum to my post #9 above: the drill sergeants DID look rather askance at those of us who didn't attend church services on Sunday mornings when I was in basic training... This was back in antiquity, but I presume they still do.
I call B.S. These guys are senior officers; they know damned good and well this group isn't officially sanctioned, "quasi-federal," nor anything of the sort. They're just hoping to shift a little blame.
That said, it's amazing that such groups are allowed to use government facilities, especially after the Air Force Academy imbroglio.
Zeekster, "expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical" within the context of Mt 8:5-13 is illogical.
If such were true, being hypocritical, would not one expect Jesus to criticize the Centurion for his hypocrisy?
That's not very strong evidence -- Jesus also hung out with prostitutes.
IIRC, Jesus didn't preach to too many Gentiles; his reaction to the Centurion, for example, was to lament such lack of faith among his own people. Jesus didn't try to convert the Centurion. It was almost a pagan matter, where somebody who primarily worshipped god/dess A could go to a priest/ess of god/dess B, acknowledging that one's authority in a specific matter.
You might also note that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion for his military participation. Matter of fact, Jesus never condemned any soldier for being a soldier.
Since when does not condemning something equate to approval of it? It's like a child saying "But mom - you never say I couldn't do that" I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it.
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
Salt,
The KJV may well have lots of mistranslations, but that is not the point. I doubt many Christians in the US can read the original can they ? The simple fact is that the most widely used English version of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".
I still would like to know how come you missed the fact it says that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:41 AM
Most certainly is the point and I missed nothing, seeing as how I am able to correct you..
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
sorry about the stupid double post
Josh,
Does it always amaze you when civilians getting killed by the military is justified because it was not the intention to kill them. I can only presume that somehow getting killed by accident makes you less dead and your relatives less upset and angry.
"I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it."
Like homosexuality?
Hmmm... Jesus also never said anything about evolution, abortion, or homosexuality....
In my day, Navy Boot Camp in San Diego in the early 60's, Sunday attendance at some religious service was mandatory.
Luckily(?), there was a Christian Science Reading Room available, & thus, a life long addiction to working the Sunday crossword puzzles was burgeoning in me.
To this day, Sunday is not complete w/out my puzzle.
o
o
Mat,
Clearly you haven't read The Bible. In the law were it talks about killing sinners it makes it very clear that the sinner kills themselves, the line is "the blood will be upon their own head".
Let the Brick Testament in helpful legos get everyone right with Jesus on this;
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
Frankly the Bible document is so full of contradictions that you can justify anything. At the very lest the Christian will argue that he turned his life over the Jesus so Jesus wants him to do this.
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Please note the bolding. Your words. If it is lawful, it is not murder.
Bob L,
I quite agree the bible is full of contradictions. However what I remember from my confirmation classes (Anglican) is that the ten commandments are the biggies when it comes to rules. My point to Salt was that for those Christians who adopt the KJV of the Bible the message is clear, no killing at all.
Salt: Convenient that. I'm sure his family thinks of me as much less of a serial killer because I have the 'law' to hide behind.
Salt,
Well that would make the situation in Iraq problamatic then. The invasion of Iraq does not seem to have to been legal under international law.
Salt:
So the commandment really is "Do not kill, except in those cases sanctioned by whatever laws your government has happened to pass"? In other words, there is no independent, absolute divinely-given sanction against killing? Doesn't that make the commandment just an exhortation to obey your government? In cases where adultery isn't illegal, is that OK with God as well?
Matt: I presume you're referring to our amazing ability to avoid referring to dead Iraqi civilians whenever we add up the 'costs' of the war? Perhaps you mean 'collateral damage?' Well, let me just tell you that we in the U.S. military...don't miss...so there cannot be any associated damage. I think that phrase is a big piece of liberal propaganda...just like that lie about world heating up that Al Gore invented.
Salt: I'm curious...was the slaughter that occurred during the crusades lawful or unlawful?
The only thing worse than a fundie nut is a military fundie nut.
My point to Salt was that for those Christians who adopt the KJV of the Bible the message is clear, no killing at all.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:00 AM
That's your interpretation. Can you show me where those who translated the KJV meant it the way you say it means? If your interpretation is correct, in that it is absolute and without qualification -
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM
You vegetarian you.
So who determines what is lawful killing? In Germany, it was the Jews. In Cambodia it was the poor and powerless. In Darfur it is xians and animists. In Salem MA it was alleged witches.
Pretty stretchy version of the ten commandments you have there. But we already knew that the lie and violence cults only have 8 commandments, having dropped the ones about lies and killing.
So Salt, who would it be OK for you to kill but not murder. Atheists, Catholics, Moslems, Gays, poor people, non-WASPS, MDs, evolutionary biologists (like Michael Korn) etc. Pat Robertson and the other fundie leaders frequently publish their to kill lists. Who is on yours?
Of course here in the UK we avoid this problem altogether as the head of our armed forces is also the head of the state church. Simple.
PZ. You are an atheistic Bill O'Reilly. Your diatribes against religion feed the needs of your adoring sycophants that frequent your website. I was hoping to learn more about evolution because you have a good grasp of the subject and what's happening in the science wars against ID, etc. but I have been turned off by your vociferous attacks against anything religious. It's not that I'm closed to reflecting on lack of evidence for belief but it's difficult to get past your caustic O'Reilly-like remarks. It's your website so do what you want. But I would suggest that you tone it down. If you want to have an impact on people who don't see things exactly the way you do, then dialog - don't demean.
Salt: I'm curious...was the slaughter that occurred during the crusades lawful or unlawful?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:07 AM
I'd have to say lawful, but imo, not moral.
Salt, while it might very well be a problem of translation, you've given no evidence why killing while as a soldier is anything but murder. I liken killing to a non-negligent car accident. That wouldn't be a sin; it's an accident. But taking a gun and shooting some poor brown person for oil isn't just killing; that's murder. And even according to your translation that's still a sin. And therefore should be condemned by all churches.
"I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it."
Bush on Supreme Court's ruling on Military Tribunals at Guantanamo - July 2006:
They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."
Unless we speak out, they will assume we are condoning their crimes.
You vegetarian you.
Oh right...so killing plant tissue isn't killing? Depending on what you're harvesting, an organism still dies.
Delay's behavior does serve as evidence that life is, indeed, a great buffet.
I think it's very interesting that apologists focus so intently on the mistranslation of a single word. Kill. Murder. Kill. Murder. Kill. Murder. Perhaps we should correct all the other mistranslations, omissions, distortions and additions that have altered each story in the anthology before we attempt to analyze or critique a single word of it.
Questions for Salt and anyone else who thinks they have an answer or two: If the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is so goddamned important, why hasn't anybody corrected it? Why does it say "kill" in virtually every English-language Bible in existence? Why? Because "everybody knows" it really means "murder"? Because "everybody knows" that most of the Bible is metaphor and not meant to be taken literally anyway? That in its literal untruth it is inerrantly true?
There seems to be no small disagreement about this amongst the dozens and dozens of sects of Christianity. How, then, can we know what in the Bible may or may not be true, or which passages must be taken metaphorically and which must not?
Why is a collection of literal translations of the earliest known sources not considered the definitive Bible? Does such a thing exist? If so, why is it not widely available? If not, why not?
Said salt:
This makes perfect sense and explains why Salt will now agree with the following two points:
So who determines what is lawful killing?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:12 AM
Within the context of most of your post, Government.
So Salt, who would it be OK for you to kill but not murder. Atheists, Catholics, Moslems, Gays, poor people, non-WASPS, MDs, evolutionary biologists (like Michael Korn) etc. Pat Robertson and the other fundie leaders frequently publish their to kill lists. Who is on yours?
Who is on my list? No one. Who might I kill? One who acts against me or mine with unlawful violence.
Salt: I'd have to say lawful, but imo, not moral.
OK...that's interesting...I'm gonna ponder that one for a moment.
That also creates another question for me: in your opinion, what is an example of a killing which is lawful AND moral?
First of all Salt/Josh, the difference between killing a person and a plant is incommensurable. Especially in regards to this conversation which brings up the idea of what is regarded as a sin. (I could bring up the point that fish is a meat and is hypocritically eaten on Fridays during Lent for nothing more than economic gain.. but that, too, is incommensurable in the focus of this discussion.) Stick to the argument at hand: killing while in the military is murder. Your turn.
those discussing the 10 commandments, please state what they are, and why most of them call for the death penalty. (like worshipping false gods, or not honoring the Sabbath, these call for stoning) If we strictly implemented the 10 commandments, about 65% of our population would have to die.
what a great religion!
Just as an aside, but something I've been pondering for a while - It seems to me that -religion- is the main problem we are facing, not whether or not there is a god. So the whole atheist thing seems either misguided or wrongly named. Here the fundamentalists are trying to effect Christian dominionism, while in the Middle East it's the Islamic caliphate. In both cases using religion to justify political aspirations. So I think the red letter A campaign, for example, is leading to a faulty end.
We don't need to -prove- there is no god, just that religion is a bad idea. Cases like this one clearly prove why, without getting into any cosmology at all. Treat this as a political problem, not a god problem.
Salt said: "You vegetarian you."
I am not a vegetarian. Nor am I a Christian.
This makes perfect sense and explains why Salt will now agree with the following two points:
1. When Nero persecuted Roman Christians by having them torn to shreds by wild animals, no sin was committed. Nero today enjoys his afterlife in Heaven.
2. Christians should support reproductive freedom (e.g., abortion on demand); because abortion is legal in the US, it can't be considered murder.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Abortion here in the USA is not murder under the law. But it can be argued that it is sinful.
Nero committed no unlawful act as Nero was the law. Why did you use the word sin? Did you actually mean to use that word?
That also creates another question for me: in your opinion, what is an example of a killing which is lawful AND moral?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:22 AM
The man raping your daughter at knifepoint.
Tom wrote *First of all Salt/Josh, the difference between killing a person and a plant is incommensurable.*
There are people who would vehemently disagree with that point, which suggests that is not an a priori truth.
