Heard a talk-radio host this morning speaking derogatorily of recent Ft Hood mass-murderer Hasan's self-description as "Muslim first, American second". He wasn't thinking very straight, which is, in my lengthy experience, very typical among conservative talk-show hosts when they talk religion. They virtually always get it wrong, to my frustration. I myself am a Christian first, a Baptist churchman second, and an American third. It all comes down to the content of the doctrine, not its priority, as to whether I am thus a danger to society and subject to governmental repression of my religious beliefs which admittedly come before my allegiance to my country. So here's a quick comparison chart:
| Islam | Atheism | Biblical Christianity | |
| Objective moral authority? | Yes | No | Yes |
| Obligation to put allegiance to religion before allegiance to country? | Yes | N/A. On atheism, there is no obligation to do anything. | Yes |
| How are you supposed to treat enemies? | Kill them | However you want. | Love them and pray for them (Matthew 5:44-45) |
| Under what circumstances is it OK to kill people? | If they're unbelievers and won't submit to Islam or pay submission tax | Whenever you want. | As a soldier in a just war; as an executor of just capital punishment as part of a legitimate gov't; in self- defense and in defense of others who are defenseless |
| Founder have a history of killing people and making war to advance worldview? | Very yes. | N/A | No, He got unjustly killed to advance His worldview. |
| Suicide bombers? | Quite a lot | No | No |
20 comments:
Nice chart. I'm interested in which Conservative talk show host it was, as I am a talk radio buff.
Chris Baker, I'm pretty sure, standing in for Glenn Beck today.
They all do it, though. I haven't found one yet, local or nat'l, who doesn't royally screw up church/state talk.
Far be it for me to defend Islam--and I shall not--but Christianity, too, has its share of blood-drenched divine commands. The Old Testament, in both Deuteronomy and Joshua, recounts god-endorsed genocide in order to capture the Promised Land.
You might consider yourself a Christian in the New Testament covenant, but you are hardly an exponent of Marcionism, which, if you supported it, would liberate you from the violence and bloodshed of the Hebrew texts.
JN,
We've been over that I don't know how many times.
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/breakin-law-breakin-law.html
Actually, I think that kind of misses my point.
My point is that at some time, in some place, in some circumstance, god commanded genocide. In Deuteronomy and Joshua, god did not merely endorse genocide but, indeed, explicitly commanded it. The imperative for genocide might no longer be active, but the historical existence of the command remains a salient point.
Why else would Marcion disown Yahweh and the OT except because he found the Hebrew texts distasteful and unworthy of Jesus' god?
at some time, in some place, in some circumstance, god commanded genocide
Yes, at specific times and specific places. Not anymore.
Why else would Marcion disown Yahweh and the OT except because he found the Hebrew texts distasteful and unworthy of Jesus' god?
B/c he didn't understand the OT. Or the NT.
And the imperative for Islam exists NOW and presumably unto perpetuity.
And the people who God wiped out...not really great guys.
I merely wanted to emphasize the point that your god is the kind of god who, sometimes, commands his people to commit genocide. Again, this is not to say he commands it always, or commands it currently, or a genocidal imperative still exists. Nevertheless, your god is the kind who, on occasion, commands genocide.
And, since, on Christianity, morality flows directly from god's nature, that means, in some cases, genocide is righteous. That is, one can exterminate a group, righteously.
And the people who God wiped out...not really great guys.
on Christianity I thought everyone was a bad person, hence the need to accept Jesus as saviour?
Yes, at specific times and specific places. Not anymore.
But he still basically did exactly the same thing that the Muslim suicide bombers say they've been called on to do in the current age? What's the real difference other than the latter could potentially affect you but the former wouldn't/didn't?
either way, I have to say that chart is quite cool - I'm amazed blogger.com has such technology given that it seems to struggle to accept posts over 100 characters long these days!
That is, one can exterminate a group, righteously.