But OK, I replied to Salt's throwaway comment. I stand properly chastised.
Not buying that distinction between murder and killing and mistranslation assertion without some proof.
A lot of the time when xians need to justify something not in the bible they play the mistranslation card. The problem is, using that strategy the bible then says whatever anyone wants it to say.
Not being a native speaker of ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, it is beyond my ability or interest. Probably the relevant original version would be the Hebrew one, old testament.
Back in 1983 Canada, there was Sunday morning church parade. If you were not religious, you had your choice of standing at attention for the entire church service, outside whichever church on the base you felt comfortable standing.
In the later 80's, it was just church parade. You had to go to church (protestant or catholic on my base). The logic was that you didn't have to pay attention, as long as you weren't disruptive.
I was told, as a lieutenant, that being an atheist would likely impede my career.
peak_bagger:
New around here, aren't you. I can't seem to find one of the time's PZ has has addressed his feelings on the 'sensible, moderate dialogue' topic, but I think it is fair to say that he won't be changing his mind anytime soon.
TW,
In many ways Richard Dawkins agrees with you. Granted he thinks the existance of god is extremely unlikely (not that there is no god, despite what some say he says) but he also says that even if god does exist there is no reason that god should be worshipped.
If the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is so goddamned important, why hasn't anybody corrected it?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Some modern Bibles are corrected. The New International Version says 'murder'. The preface to the NIV states it is an attempt to get a much better translation from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts direct into contemporary English.
What I find interesting is the fact that the Old Testament prohibition against killing or murder or whatever you want to call it was clearly meant to only apply within the Hebrew tribal group. Killing anyone outside the group, innocent or not, was fine. For example, the repeated cases of God-demanded genocide described in the Book of Joshua tells us that God says it's ok to murder, murder, murder as long as you don't murder your own kind. So, God is basically a racist. This is the kind of God that the Christian Embassy people can really get behind.
Peak_Blagger,
You seem to be unaware that some people deserve to be demeaned, the Generals in questions being examples of such.
Salt,
Given that so many versions of the Bible seem to have translation errors, why is it so many Americans think the version of the Bible they read, which will be an English version in most cases, is inerrant ?
For a good expose of the mess at the USAF Academy, check out With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup In The Military, by Michael Weinstein and Davin Seay. Weinstein, who is Jewish, was a 1977 AFA graduate who became one of the country's most noteworthy telecom attorneys, and served in the federal government in that capacity during the Reagan administration. He was prominent enough, and with good enough connections, to be named to an AFA overseers committee that is sort of like a toothless board of regents. Earlier in this decade he became aware of the religious problems at the Academy when his cadet sons were harassed and relentlessly proselytized because of their non-Christian, "Christ-killing" religion. As Weinstein met more and more resistance as he pressed the issue through channels, he finally went public, first with Op Eds, and later with the above-named book and a website, militaryreligiousfreedom.org. Here's one of many quotes I captured from the book:
Based largely on the experience he described above, David Anton recommended that his son not accept the USAFA appointment he had received. The son, who had had his heart set on attending the Academy since junior high, ultimately took his father's advice after an agonizing decision process.
Squid,
I don't remember them ever *saying* anything bad to us about not going to services...other than the sort-of mocking looks. We had the choice of going to church, or cleaning the barracks and maintaining our equipment. Certainly faith has never come up in any personnel review or anything...and my dog tags say 'grunt' instead of Catholic or something. And even that recent conversation I had with Major 'X' was, surprisingly, an actual discussion. Given what I have heard from others, though, I think my experience has been a bit anomalous. I find the Wednesday breakfasts at the Pentagon very disturbing news.
Given that so many versions of the Bible seem to have translation errors, why is it so many Americans think the version of the Bible they read, which will be an English version in most cases, is inerrant ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Good question. I have no answer. If I could read German I'd enjoy reading Luther's translation.
A problem Christians have, being the vary same problem many here have, is the picking and choosing of verse to make a point where that verse is out of context.
I'm am reviewing research that posits, using Scripture alone, Hell (i.e. Dante) does not exist. The Fire and Brimstone is so misunderstood. The research so far is quite logical and harmonious, like 1+1=2.
Let's face it. If there WERE an omnipotent and omnipresent God, he/she'd have smote the whole lot of the religious right by now for crap just like this.
Hey PZ, thought you might get a kick out of this image: http://areopagus-areopagus.blogspot.com/2007/08/turn-other-cheek-but-fi…
Hmmmm, OK so the Jewish Holocaust, Cambodian Holocaust, Darfur massacres, and presumably the USSR and Red Chinese massacres were all lawful killings because the temporal state sanctioned and carried them out.
I was under the impression that god was the creator and ruler of the universe and temporal states were human institutions that came and went. Where in the bible does it say that human leaders can determine what is killing and what is murder?
Bibilical inerrancy is reduced to whatever the people in power at any time says it is. Why even bother paying attention to it then?
Of course if God does approve of war then he clearly has mental health issues. In many wars both sides claim God is on their side. Either god is very very confused or he suffers from schizophrenia.
Raven & Josh et al:
Having recently read Hector Avalos's Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, I suspect that Salt is closer to the right track that you are. In addition to exhaustively pointing out the incentives to human-on-human violence that permeate the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), he also goes in some depth into the etymology of the words used in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, as the case may be) of some of the more widely known ethical exhortations, such as the Ten Commandments. Avalos asserts that this analysis shows that, unlike the species-wide applicability with which we read them today, in the original languages these passages connoted or denoted that they applied only to quite narrowly defined in-groups: family, tribe, people (e.g. Israelites), etc.
Avalos also asserts, as is probably needless to say, that the incentives to violence did not stop with the writers of what are now accepted by billions of people as divine revelations. For example, Avalos points to Martin Luther's On Jews and their Lies as advocating the suppression of the Jews every bit as violently as did Hitler in Mein Kamph, the only difference being the technology at hand with which to do it.
Of course if God does approve of war then he clearly has mental health issues. In many wars both sides claim God is on their side. Either god is very very confused or he suffers from schizophrenia.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Why do you point at God there? God made no such claim, it was 'each side', man, that made such claim.
Salt,
"Why do you point at God there?"
Can you tell me where I can go to get the real word from god as to who's side he really is on ?
Where in the bible does it say that human leaders can determine what is killing and what is murder?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:56 AM
The Bible speaks much about authority, and about Kings.
Can you tell me where I can go to get the real word from god as to who's side he really is on ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:15 PM
You're kidding, right?
OK, scratch the 6th commandment and make that the 9 comandments. We weren't using it anyway.
Matt and Salt @ 64:
Check out the writings of Bart Ehrman, a Biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina. Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus are three of his more important books. Ehrman grew up as a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian, IIRC), had a conversion experience as a teenager that induced him to attend the Moody Bible Institute, and then went on to grad school at the Princeton Theological Seminary, thinking he would devote his life to finding the true original, literal founding words of Christianity. What he learned instead is that we can never know what those were because of the inherent and impenetrable fog of time, not to mention the decaying and mis-copied manuscripts, through which we of necessity must study that era. He has since become a self-proclaimed agnostic, because among other reasons, as he put it "if God truly intended for us to live our lives in accordance with the literal words of his scriptures, you'd think he would have given us some means of knowing for sure exactly what those words were." (Paraphrase by MC).
Actually, Chuck, I wasn't discussing murder v. killing with Salt. The cynical point about plants aside, my questions to Salt were written within the context of him being correct (for sake of argument) in his opinion that the word in question is murder.
"You're kidding, right?"
Not at all. Perfectly reasonable question to ask.
I did try praying but there was nobody home to ask.
Salt, in common with most Xian or other religionistas wants to have his cake & eat it too...
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
We don't have any evidence whatsoever of the "facts" of the NT, let alone the OT. In many cases, there is evidence that the stories in the NT & OT are exactly that! As many have said before - the Romans kept damn good records - and many of these have survived. The claims of Herod & Pilate & Jesus being contemporaneous are demonstrably false. Why should we treat any of the other stories with less than skepticism?
Regarding the use of 'Murder' or 'Kill' in the commandment. Since these laws are from the old testament, I would presume that the Torah would be the appropriate source (the Jews being very good record keepers in that regard).
The Torah (AFAIK) says 'murder'.
However - as Raven says earlier in this thread - murder is entirely and wholly cultural in basis - and the OT is (as she says) full of references to 'justifiable killing of those outside the tribe'. Not murder - more like clearing vermin (according to the book!)
So I really don't care whether you use the term murder or kill. That's not the point. That's simply a semantic distinction you use to differentiate between killing you allow, and killing you don't, and is fundamentally tribal (societal) in nature.
The real discussion to date has been this: is it appropriate for military personnel to be overtly religious in their duties - and to use their religion as the primary basis for their decision making.
Xians appear to think this is ok.
So let me ask the following: If a military leader were buddhist, and decided NOT to kill because of that - and refused an order to 'send in troops' or 'release some ordinance' as a result of that belief system - would that be appropriate?
This is not about the military, or the use of militaries for political ends.
This is about intrusion of religious doctrine into non-religious matters.
Minnesotachuck, interesting though I'd say Ehrman is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Also interesting is that, taking your post as true, he is now agnostic.
Seems similar to one who believes he has a mission calling, sells all he has, goes on mission, and finds out it was no calling at all. Failure leads to loss of faith.
This (i.e loss of faith) no more confirms or denies anything about God but only suggests that Ehrman was possible looking in the wrong place(s) and for the wrong thing(s).
Salt = Deluded Troll
Ignore.
Please.
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Are we talking "translation error" or the Bible being "a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*"?
Tony changes the subject -
The claims of Herod & Pilate & Jesus being contemporaneous are demonstrably false. Why should we treat any of the other stories with less than skepticism?
I'd guess you are as skeptical concerning the Jews, a body of people who have never denied Jesus lived and walked the land at the time of Herod and Pilate.
Your bare assertion of "demonstrably false" is unsupportable.