Correct. If God directly tells you to, it would be objectively wrong to refuse. But God isn't doing that anymore, for His own reasons, not b/c He's embarrassed or something.
on Christianity I thought everyone was a bad person, hence the need to accept Jesus as saviour?
Yes, but there's bad and then there's bad. The Bible presents everyone as needing Jesus as Savior but others as even worse, earning more specific and more aggravated wrath thru their actions. And yet God in mercy often withholds His just judgment, but not forever.
But he still basically did exactly the same thing that the Muslim suicide bombers say they've been called on to do in the current age?
No, there's no parallel in the Bible to suicide bombers.
And yeah, blogger keeps getting worse and worse, it's funny. But the table is a simple (start bracket) table class="chart" (end bracket) chart. I think you can experiment on your own blog, you don't have to publish it. :-)
Would you entertain the possibility that god might condescend tomorrow and command his children to exterminate all homosexuals or, perhaps, all Muslims?
No, b/c of the nature of the future prophetic nature of Christ's Parousia (2nd coming) and the fact that redemptive history is waiting only on that event.
However, if a gov't were to come into being that were based more closely on OT Law and thus passed laws (by due process) that would enforce capital punishment against homosexuals, I'd have less than no problem with that. Capital punishment for practicing Islam, I'd be less in agreement with that, but I'm not sure why, haha. :-D I don't have the best-worked-out church/state philosophy...
Would you say god is constrained, then, from condescending tomorrow to deliver a message? Or is he able, but simply has no intention to do so?
Can you be 100%, infallibly certain of god's intentions vis-a-vis his own potential actions?
Yes, I'd say that word fits. Constrained by His own plan - He has ordained everythg that ever will come to pass from eternity ago, and this plan is perfect, so there's no reason to change it.
I'd say one can be fallibly and sufficiently certain that one has understood God's infallible plan vis-à-vis His own potential actions (let "potential" here mean "yet in the future from the human perspective").
He has ordained everythg that ever will come to pass from eternity ago....
Was this part of what god ordained from eternity ago?
The screwdriver Heidnik settled on promptly ended up in the ear of the nearest immobilised captive. Gripping the handle firmly, he twisted the sharp metal deep enough to penetrate the eardrum. He followed the same routine with the other girls, whose muffled, agonized screams endured for some time. Josefina Rivera looked on as Heidnik did this.
* Taken from New Criminologist, the online journal of criminology.
Yes.
What should horrify anyone reading this is that, if the Jolly Nihilist's worldview is true, the suffering and torment described there is 100% meaningless.
On my worldview, this is an evil act and justice will be poured out in its fullness onto the offender. Not on atheism - he goes to the same place as Mother Teresa. And you. That is, nowhere.
The whole concept of divine punishment for sins and "evil acts" strikes me as very strange.
In this string, you noted that god ordained everything that ever will come to pass from eternity ago. When I cited Gary Heidnik and particular violent actions he undertook, you affirmed that those actions, too, were part of what god ordained from eternity ago.
To me, this sounds an awful lot like we humans are mere thespians, mindlessly performing god's infinity-old script. All our actions have been ordained from forever ago. Obviously, on Christianity, no mere human has the ability to violate god's will--the will of god is inviolable. Thus, Heidnik could not do anything except what he did do, because, as you affirmed, those specific actions were part of what god ordained from eternity ago.
To punish Heidnik, or anybody else, for acting out the script seems not much different from actually executing somebody who, in an acting role, commits a murder.
Good show ol' chap.
But I believe that atheists invented suicide bombing--que no?
aDios,
Mariano
I wasn't aware of that. To what do you refer?
The Communist “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam” aka “Tamil Tigers.”
Established in the 1970s, they committed 168 suicide bombings between 1980-2000.
They murder innocent civilians in their attacks upon commuter trains, buses, villages, temples and mosques, they recruit child soldiers, assassinate political figures, engage in ethnic cleansing and execute POW.
They are credited with inventing the "suicide vest."
aDios,
Mariano
Post a Comment