Salt
1. translation error is inevitable in such a compilation - don't pretend to be so dense that such was not clear to you from my statement.
2. this is not a change of subject, but a supporting statement (this is a compilation of *stories* without any demonstrably factual basis)
3. Herod & Pilate were not contemporaneous (not unless you count more than 100 years gap as such).
4. Jewish scholars (AFAIK) state that there "may have been" a prophet "jesus" in the "rough" timeframe mentioned in the NT. They do not, however, accord this prophet any direct connection with the line of David (which would be necessary for the Christ). Compare with the Muslim's who *do* recognize a prophet "jesus", but with a different timeline from the christian.
You have no basis to deny these assertions.
So let me ask the following: If a military leader were buddhist, and decided NOT to kill because of that - and refused an order to 'send in troops' or 'release some ordinance' as a result of that belief system - would that be appropriate?
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Tony, your question (as couched) reminds me of the film 'The Caine Mutiny' where -
~ The Court "There is no more serious charge than cowardice under fire. Be very careful counselor!"
~ The Defense "The defense makes no claim that Captain Queeg is a coward. On the contrary, the defense would assert that no man who could rise to the position of being a Navy Captain could be a coward."
with all of this debate about what kind of killing is ok according to the Ten Commandments, I just feel the need to ask, Who cares what that silly book says?
#52
"killing which is lawful AND moral?
raping your daughter"...
Selective bible reading again. The "crime" is a property offense. The "penalty" is marrying the girl.
Just to be clear, Salt, your position is that God's commandment is to obey temporal law regarding murder? So there can be no case in which temporal law on murder contravenes his commandment? That sounds like a very radical position to me, and one that I doubt most mainstream theologians, much less average Christians, would agree with.
So, can we say that within the "penumbra" of the Bible, that it is bad to kill someone who is a member of your tribe in good standing, who could be useful in tribal activities such as defending your territory, but okay to kill anyone outside your tribe if the risk/reward ratio is low?
Sounds like exactly the ethic that would evolve by itself in pack animals, with no need for divine guidance.
To peak_bagger @ #38: I have to admit, there have been some religion posts here in which I thought the tone erred on the side of mean-spiritedness, but like JoeBlu @ #56 (if I read him correctly), didn't think it would do any good to comment on it. I remain convinced PZ is a good person, and the comments here tend to be very high quality (present example excepted), so I keep coming back. O'Reilly is a very different kettle of crap. Someday there will be a "law" about comparing people to him, similar to Godwin's Law about Hitler.
1. translation error is inevitable in such a compilation - don't pretend to be so dense that such was not clear to you from my statement.
2. this is not a change of subject, but a supporting statement (this is a compilation of *stories* without any demonstrably factual basis)
...
You have no basis to deny these assertions.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 01:00 PM
Tony, lets test your acumen -
How does "a compilation of *stories* without any demonstrably factual basis" relate to "translation error is inevitable in such a compilation".
Please be very specific. Your IQ depends on it.
As to "You have no basis to deny these assertions."
Yes I do, as they are, by your own admission, mere assertions.
Tony, if I should not respond to you anymore could you guess why?
I never understand why anyone bothers to argue about what the bible says...
Theists always read or precieve what they want from the myths that make up their favorite supserstition.
There's no point debating it.
Ignore the troll. Move on.
Salt said:
I used the word "sin" intentionally, as you'd brought up the "proper" translation of the sixth commandment as "thou shalt not commit murder" and then indicated that you believed that any lawful killing couldn't be murder.
I also chose the two examples for a reason. You've stated that Nero committed no unlawful act, i.e., he didn't commit murder. Nero, in other words, didn't violate the sixth commandment, even though he condemned innocent people to horrible deaths. He didn't violate the commandment, in your eyes, because it's impossible for someone with absolute power to commit murder, since anything they do is, by virtue of their position, legal. In other words, any absolute ruler, any despot, is exempted from the sixth commandment.
In your world view, then, dictators are exempt from one of the commandments that everyone else has to follow. They can't commit murder. If I don't like someone, shoot them in the head, and don't repent, I'm going to hell for violating a commandment. If I take over an entire country and, oh, I dunno, burn all of my political opposition at the stake, executing millions perhaps, that's OK with your version of god. No problem; as the person with absolute authority to make the law, I haven't done anything illegal, so I haven't committed murder.
Brilliant stuff, that. Brutal dictators get a dispensation from your deity, a free pass, precisely because of their brutality.
Now, you also say that abortion isn't murder, and that's a point I'll agree with you on. You do say that it's "sinful" though. Well, howso? By your definition of murder, it's not a violation of the sixth commandment. By this measure, it's less of a "sin" than would be looking at your neighbor's donkey and thinking, "I really want that donkey." So, if that's the case, Salt... why don't we see fundamentalist Christians out holding huge demonstrations against covetousness, but we do see them organizing en masse to oppose reproductive freedom? I just want to be clear here... you really believe that it's worse to be covetous than it is to be involved with abortion?
Personally, I don't think anything is a "sin." It's not a concept I endorse at any level. I'm working through your own value system, though, and if I'm understanding it correctly it seems rather nonsensical. Am I missing something here?
Why just the sixth? If a despot can define "murder", why not also "covet", "theft", "false witness", and "adultery". Why treat "murder" legalistically, but use the common denotations of other words in the commandments?
And furthermore, if you want to learn about evolution, take a class. This is a blog and just because the blogger happens to be an associate professor and a biologist does not constrain him to that type of subject matter.
In other words, PZ is not obligated to enlighten you vis a vis evolution, nor is he obligated to play nice with religionists.
And you, of course, are not obligated to stay and read this blog.
I hate people that use religion as an excuse for thier actions, more than half the time they are doing something potentially harmful in the name of God. Then the make the whole religion look bad becuase somehow a few people represent how everyone acts who follow the particular religion. Jesus is not advising anyone, you advise yourself. You make choices, even if they are influenced you still made the choice.
I agree with MAJeff. By letting Salt hijack this thread and debating the meaning of a single word of ancient superstitious nonsense we are missing the point of the post. Let Salt be. You would have an easier time teaching a pig to whistle or nailing Jell-o to a wall.
When I was in bootcamp (Navy/Great Mistakes, Ill.) back in 88' we were strongly urged to attend services on Sunday but it was in no way compulsory. I, for example, never attended but most did. After a few weeks when it became apparent that I was not being punished for staying behind in the barracks about a third of our unit quit going to services. For them attendance was all about avoiding possible earthly punishment from the red ropes. I can't say it endeared me to either of the CCs in charge of our unit but at least I wasn't a hypocrite. FYI, at the swearing in ceremony in Detroit before we boarded the buses for boot I also took the 'affirmation' option instead of swearing to a god I didn't believe in, so you can't fault me on consistency.
More worrisome is the movement to put the ultra religious in positions of power (Military, Government, Courts, Education, Medicine, etc.) and the backward slide we are all noticing now is only going to increase. One day soon we will all wish for the enlightened days of McCarthyism and separate but equal.
Religion. It's hydrochloric acid for the soul.
If you haven't noticed.
Most of us think we should skip religion all together.
I don't think we should skip religion all together, I think most people have a natural need to believe in something. They need help or need something greater than themselves to put thier confidence into. A handful of peoples bad actions using thier religion as an excuse can not represent everyone who follows that religion.
"Following the dramatic success of a fundamentalist Christian group in spreading Christianity through the armed forces, the entire army, navy and air force today laid down their weapons, claiming that 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword,' and ceased all offensive operations, stating that they now intend to 'love their enemies and do good to those that hurt them.'
"Spokesmen for the fundamentalists said that this was 'not what they had meant at all. Please keep shooting the scary brown people.'"
OK, Salt, we'll try this one.last.time.
translation errors are inevitable in any such collection of stories BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED MULTIPLE TIMES.
(apologies for shouting)
Or do you want to make the claim that every translation is 'inspired by god' making every translation correct? If so, you had better find some way to explain why there are differences in different 'translations'.
In other words.
Read the damn post. and respond to the damn post. Don't make assumptions that other people are literalists (like you appear to be).
last post to Salt.
Redf: I think the *true* position is that most people have been *indoctrinated* into believing they need an external authority into which they should place their confidence (parent, pastor, king, god)
I call bullshit.
My confidence needs to be *earned*. I think it would be difficult for an imaginary being to earn my confidence without providing direct evidence that I should.
translation errors are inevitable in any such collection of stories BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED MULTIPLE TIMES.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 02:15 PM
Ok, I agree as stated. The bolded above refers as to why, but has no relationship to a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories* which is what you stated -
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Now - my question I asked earlier;
How does a compilation of *stories* without any demonstrably factual basis relate to translation error is inevitable in such a compilation?
Please answer my question and be specific.
Redf says, "I don't think we should skip religion all together, I think most people have a natural need to believe in something. They need help or need something greater than themselves to put thier confidence into."
What in blazes makes you think that religion is the only kind of belief available to people who "need something greater than themselves to put their confidence into?
Have you tried natural reality? You know, all of that vast and magnificent stuff outside of our feeble imaginations that science actually addresses? Try it. You might come to like it alot. Lots of people gain emotional strength from trusting that nature is botyh complete and never lies. You really are not restricted to believing one religion or another: they are all based on the heresay of fallible human beings, as in the delusions and exhortations vomited forth by schizophrenics and/or career liars who couldn't care less about what's going on anywhere except within their own vanishingly small minds which, of course, leaves out an entire universe of grandeur.
Skip religion altogether, and you lose nothing but the superstitious nonsense...and GAIN that magnificent universe of reality. It really works.
Tony, lets make this easier for you.....
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
"In a book that is merely a compilation of human stories, translation errors are inevitable."
Quite a fallacious statement you have set up Tony.
Might the following make better sense now?
Tony, if I should not respond to you anymore could you guess why?
Salt,
I think what Tony was trying to say is this:
If the bible were actually the inerrant Word of God, there would be no translation errors because god would make sure that it was properly translated. However, if the bible is only a historic tribal text created by and for people, one would expect translation errors in it just as one would expect errors in translations of any oft translated ancient text.
Until a couple of years ago, I was in the Army. 14 years too long in the Army if you ask me. I joined an Episcopalian, but was an atheist by my second or third year. I've seen the rise of the religious fundy officer corp. The funny thing is that from my experience, the largest denomination in the Army is either Catholic or No Preference if you went by dog tag. It will be interesting to see what happens in the military if the officer corp tries to push this too hard, as I really don't thing the enlisted will be to kind to a jack-ass officer. For example, I had an old gruff platoon sergeant once who was an irreligious former NYC plumber. His constant and creative screams of profane blasphemy alone would give me hours of amusement. I would love to see him with a fundy platoon leader.
I only ever remember one overt display of mass religion. Everyday, the HETT (a large semi-truck) drivers that were carrying my battalion's M1s and Bradleys across Iraq would have a mass prayer after the convoy briefing. Only a few of our grunts and tankers would pray with them, most would just checked their vehicles and weapons. I remember one officer who was gawking at our vehicles made the comment, "I don't know what they're praying for, no Iraqi is crazy enough to attack that much firepower."
Thanks Pygmy Loris. Apparently I did not make such a hash out of my post as Salt suggests. But Salt will still, no doubt find cause for complaint.
I imagine: "these were transcribed by mortal man, thus subject to their very mortal limitations" or somesuch.
Anyway. Salt - I was referring to the bible (or any other such text) which is a compilation of 'verbal & written tribal lore' and as such have been translated both verbally through the ages of re-telling, and linguistically through the choice of scholars/scribes.
Or did you somehow neglect to read the rest of the post and assume I was referring to some other text?
The context would be obvious to any but a troll.
You've stated that Nero committed no unlawful act, i.e., he didn't commit murder. Nero, in other words, didn't violate the sixth commandment, even though he condemned innocent people to horrible deaths. He didn't violate the commandment, in your eyes, because it's impossible for someone with absolute power to commit murder, since anything they do is, by virtue of their position, legal. In other words, any absolute ruler, any despot, is exempted from the sixth commandment.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 7, 2007 01:29 PM
You are missing the mark.
Nero's law was not God's Law. Under Nero's Law Nero was not guilty. Nero could not be prosecuted by Nero's temporal laws; Nero was the Law.
Similarly, a cop today is often not prosecutable for a 'killing' while in the lawful performance of his duties; "I was in fear for my life". You have seen these types of behavior. An unarmed man gunned down (shot multiple times by cops) in NYC; I was in fear of my life.
Nero is an unusual case, being Caesar. But, taking your statement as true
Nero ... condemned innocent people to horrible deaths
Yes, he violated the 6th Commandment even though he was not prosecutable under his own law; Nero was the Law.
OK Salt - you've proven you are nothing but a troll.
You've advocated the position that "Murder" <> "Lawful Killing"
You've advocated that the commandment is "You shall not MURDER"
You've now stated your acceptance that Nero was both Lawful, and Killed according to his Law, (i.e. his ac ts were Lawfull Killing, and therefore NOT MURDER) but that he was somehow in violation of the 6th commandment.
So how does: Lawful Killing <> Murder equate to Lawful Killing = Murder
you may answer, but take care: apparently your IQ depends on it.
Salt,
I think what Tony was trying to say is this:
If the bible were actually the inerrant Word of God, there would be no translation errors because god would make sure that it was properly translated. However, if the bible is only a historic tribal text created by and for people, one would expect translation errors in it just as one would expect errors in translations of any oft translated ancient text.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 7, 2007 02:44 PM
I agree with your assessment of what Tony probably wanted to say. But that is not what he said, nor what he had amply opportunity to correct his statement too. He set up a poor argument and it was necessary for you to come to his aid, show him his way out which he is seemingly now taking. He owes you a debt of gratitude.
Anyway, I pressed on, and since some of you are just so kind and wonderful people, smarter than the rest of us Xians, I thought it best to call him on it (with multiple hints he did not get). I thought it would be interesting to watch his acumen in action.
The context would be obvious to any but a troll.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 02:58 PM
So obvious you could not state it. Funny guy Tony. You should be a comic.
Hey Salt, where's pepper? Someone steal your doorknocker earrings?
Ignore the theistic git.
What's with this "people need to "believe" in something" crap. Faith is a requirement to be human? the propensity to give meaning to the world therefor demands that the meaning manifest itself in some metaphysical irrational way?
I don't believe that.
We may have developed superstitions and coping mechanisms to deal with the natural world and death...
Doesn't mean religion is the default answer or requirement for that coping mechanism.
Tony,
No problem.
Salt,
Tony didn't elaborate because it was obvious from his initial post what he meant. That I had to spell it out for you shows either a lack of synthetic thinking skills on your part or perhaps simple intellectual laziness.
Besides, you have failed to explain what murder is if you accept that the sixth commandment says "Thou shalt not commit murder." Murder is a cultural construct used to differentiate between justifiable homicide and regular homicide.
By your own earlier definitions, Nero was following god's law in that because he was the law, he could not violate the law by committing murder. Now you want to say that there is a distinction between god's law and the laws of men. What is this distinction? How do you know what kind of killing god deems murder and what kind of killing is okay?
Salt: You quote-mine 'religiously' -- I've re-read all of my posts, as well as yours.
Contextually what I was saying was always clear. Your quote-mining led to the supposed issue with the statements, so that it had to be re-stated multiple times (or was I supposed to assume that you were unaware that the source documents and languages for the bible included many different languages and oral traditions)?
And you fail to answer any questions.
Responding to my 'buddhist' query with queeg was very nearly humorous. nearly. However it did not answer the question, nor even make the attempt.
You have also failed to respond to the logical error in your stance (re: Nero & lawful murder being a violation of the 6th commandment)
If you wish to refute your status of Troll it's time to ante up with some positive contribution.
And (FYI) I *am* a comic - but by invitation only.
Thanks Pygmy Loris -- appreciate your comment. I thought I was clear, too. But presumably I'm writing in 'atheist' code so it's obfuscated for religionistas!
Anyway, on the topic of the post: I'm very concerned about evangelical xianity taking over the military branch of our government. The military should be a mostly secular insitution. If our military becomes populated by people who think Jesus will be back any day or that prolonged war in the Middle East will expedite the return of Jesus, how can we depend on the military leaders (and their civilian evangelical superiors) to make responsible long-term security decisions for the country?
OK Salt - you've proven you are nothing but a troll.
Really?
You've advocated the position that "Murder" > "Lawful Killing"
You've advocated that the commandment is "You shall not MURDER"
You've now stated your acceptance that Nero was both Lawful, and Killed according to his Law, (i.e. his ac ts were Lawfull Killing, and therefore NOT MURDER) but that he was somehow in violation of the 6th commandment.
So how does: Lawful Killing > Murder equate to Lawful Killing = Murder
you may answer, but take care: apparently your IQ depends on it.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 03:06 PM
I'm assuming > equates to 'does not equal'.
This sets up the quandary, or does it?
Lawful Killing > Murder This is both man's law and God's law.
(And Tony moves in for the kill)
Lawful Killing = Murder
Murder is not lawful under God's law, and most often not lawful under Caesar's law, except where such murder is by Caesar's command. Caesar is the Law. If you do not agree, take it up with Caesar.
So Tony, the short answer to your question is 'When one is Caesar!'
Tony,
I kinda got the idea that Salt was intentionally misunderstanding your posts. But if I want to give him the benefit of the doubt (I don't, but I will) I could say that this is a common argument atheists have with theists and sometimes we see what we know to be there and we're not making ourselves crystal clear. Maybe we should try to use small words and short sentences ;)
Luke 22:36.
Augustine of Hippo.
Thomas Aquinas.
Most of the Old Testament/Torah.
Salt is absolutely correct that a Christian theological case can be made for engaging in violence under certain circumstances, and it's a question that philososphers and theologians have been arguing about for a long time. This is a discussion, if you care to have it, where it pays to know a bit about the fabric and embroidery of the emperor's clothes.
If you're selective about which of Jesus' words you take from the gospel, you can make him sound like a mellow, pacifist hippy, or like an apocalyptic, fire and brimstone preacher. I find the former version more palatable, but it's dangerous to pretend that the latter version does not exist when influential people use it to influence their world-view.
Responding to my 'buddhist' query with queeg was very nearly humorous. nearly. However it did not answer the question, nor even make the attempt.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 03:25 PM
Sure it did. You just did not get it. Would a Buddhist, if he be one who'd refuse to obey a lawful order, rise to any form of command to which he'd be the one giving that order?
Try not being so clever Tony, you lay bad traps.
OK Salt
Let's spell this out in two statements so even YOU can read and comprehend
You have stated the following conflicting views on the 6th commandment.
The 6th commandment is "you shall not MURDER" (various posts)
It is not murder when the killing is lawful (posts 45,51)
However in post 106, you state:
So how can Nero have possible violated the 6th commandment - his acts were lawful, by your own admission.
Or did you miss something in your argument?
Tony,
The argument Salt should make but fails to grasp about the Buddhist soldier is this: Because we currently have an all volunteer military, new recruits are required to sign a document that essentially states they don't have a moral problem killing people when ordered to do so. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that a practicing Buddhist joined our military.
I really have no idea how the military would handle it if an officer or soldier converted to Buddhism during their military service and suddenly refused to kill. Does anyone here with military experience know how this quandry would be addressed?
Salt - you purposefully misunderstand.
A buddhist can rise to a position of influence and power in the military, since not every soldier or leader will necessarily have been put into a war zone, and therefore necessarily been faced with that situation.
So don't squirm, just answer the question from your obviously huge store of knowledge.
Pygmy Loris - your answer makes sense.
But that is NOT a requirement in ALL militaries (and none of us restricted the discussion to the US military)
The question was open, and (admittedly) hypothetical, but based on SAlt's own earlier (open) question.
I agree that your hypothetical 'conversion' makes it directly applicable to the US too. And denies Salt's convenient 'queeg' response.
Right, Loris... Salt (and Tony, perhaps) overlooked the possibility of either the seditious pacifict Buddist, or the late convertto Buddism. Salt's Queeg analogy was otherwise apt, though.
Dwarf Zebu... hmmm. Hey, is that you, TwinCats?
True enough, I suppose.
More than a few people I know who are nominally Christian (or vaguely Christianist theists who fall somewhere between Deist and Christian) are decidedly against the excess and corruption of organized religion, but could not be described as atheist or even agnostic. Oddly enough, there's quite a bit of overlap there, between theist and atheist.
The prevailing sense is that whatever godlike being or essense that may exist in our universe hasn't been well defined, demonstrated, or represented by known world religions, and this feeling drives people to seek answers in spiritual philosophies that are more esoteric to the average occidental, such as Wicca and Buddism.
I understand the desire. The sense of wonder and awe that I experience when I contemplate the universe as we know it, and that I am a part of it, made from the same stuff as the trees, beasts, oceans, planets and stars, could be described as spiritual. However, I don't seem to need it to mean anything more than that my consciousness is registering that I have a place, infinitessimal though it may be, in this vast cosmos. Nor am I compelled to claim that my existence is either vanishingly unlikely or inevitable, for either way, I am what I am. If gods exist, I'll find out when I die. Maybe.
For myself and others, that's enough. For many, it is not. Beyond that, the distinction seems irreducible. Some people do "need" to believe, apparently. However, the mere existence of non-believers puts the lie to the notion that faith is some kind of essential human attribute. It's easier to argue that faith is a harmful aberration.
Now you want to say that there is a distinction between god's law and the laws of men. What is this distinction? How do you know what kind of killing god deems murder and what kind of killing is okay?
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 7, 2007 03:23 PM
There is. Biblically, we are subject to that authority appointed above us (temporal), for even Israel demanded of God "we want a king like all other nations'. Israel forsook God, and God's law, for man's laws.
Man's law, where such law is Caesar, Caesar can do no wrong; lawful murder, an oxymoron only true for Caesar. Even the earthly governments, i.e. using covert assassination for political ends, is as Caesar.
But nowhere biblically do I find that Caesar is not, in the end, subject to God's law.
As to what kind of killing God says is ok, one must eat and one has the right to defend one's self and one's own. Righteous warfare is also ok. It's in knowing if it's righteous or not that's the problem.
jmo
Pygmy: Based on several incidents I've witnessed, I'm strongly of the opinion that a soldier who converted to a religion requiring them to refuse to obey an order to kill (we're presuming here that this is a lawful order...the distinction between it and an unlawful one is a different discussion) but who remained in a position whereby they could conceivably have to give such an order, would punished for being in violation of their oath. I had a friend who had to sign a waiver to get into the infantry because of his faith. He had to state in writing that he wasn't practicing. If he had subsequently refused to follow a 'lawful' order and listed his faith as the reason, I'm pretty sure they would have gone after him. A number of people have tried to play variations of this game since we invaded Iraq in 2003; to my knowledge is has gone poorly for all of them.
Anyway, Salt, either "murder" means unlawful killing, or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways.
Or can we? We can agree that the 6th prohibits murder and that murder is defined as lawful killing; we can agree that no lawful killing is a violation of the 6th, and that all the killing of the Crusades (for example) was lawful...
But can we then assert it was immoral without necessarily implying it was sinful and therefore a violation of the 6th?
Can a killing that does not violate the 6th be demeed sinful or immoral? If not, then how could the killing of the Crusades be so deemed? If so, where is the absolute moral authority implied by the Commandments? Is it, like so much in the Bible, absolute only to the point where it becomes subject to interpretation by fallible humans? If so, what absolute moral authority exists? None, I'd say.
Thanks Josh. I figured the military would have a procedure to deal with that kind of thing, but I didn't know what it would be.
Pygmy wrote: *The argument Salt should make but fails to grasp about the Buddhist soldier is this: Because we currently have an all volunteer military, new recruits are required to sign a document that essentially states they don't have a moral problem killing people when ordered to do so. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that a practicing Buddhist joined our military.*
Basically yes...as a slight addendum of my post #124, the Buddhist would have to sign some sort of document stating essentially 'yeah...its OK...I can do this when push comes to shove.' So it isn't that a person of a such a faith couldn't become a soldier, it is that a person of such a faith would have a hard time ascending to a post where that person had to kill people if the killing were an issue (and you know what I mean by those last five words--if the killing *isn't an issue for us* you should lock us up...it should bother us for the rest of our lives...but we should still be able to *do it* when it needs to be done).
*blink* ...damn the proofreader... "murder as unlawful killing"
BTW Salt:
Thanks for that, I'd forgotten about the NIV. Duh. In my defense, the NIV is off my radar because I've never actually seen one, in a church or anywhere else. Strange, eh?
Kseniya, I agree that the churches are, for the most part, corrupt. I am not a member of any temporal church. IMO, most Xians, like all atheists, have it wrong concerning God. Both sides are at odds with each other, and I appear to lay the blame on the Xians, even on God Himself.
Guess it is to say that all is as it should be, and for reason.
I think the point that was trying to be made earlier in the thread that got sidetracked, was whether or not religion had a place in the military.
The comments re buddist belief should hold for *all* beliefs: there is no place for religion in the military
And to loop back on Kseniya's recent comments - I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the relativist morality of the bible (and by inference all morals drawn from the bible as source).
Salt: "As to what kind of killing God says is ok, one must eat and one has the right to defend one's self and one's own. Righteous warfare is also ok."
Don't forget "...and genocide is ok, too!"
Thanks for that, I'd forgotten about the NIV. Duh. In my defense, the NIV is off my radar because I've never actually seen one, in a church or anywhere else. Strange, eh?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 04:13 PM
Nope. Not strange. Many Xians do not wish to be corrected. Even the NIV has mistranslations. Like the use of the word Hell, from sheol (sp?), meaning hades which is not Hell.
Salt, FYI, I wasn't intending on taking a shot at you in #127 above. In the quote I repasted, I copied the part before the : by mistake. Sorry about that.
Don't forget "...and genocide is ok, too!"
Posted by: Steve | August 7, 2007 04:14 PM
Ok, I'll bite. How so?
[salt sets himself up to be pounded upon?]
Josh,
I was under the impression that most of the day to day* killing in a war was done by low-level soldiers, the privates, airmen, sailors etc. In the current military situation i.e. actively engaged in action, what entry level positions are available that don't require killing.
*I'm not using this term to lessen in any way the emotional impact of daily warfare, but to distinguish those kinds of killings that go on daily during war from perhaps other kinds of killings such as 9-11 or the execution of enemy leaders, which are presumably carried out by more senior military members.
Salt,
No pounding. Just read the Book of Joshua.
Tony wrote *The comments re buddist belief should hold for *all* beliefs: there is no place for religion in the military*
I personally don't care what the guy shadowing me believes, as long as he can do the job. But then I don't care if he is gay either (honestly, I don't know what the fuck is up with the military obsession about homosexuality). The relationship between soldiers in a combat unit is unlike anything I have observed elsewhere in society and people rely on a lot of stuff I consider...odd...to get through. I don't think I care as long as they don't shove it in my face.
That being said, and actually along those lines, everything I have read about that ridiculous bullshit going on at the USAFA makes me want to napalm Colorado Springs. People should lose stars for that pathetic shit. Immediately.
Salt you ask of Steve C
you answered this yourself in an earlier comment when you said Righteous warfare is also ok.
Apparently genocide was righteous when directed against the Sodomites. (killed man, women, and child)
Or are you suggesting some other definition of genocide.
Because so many Christians misrepresent nature and meaning of the Ten Commandments, it's a common misconception that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is an actual prohibition against all killing. Giving it to as short as possible (and possibly giving some confusion as it's more complex than I'll write):
The Ten Commandants, which are Mitzvahs (commandments), are both Mitzvahs and are used for organizing the 613 Mitzvahs within the Hebrew Bible. There are 10 of these organizing Mitzvahs - 5 for dealing with God and 5 for how to deal with your fellow man. Most Christian bibles co-mingle the commandments and get them in the wrong order.
"Thou Shall Not Kill" is best read as "Thou shall not Murder," where murder is defined as "unauthorized killing of another human being." Because, as you can see from the Bible, killing another human being is authorized. For example, you can stone an adulterer.
So, while I find all the koolaid drunken for the big sky fairy to be ludicrous, in this issue, because of the torturous misrepresentation of the commandment, it's easy to get the wrong idea.
Josh: I agree with your sentiment and thoughts regarding your squaddies. However I think the statement should really be expanded to there is no place for organized or overt religion in the military
Believe what you will. DO whatever you need to do (within reason) to get through your really fucked-up day.
However, don't force your beliefs down anyone else's throat, and don't rely on those beliefs before reason (your's and others).
I think you're saying the same thing.
Pygmy wrote *Josh, I was under the impression that most of the day to day* killing in a war was done by low-level soldiers, the privates, airmen, sailors etc. In the current military situation i.e. actively engaged in action, what entry level positions are available that don't require killing.*
Shit, Pyg...*that* is an excellent point. In theory...and I am going to keep this reply focused on the Army (is there another branch...? ;)), if you enlist in certain non-combat arms MOSs, such as the band, or if you become a cook, you shouldn't have to kill anyone (I'm talking normal situations--we'll ignore here some incident that requires defense of life). Back when I got in, I think it was still set up that field medics attached to infantry platoons didn't have to carry a weapon...I'm not sure if that is still true. So I think it is *possible* for our Buddhist scenario to occur without some waiver being signed. But your point is excellent...and I think situations such as happened with my old buddy in the infantry are the more likely ones.
Moses: that's basically what we've been saying -- the challenge is "what is lawful"?
Is temporal law sufficient? If not, is every soldier condemned to hell if they follow temporal law and kill on command, if 'in the eyes of the lord' that killing is not lawful?
We seem to be saying "it depends". As a consultant, that response usually costs me business. As a non-combatant, it affects me not-so-much.
Josh (posting above)and his colleagues would presumably like some definitive guidance on the 'state of his soul' (assuming such a thing exists)
Ok, then show me "God's Law", without resorting to a book you admit is nothing but a collection of stories made by humans, which as others have pointed out, defines murder only in the context of "tribes". That is really the problem with arguing context. To people that want to point out obvious errors, context is, "The word that they changed to try to make it mean something entirely different", like the KJV replacement of "one who doesn't believe" with "witch", so the church of the time when it was translated would have a better excuse to kill pagans. To those arguing context in the sense you do, its, "what does it say in the same passage, which might indicate that the one sentence of word they picked out doesn't mean what they claim". That one doesn't really help much, since there are more than a few places, like Laviticus, where the cherry picking is done to deny the fact that most of its statements are the raving of a sociopath. Then there is, "The context of the entire OT.", which shows one huge tribal mess, where anything was justified, as long as it was some other tribe you did it to. Then there is, "Context of the NT.", which ignores the tribalism of the OT, but which doesn't deny most of it, or most of the bad stuff people do to each other, but is *slightly* better, so is used to support the idea that everything from freeing slaves (which Jesus clearly didn't have a problem existing), to treating everyone nice (which he supposedly did say), is somehow, "in the Bible", even when it isn't. Then there is historical context, where you figure out that some things it says, including the existence of some people that Jesus is supposed to have dealt with, are clearly impossible (see the above posts for where someone else pointed this out), to obvious sources its stories where stolen or adapted from, etc.
So, since the Bible can't exactly be used to support the idea that God passed down any "Laws" at all, show me where these laws are, and why therefor, Nero wasn't acting just as lawfully as anyone else who decided to kill people in the wrong "tribal group", then blamed their doing it on commandments from on high. About the only, and it would be damn silly to even suggest this as a valid answer, grounds to claim he did anything wrong, by your own definitions, would be that he *didn't* try to justify it by invoking some higher power than himself. A position that is hardly better than if he had insisted that Athena or Mars had told him to do it.
Anyway, Salt, either "murder" means unlawful killing, or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways.
I agree on your def of murder.
Or can we? We can agree that the 6th prohibits murder and that murder is defined as lawful [sic] killing; we can agree that no lawful killing is a violation of the 6th, and that all the killing of the Crusades (for example) was lawful...
But can we then assert it was immoral without necessarily implying it was sinful and therefore a violation of the 6th?
I think one may make an argument for that position.
Can a killing that does not violate the 6th be demeed sinful or immoral?
Sinful No. Immoral, possibly yes. Not everything that is immoral is a sin.
If not, then how could the killing of the Crusades be so deemed?
Law does not equate to morality.
If so, where is the absolute moral authority implied by the Commandments? Is it, like so much in the Bible, absolute only to the point where it becomes subject to interpretation by fallible humans? If so, what absolute moral authority exists? None, I'd say.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 04:03 PM
The Commandments only apply to that which is stated. Stealing, adultery, murder, bearing false witness...
What Commandment states 'Thou shall not lie'? Bearing false witness includes lying, but one may lie without bearing false witness.
IMO, lying 'may' be a moral wrong but bearing false witness is a sin.
Tony, regarding your post #141 above: you and I are completely on the same page...
regarding your post #143 above: I would be happier if Salt would show much some definitive evidence that there WAS a soul, but as an academic discussion, yeah, the answer is interesting.
-did he really just imply that it might be morally ok to lie?
Is temporal law sufficient? If not, is every soldier condemned to hell if they follow temporal law and kill on command, if 'in the eyes of the lord' that killing is not lawful?
We seem to be saying "it depends". As a consultant, that response usually costs me business. As a non-combatant, it affects me not-so-much.
Josh (posting above)and his colleagues would presumably like some definitive guidance on the 'state of his soul' (assuming such a thing exists)
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 04:36 PM
Tony, lets apply a real, modern, situation to your posit.
Lt. Wlm. Calley and Mei Lai; Vietnam. (check my spelling here)
Do you know of this incident and its aftermath?
-did he really just imply that it might be morally ok to lie?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 04:48 PM
Yes.
I knew we would get here eventually. Now Salt, you're getting toward whether or not a...well as an example...an 18 year old Private infantry grunt in the mud can, from his perspective, determine if some orders are lawful or unlawful. This is a discussion that I feel is tangential, but informative to the issue on the table.
You're kidding me? Once upon a time there were two tribes of Semites. One tribe was a bunch of farmers who worshiped a PANTHEON of Gods lead by El to whom they sacrificed their first born son. The other tribe was a bunch of semi-nomadic sheppards who worshiped a solo-God named Yahweh to whom they sacrificed various animals. Over a period of CENTURIES the two faiths were, through political-religious negotiations, merged into one very inconsistent ORAL faith.
God's wife (wives, depending on sub-faith), his son (possibly more than one) and daughter (possibly more than one) get written out of the northern religion and, in many cases, get turned into demons/devils. Though at least some worship of Asheroth did go on until sometime in the 15th/16th Century in some Jewish sects.
Then, a whole new faith was dropped (including borrowings from other relgions not related to Judasim) on top of that faith. This faith was, in its entirety, as irrational and cobbled together as the first.
This faith then gets blown hither-and-yon and the religion didn't settle down until about 325AD into a core doctrine. After that, the leaders of the early Church pretty much went on pogroms to destroy all cometing versions of Christianity. Add in another 1000 or so years of BS and forged documents by the Catholics...
And you worry about why poeple aren't dealing with the error of "murder" or "kill?" The whole religion is nothing more than a Mediterrainian/North African/Indian mash-up and should be relagated to the "scrap heap of discarded supersticions."
Salt: that incident has no 'real' bearing... He acted 'unlawfully' - although his defense (which I could only find as a paraphrasing, since it was a military court proceeding, so won't post here) was, in part, essentially what Kerry states below - his 'orders' were to kill 'gooks' and that's what he did (his part in the Mei Lai massacre in which 300+ non combatant vietnamese were murdered).
Did you have something else in mind for this ref? Or is this supposed to be a comfort to Josh & his buddies re the 'state of their souls'.
I'll let Kerry speak to that directly.
Salt you ask of Steve C
Don't forget "...and genocide is ok, too!"
Posted by: Steve | August 7, 2007 04:14 PM
Ok, I'll bite. How so?
you answered this yourself in an earlier comment when you said Righteous warfare is also ok.
Warfare and genocide are not synonymous. Either can occur independently of the other.
Apparently genocide was righteous when directed against the Sodomites. (killed man, women, and child)
Or are you suggesting some other definition of genocide.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 04:25 PM
re: Sodomites
It'd be like accusing Caesar; accusing the Law itself. Accusing God is no different; it can't be done.
This is not to say one cannot lay blame for an act. God did destroy Sodom.
Salt: Huh...ok...
All: Ok...I need to sign off for a bit. Hopefully you'll save some of this for tomorrow.
Regarding Kerry above: wow...lots of thoughts on that...later.
as an example...an 18 year old Private infantry grunt in the mud can, from his perspective, determine if some orders are lawful or unlawful. This is a discussion that I feel is tangential, but informative to the issue on the table.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 04:54 PM
Yes. My understanding and research of the UCMJ permits it. Might I reference 'The Caine Mutiny', or perhaps 'Crimson Tide'.
It's not an easy answer, and there are no absolutes. Going against orders is potentially dangerous. Be damned sure one is right, and if so - be prepared to argue it successfully.
RE: Kerry testimony
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 04:59 PM
Good find.
Salt: that incident has no 'real' bearing...
[see Kerry statement]
Did you have something else in mind for this ref? Or is this supposed to be a comfort to Josh & his buddies re the 'state of their souls'.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 04:59 PM
I'm not here to comment on anyone's soul. If anyone wants to know the condition of their soul (body+spirit), consult God [Bible} and your own heart and mind.
Here's a hint: Assuming there actually was a historical Jesus, I wouldn't especially want to be hanging around the temple when he got his hands on said missile.
This is a point often overlooked (or intentionally ignored) by the latter day Pharisees who, like their 2000-years-dead philosophical brethren, would be sitting around that temple, quibbling over, oh, let's say circular definitions of when the Old Testament God says it's okay to slaughter people, while missing the entire message Jesus is said to have promoted (i.e., "don't be a dick").
What Would Jesus Do ... with a cruise missile?
Here's a hint: Assuming there actually was a historical Jesus, I wouldn't especially want to be hanging around the temple when he got his hands on said missile.
This is a point often overlooked (or intentionally ignored) by the latter day Pharisees who, like their 2000-years-dead philosophical brethren, would be sitting around that temple, quibbling over, oh, let's say circular definitions of when the Old Testament God says it's okay to slaughter people, while missing the entire message Jesus is said to have promoted (i.e., "don't be a dick").
Posted by: Gelf | August 7, 2007 05:21 PM
LOL, and He lets it rip into the Money Changers.
You might also note that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion for his military participation. Matter of fact, Jesus never condemned any soldier for being a soldier.
Which part of Matthew 5:9 do you think Jesus didn't actually mean? As a bit of a clue, invading another country based on a lie, bombing its population and occupying it is not generally considered "peacemaking" no matter how much a politician spins it.
You can either serve in the current-day US military, or be a real Christian - but not both. Maybe you could have been both before, and perhaps you might be both later, but at the moment the two are at odds.
Moses:
I'm not sure if you're addressing me directly, or the question of Biblical inerrancy... but you seem to have misunderstood the intent of my post. I don't know how to answer. I wasn't kidding, nor was I not-kidding.
I'm with you on the "cobbling", what I was getting at is the tendency for Christians to treat the Bible as either literally true, or for the most part as literally not-true but metaphorically "true". Their source is the KJV or some other edition that isn't even terribly close to the original cobbled version, and yet they view it as if it were somehow consistent, unified, and unimpeachable.
I'm not "worried" about why kill hasn't been changed to murder . In fact, I don't particularly care. I was simply asking, in the context of this discussion, this: If the distinction is so very important in understanding the true meaning of the commandment, then why is the wrong word printed in the vast proportion of English versions of the book?
Maybe the statement I made before I posed those questions will shed a little light on where I was coming from:
You can either serve in the current-day US military, or be a real Christian - but not both. Maybe you could have been both before, and perhaps you might be both later, but at the moment the two are at odds.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | August 7, 2007 05:33 PM
Now, what was it I said earlier about people picking and choosing verse?
Excuse me here.... but with tongue very firmly in cheek...
People pick, and people choose
(but don't pick god, or you will lose)!
But seriously, I'm with Kseniya: My analogy for this is that critique of the bible is like critique of an eitheenth century pre-schooler's sampler -- there are so many errors it's hard to know where to begin. The *intention* may be fine, and the *commitment* is certainly evident, but altogether, it just doesn't hang together as a cohesive or compelling work. We admire the effort - but we want the grown up version, please.
"No Pick! No Pick!" - Jerry Seinfeld
LOL
I *like* Jerry (but not in the biblical sense)!
Steve and Steve C are not the same.
I don't bother debating the bible. It's pointless.
We can spend eternity picking and choosing our quotes from the lousy book. It'll only go in circles.
Man had morals, laws and traditions before the Torah or the Bible existed.
And it will after man either goes the way of the dodo or shakes free of its superstitions.
The book is unnecessary as is religion.
after should be until.
I'm pretty sure I had a point. Not sure I made it.
OT -
Did anyone celebrate a masterpiece of science yesterday? It was the 6th of August.
Steve_C - I think I understood your point. to paraphrase:
It's a *really* good idea to let a bunch of tribal lore collected from bronze age mystics whose idea of total war was a guy with a sling dictate our behaviour in a global and highly technological society.
LOL @ "No pick!" I remember that one!
Yeah Tony, the Bible is sorta useless as a record of divine inspiration, though it's historically interesting and some of the stories are cool. What gets me is seeing people older and wiser than myself picking through it to find the good stuff, and then taking what they find and constructing interpretations which allow the material to be viewed as internally consistent (which it often is not) and not in conflict with the modern store of knowledge about the physical universe (which it often is).
That this pastime is so popular (outside fundamentalist spheres) amongst believers and clergy alike speaks to how "absolute" the Bible is... or should I say, is NOT.
Of course, none of this has much to do with the existence or non-existence of some kind of supreme being.
Anyways, yeah, the spread of religious insurgents dominionists throughout the higher echelons of government and military here in the USA is disturbing.
Not that there's anything...oh, screw it, THAT'S been done to death already.
Hmmm, Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC - 496 BC). And it's still taught militarily today.
[couldn't resist ;)]
Salt: Are you calling Prince's Purple Rain a masterpiece of science? =^O
Sun Tzu is ...
not a doctrine to 'live by' but a suite of options in early 'game theory'. Many more have been discovered since then, but when you're working with people whose idea of 'super smart' is challenged - you need to start with the basics.
What's the thoelogical equivalent of modern 'game theory'?
Also -- the 'art' of war was never constrained to be 'inerrant', so 'followers' have always sought opportunities to improve the art, as opposed to theology which is simply 'describing the pre-existing art'.
Salt: Are you calling Prince's Purple Rain a masterpiece of science? =^O
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 06:19 PM
Sorry Kseniya, I have never seen the movie nor do I know a thing about Prince.
Salt, you are truly missing out.
What's the thoelogical equivalent of modern 'game theory'?
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 06:26 PM
Book of Revelation?
j/k
I had a friend who was insanely *fond* of Prince -- I helped her paint her apartment. I could never wear those jeans, ever, ever, again.
Strangely I *still* like "raspberry beret" despite listening it for four entire days (essentially non-stop) during said painting... (we painted everything that was a fixture, and some things that weren't)
Salt:
I said 'game theory' not 'end-game theory'
;)
Hmmm, Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC - 496 BC). And it's still taught militarily today.
It probably wouldn't be, if he had written silly stuff about invincible iron chariots.
Don't these people read their own f*cking book? Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."
I guess I have my answer...
Now, what was it I said earlier about people picking and choosing verse?
Nothing. You spoke of a problem Christians had with the picking and choosing of verse to make a point, but since I'm not a Christian, I don't have a problem citing your book of fairy tales back to you as I see fit.
Wow tony and salt have been at this all day. Maybe people are influenced into believing anything. When they are young it is culture. TONY SAID: My confidence needs to be *earned*. I think it would be difficult for an imaginary being to earn my confidence without providing direct evidence that I should.
I think if there was a God he wouldn't have to provide evidence, I don't think God is something we will ever understand or comprehend. As crazy as it sounds God is beyond needing some sort of tangible evidence. Can you wrap your head around that.
Oh, sure, we can parse what your words mean; it's when you try to apply those words that they fall short.
The problem with your proposal is that "beyond" implies it has *surpassed* something. The concept of an omnipotent AND omniscient AND benevolent God or gods, on the other hand, does not even rise to the level of coherence, much less evidence. So it's got a long way to go in the basics before it (or you) can talk of going "beyond" the need for evidence.
Much, I might add, like the IDers want the panache of advanced science, but don't want to actually do any of the necessary work to get it.
redf: as thalarctos says - there's a big gap between your conception of a god, and your ability to convince me of it's existence.
I think if there was a God he wouldn't have to provide evidence
why the hell not?
What Would Jesus Do ... with a cruise missile?
Probably enlist for service on the USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705) (recall that cruise missiles require some infrastructure for use).
And then He'd find it odd to encounter demonstrations such as this one, though salt might assert it's based on misunderstandings of His teaching: Jesus vigils U.S. nuclear sub in Brisbane Port.
I recall that Christians are mostly well aware their religion is about individual behaviors, and silent on matters of social institutions and the State. This silence is usually explained as due to its founders' end-time perspective - they really thought the Second Coming would happen in their lives, as Jesus apparently promised. But here we are, two millennia later.
Thanks to several for accommodating my earlier comment. If I can just add...
I wouldn't expect PZ to alter his abrasive manner. My question is, how do you make a difference in the world? How do you encourage close-minded people to be reflective about their assumptions? Is it through demagoguery?
If I want to influence my religious friends to open their minds to science as a way of knowing, then it won't be through putting them down. There's enough hate-talk in the world, on both sides of the aisle.
What would Jesus do with a cruise missile?
Watch as it was taken away by the Romans.
How do you encourage close-minded people to be reflective about their assumptions?
if they are closed-minded then they are not receptive to ANY dialog.
if they are open-minded they'll listen to argument and evidence.
So I don't see where *passion* is in any way negative.
Religion is one* of the reasons I decided not to extend my contract with the military. It was frustrating to know I had been treated as almost a second class soldier, simply because I chose not to attend the Sunday services. Regardless of the fact that I could get more accomplished, because I didn't waste those hours hearing about their invisible friend.
They say there are no athiests in the foxholes, but that may be only because it's intimidating to 'out' yourself when everybody is armed.
*The other reason was that I did not want to die for oil. Yep, that's what I told the re-enlistment NCO.
Tony: You want to open your mind and figure out that is why people put faith into something. Why do you have to have evidence for God, there is not going to be evidence for God nor is thier going to be any evidence against God.
You ask why the hell not?
That is why there is faith. I know I didn't answer your question becuase I don't know the answer.
Why the hell would there not be a God?
I mentioned Purple Rain because I ran across it when I was looking for stuff that was published/released on August 6th of any year.
Prince was before my time, too - well, sorta, cuz he's still around, still cool, and my dad (a talented musician himself), though not a huge fan, is a staunch admirer and names Prince as one of the most prodigiously talented (if mercurial) pop-music figures of the past twenty-odd years. That sort of endorsement makes me sit up and listen.
Oh, another tidbit from my dad: He said that the best way to approach the movie is with the understanding that Rolling Stone named it Best Rock Movie and Worst Rock Movie of the year. LOL... Hot tunes, great live performance footage, but some cringe-worthy moments in the dramatic segments... Apparently. I dunno, myself, though - I haven't seen it yet.
Anyway, I failed to determine what masterpiece of science was published on August 6th of [some year]. Maybe Salt will be kind enough to enlighten me. :-)
Can you tell me where I can go to get the real word from god as to who's side he really is on ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:15 PM
God's on the side that wins, whichever one that is. Duh.
What Would Jesus Do ... with a cruise missile?
Yo, he'd cruise the barrio with his homies, know'tahmsay'n?
redf: you perhaps misunderstand the direction here.
You 'believe' in something without evidence. Fine. That's your prerogative. This 'belief without evidence' you choose to call faith.
You say
I ask you again - why the hell *should* there be?
So far we have not discovered ONE THING that would require a god. Anywhere. In anything. Not.One. In many hundreds of years of formal 'science' and many thousands of years of 'seeking order out of the natural world'.
No evidence of god. No evidencce of god's works. None!
Conveniently, all of the miraculous objects mentioned in religious stories are somehow lost or broken, and we poor humans must continue gamely on with mere replicas for comfort.
WTF?
There is not one single solitary piece of evidence that anyone can point me to - other than the delusions/revelations of their own mind - that suggest the existence of a god.
I'm frankly skeptical of the existence. And downright dubious about the need.
I'm waiting for your OT (or NT) god to cause PZ's server to meltdown and take all of us with it. (aren't we worse than the Sodomites, and don't we deserve worse? they just hung out in their little town and did their own thing. We do this in full view of everyone, and want people to join in!)
Want to guess why I'm not at all worried about *that* possibility?
The tooth fairy does exist! Evidence: I always got a quarter, and the tooth was always gone in the morning!
What would Jesus do for a Klondike bar?
Hydatidiform mole, acephaly and anencephaly, cyclopia, and Tay-Sachs, and that's just for starters. We can work our way term by term through the "Dysmorphia" section of the Nomina Embryologica, if you like, but you should be able to get my point from the examples above.
Should there be an omnipotent God, he is letting so many unfair and awful things happen to people who don't deserve it that---far from having already surpassed the need to explain or provide evidence for him to normal, decent, moral people---you're starting out way far behind the starting line, and have that much extra ground to make up for.
Man, hearing about an organization full of insane crackpots influencing our leaders makes me want to go undercover and destroy it from the inside.
Ever notice that when some people, believers or non-believers, talk about God, they start with the assumption that He has to be a socially insecure control freak.
thalarctos: Alright I looked at all those terrible birth disorders. It seems you are under the impression that if there is a God he would have to help people. Thats what most religions lead people to believe. Are you mad at God becuase everything bad in the world is his fault? God is supposed to fix everything. Well maybe becuase there are som many terrible things in the world it is "proof" that there is no God. God does not have to help anything, for the most part people create thier own problems, war, famine, deceit. Most people in the world are good and just want to live thier lives. But then the aholes that do bad things make such an impact on everything that they fuck everything up.
Tony: If God did somehow provide evidence for his existence then people would have knowledge of him. With knowledge thier would not be the faith anymore. Maybe there is something even beyond God and science that humans are not meant to know or comprehend. Have you ever considered that? I understand why there are athiests, christians, jews, muslims, etc. The answer can not be found.
Yes, that's the minimum expectation of a benevolent and omnipotent deity. If a human father treated his children the way this one is supposed to do, Child Protective Services would intervene.
I don't waste my time or energy being mad at the imaginary.
My point is that if you are making the extraordinary claim that a supposedly benevolent and omnipotent deity is treating his children so badly, yet it's ok because there's some "reason" behind it all, then you have an awfully large evidentiary burden up against you, to demonstrate that "reason" that makes it all right in the end.
You are nowhere near having met it, much less surpassed it, as you advocated in your earlier post.
I didn't mention anything about a reason for not helping people. If there was a reason it would be that God doesn't have to help people becuase people create there own problems.
"My point is that if you are making the extraordinary claim that a supposedly benevolent and omnipotent deity is treating his children so badly"
No not at all. God isn't treating anything good or bad, is what I basically said. God is not doing anything. Look I'll tell you what I believe in 1-3 sentences. I believe God(or some sort of ultimate power) created the universe, and the universe with all of its entropy went from there. People are who they are through evolution as well as any other plant/animal/protist/fungi/(those two types of)bacteria. And here we are today in our world full of people created problems.
Fair enough. And, as Voltaire observed, I'll defend to the death your right to believe that. (And just as an aside, the God who the religious right is currently trying to force on our political system is not the God you describe, either.)
At the same time, I personally believe that any God who has the capability to create a universe ex nihilo, but who then can't be bothered to arse himself to relieve suffering in his creation, isn't a God I consider worth worshipping. For example, if I see a stranger trip and fall, I stop and help him or her, even if it does make me a little late to where I'm going. God, however, can't be bothered for his children he supposedly loves, because he's got better things to do?
In that case, he can leave me alone and I'll leave him alone, and we'll get along just fine without each other. If he's got a problem with that, he knows how he needs to improve his performance. If and when I see any evidence that he's making an effort, I'll re-evaluate my position then.
How did we create Tay-Sachs disease, and rabies, and West Nile disease? I'll give you environmental estrogens, cigarette smoking, melamine, and other pollutions, as well as lifestyle diseases like obesity, but I'm not seeing how, for example, lymphatic filariasis is our fault.
sorry about guessing wrong, Kseniya; it's not even any of my business, really, although I appreciate your willingness to discuss such a personal subject.
normally, I wouldn't engage in public speculation like that, but I was trying to come up with specific counterexamples to defend myself against an accusation, which is the only reason I indulged in guessing about beliefs.
Thalarctos, I think the very last thing you owe me is an apology, though I appreciate it and the spirit in which it is offered, and I believe that I completely understand what you were saying and why. I took it as a compliment, anyways. (I'm very pleased you think I'm not-stupid - LOL. But seriously, I am.)
Anyways, I'm not easily offended by such things, especially given that I've kept quiet about it. *shrug*
In a word: No biggie. Oops, that's two words. In two words, then: Not a big deal. Oh crap. In four words: It's really not a problem.
ACK!
well, theractelos, god would not necessarily want to make the world perfect. Really, you think about it and you will realize that is better to experience things through your own mistakes.
If you do not find that argument valid, then i would ask you this question. Would you rather prevent a child from hurting himself by telling him not to do something or would you allow him to make his own mistakes so that he would have his own reasons for not doing something rather than listening to somne power that is "greater" than he is. That would provide him with some sort of logical thought/reason, but he would not have a BASIC reason for not doing something. He would be like a mindless drone. Interference in the world would make humans ultimately inexperienced and naive. Depressing, no?
I think if there was a God he wouldn't have to provide evidence
why the hell not?
You ask why the hell not well, the reason that God wouldn't provide evidence because proving that he would exist would totally defeat the purpose of believing in God. Why would he need to provide you with evidence? he does not need you to believe him, whehter or not you believe him is up to you. He either exists or he doesn't. It varies from one person to another.
well, theractelos, god would not necessarily want to make the world perfect. Really, you think about it and you will realize that is better to experience things through your own mistakes.
If you do not find that argument valid, then i would ask you this question. Would you rather prevent a child from hurting himself by telling him not to do something or would you allow him to make his own mistakes so that he would have his own reasons for not doing something rather than listening to somne power that is "greater" than he is. That would provide him with some sort of logical thought/reason, but he would not have a BASIC reason for not doing something. He would be like a mindless drone. Interference in the world would make humans ultimately inexperienced and naive. Depressing, no?
I think if there was a God he wouldn't have to provide evidence
why the hell not?
You ask why the hell not well, the reason that God wouldn't provide evidence because proving that he would exist would totally defeat the purpose of believing in God. Why would he need to provide you with evidence? he does not need you to believe him, whehter or not you believe him is up to you. He either exists or he doesn't. It varies from one person to another.
because proving that he would exist would totally defeat the purpose of believing in God.
And exactly what IS the purpose of "believing" in God?
.
Why? He apparently sent Jesus to Galilee, gave stone tablets to Moses, and talks to George Bush. Why's he gotta be so coy with everyone else?
It would seem that he does want people to believe in him (and moreso, to do what he wants). A deity who really didn't care wouldn't bother performing miracles, burning bushes, and knocking up virgins.
Queb: The "learning through ones own mistakes" argument has some merit, but completely fails to address the question of diseases and birth-defects. Are you saying that these things are the result of our "mistakes"? Say what? If you're drilling down to some kind of original sin argument, please don't waste your time.
Yes, experiencing tragedy and loss can teach us about coping with tragedy and loss, but if the lessons are coming from God the point is lost on me - for ultimately all we learn is that God wants us to learn about tragedy and loss for no apparent reason.
If you do not find that argument valid, then let me ask you a question: Would you smack your kid around and kill his siblings, friends, or pets so that he could learn what it was like to be smacked around and have someone kill his siblings, friends, and pets?
Going with the parent-child metaphor, here... The problem with God is that he never allows us to grow up - nor does he want us to. Sure, we have free will, but in the end, we either toe the line or we spend eternity in a state of unspeakable agony. No?
I don't know about you, but I'd want my children to grow up healthy and happy, not fearful or me or of life in general, and to be as well-equipped as possible to live their lives independent of me - and, as adults, to be able to meet me as an equal.
The Christian God apparently has other plans for us, so the parent-child metaphor falls down rather badly in the end, doesn't it? As do the "God is making us suffer so we can learn" arguments.
Queb: It's also pretty interesting that you're arguing that the purpose of god's imperfect world is so that we think for ourselves instead of listening to some power "greater" than ourselves. It's pretty short leap from there to this: "God wants us all to be atheists."
I'm just sayin'...
If your argument here is that babies who experience being born without heads or brains or with their organs outside of their bodies tend not to make that mistake a second time, then I guess I have to concede your point.
Whew. Very pithy, that. :-)
(Pssst... Thalarctos... didja see comment #205 above?)
yes--seeing others suffering needlessly tends to pith me off :).
I did--thank you, Kseniya. You have (or are) what my Khmer friends call "chet l'aa" ("good heart"), and they don't mean that cardiologically, either.
So, getting this back on topic, just when was there a military that was not overtly religious? Okay, maybe communist China or the Soviet Union (maybe - but I doubt it). Someone well-versed in philosophy could probably make the necessary moral shifts to deal with war, but that's not really practical in a general sense.
Honestly, if you're going to go around killing scads of people, while dealing with the near-random probability that you could die at any moment, then religion looks pretty nice. If you judge religion (any religion) to be nothing more than moral whitewash to cover up the particularly nasty business of war, then why would it surprise you to see religion pushed in the military?
As one person noted, would you really want a non-violent Buddhist manning the trigger? Of course not! You want someone that is perfectly okay with launching a weapon that turns humans into hamburger. A fire-and-brimstone, soul-cleansing religion is just the ticket for such situations.
Separation of Church and State is a fine idea, and I highly recommend it, but separation of Church and the Military? I doubt it would work even if you could make it happen. Just make sure your military makes their first duty obedience to the State, and you'll be fine. Assuming, of course, that you can keep God out of your State.
I don't waste my time or energy being mad at the imaginary.
You seem to waste time blaming the imaginary to make your point.
And about all the diseases, yeah they aren't people's fault. We did not create them, for whatever genetic defect,mutation, etc, the diseases came about naturally. Which is out of ones control. That doesn't mean nothing should be done about just becuase it appears we can't do anything about it. Through research and tests maybe a cure can be found. Just have to have a little "faith" if you want to cure those diseases.
The thing about religion everyone has thier own reasons for believing in it. A large part is putting faith into something. And by now I am sure my arguement has changed a lot. But it does not really matter what others believe. Its not like you have to live by what religious nuts think. In this country as well as many others you can decide what to believe in freely. But you don't need me to tell you that.