Well actually …

Charles Wooley makes these contradictory statements in the Australian:

And I would have replied that I remember Christians indiscriminately blowing up innocent civilians during the so-called Troubles in Northern Ireland. They believed God was on their side, so any atrocity was ­justified. And then my mission­aries would have argued that their God was a God of love and I would have argued that the fanatical clerics of the Irish Republican Army and the Unionists would have said that too.

But he also claims:

Not for a moment am I saying all believers will kill you for their faith but clearly all people who kill for their faith are believers, even though probably deranged.

This is after missionaries turned up at his door. Herein lies a serious problem. He wants to hold any and every Christian accountable for the criminal and murderous behaviour of terrorists who claim religious inspiration for their actions. It is clearly ludicrous. Yet there are many who make precisely the same claim about Muslims.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Terrorism, Tough on Crime, tough on criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Well actually …

  1. Infidel Tiger

    The IRA were not motivated by religion.

    They were a crime a gang fighting a turf war.

  2. closeapproximation

    Islamists are a global crime gang fighting a turf war for minds and hearts.

  3. eb

    Sinc, fer starters, Islam is not Christianity.

    Killing the unbeliever will get you into Muslim heaven, but not into Christian heaven.

  4. Roger

    The IRA was a political movement inspired by republicanism and socialism, not religion.

    Next…

  5. struth

    This is a very dishonest statement.
    The IRA were not killing people based on them not being catholics.

    They were fighting a turf war regarding governance of their areas.
    A totally different scenario and very dishonest to conflate the two.

  6. john constantine

    Isn’t the main activity of the clinging rump of the ira now smuggling black market tobacco?.

    Like climate change insiders, the top level of the ira saw a niche to cream a great living without ever having to work for it, by exploiting passionate cannon fodder.

  7. herodotus

    Christians are encouraged to be good and not kill unless involved in a just war. They are encouraged to be nice to everyone. Christian exhortation to accept Jesus is not done with menace or threat of murder. There is no policy on rejection or apostasy.

    The Muslim instruction book has encouraged a small percentage to kill for no other purpose than domination, and a disturbingly large percentage of adherents to that faith show no inclination to reform it. The mindset of conversion is quite different, as is the injunction against apostasy.

    Any attempt to draw parallels between these religions is doomed to failure. Any attempt to make us less suspicious of muslims is taking on a big task in view of the track record of even the so-called moderates, who often turn out to be more correctly described as apologists, or who are downright misleading.

    Even the most “moderate” seem to be often in the news with special pleading of some sort, be it prayer spaces or time off from work for prayer, or segregation of public swimming pools. How are we to judge who are the real moderates and who are the potential jihadis if not by observance of things like devoutness, which seems to be an indicator. The recent vilification of Imam Tawhidi by both muslims and the ABC, when he dared to say some reform might be a good idea, is disappointing.

  8. lotocoti

    In the argot of Norn Iron, Wooley is a feckin ijit.
    Deity franchise had nothing to do with The Troubles.

  9. Marcus

    Look, for anyone who thinks the IRA were fighting for religious ends and not political ones, just ask yourselves why they were called the IRA and not the CRA.

    Stonewall Jackson was famously religious, and (at least as portrayed by Stephen Lang) believed God was on his side too, but is anyone really going to argue on that basis that the American Civil War was a religious conflict, and not a political one?

  10. H B Bear

    Roger +1. Pretty sure that the Bible doesn’t mention anything about killing Irishmen. Or being rewarded when you do.

  11. arrrr

    Sinc, if you want to settle this then get some data that covers a significant amount of the general population as well as a set of actual and thwarted terrorists in Australia over the last 10 years or so.

    Run a logistic regression with the dependent variable being “is a terrorist” and the following independent variables:
    – is a muslim,
    – is a buddist,
    – is a christian,
    – was a refugee,
    – parents were a refugee,
    – has a middle eastern background,
    – has a european background,
    – has a Chinese background,
    Also include cross products of these variables.

    Let us know what variables turn out to be “significant”

  12. Tim Neilson

    and I would have argued that the fanatical clerics of the Irish Republican Army and the Unionists would have said that too.

    This bloke is a rolled gold fantasist. Every member of the clergy in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, condemned terrorism. Even Big Ian, who was in favour of organised Protestant militia being ready for a war according to the Geneva rules of warfare, never got within a trillion light years of condoning terrorism.

    I don’t think it’s entirely true to say that religion had nothing to do with the Troubles. Certainly the Unionists didn’t want to live in a society where, for example, single pregnant women were routinely refused passports in case they were going to a country where abortion was legal, as was the case in the Republic of Ireland in those days. But probably many of the Catholics weren’t keen on that either.

    Undoubtedly religion was largely a historical hangover rather than an immediate cause. From my experience of Belfast the locals refer to the Unionist/Nationalist divide as a “political” difference, not a “religious” one.

  13. Mrs Beardsley

    Uh, how many people did Jesus behead?
    Which of the Ten Commandments says to kill the unbeliever?
    Which of the TC’s says to beat your wife until she complies?
    Which of the TC’s exhorts Christians to lie to advance the cause of Christianity?

  14. Zippy Cov me FeFe

    Enlighten us, where did Christ say that Christians can cut off the fingertips and heads of non-believers?

  15. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    And if we actively promoted atheism, as a lot of journalists and letter-writers suggest, which brand of Atheism? Mao’s (50,000,000 dead and still tallying up the score) Hitler’s? (world War 2) Stalin’s? (tens of millions?) Pol Pot? (millions?).

  16. Marcus Classis

    The IRA were mostly devour Marxists. It’s one reason the USSR supported them.

  17. Warty

    One additional point, perhaps the majority of the IRA were very far from being Christian, let alone believers. These guys were sectarian first and foremost. Belfast were divided along Catholic and Protestant lines, yes, but those involved in the violence were not believers.
    One of the main aspects Charles Wooley (headed) overlooks, is the difference between the Qur’an and the New Testament, the former explicitly directing Muslims to kill infidels. There are no such injunctions in the NT.

  18. J.H.

    The Irish Troubles were not about proselytizing religion via the sword, it was about Irish republicanism. Religion was secondary after reunification. There was far more Socialist ideology with the IRA than Catholicism when it came to the political rhetoric of the period.

    Trying to liken the Irish Troubles to Islamofascism is missing the point entirely.

  19. .

    Marcus Classis
    #2398257, posted on June 2, 2017 at 11:14 am
    The IRA were mostly devour Marxists. It’s one reason the USSR supported them.

    Amazing that the USSR didn’t back the UK. They went so far to the left during and after WWII they never really recovered.

    “Right wing!!1” Maggie Thatcher had a PIT capped at 60% and it started off at a whopping 30%.

  20. .

    The IRA were not motivated by religion.

    They were a crime a gang fighting a turf war.

    Definitely true now. All they care about now is evading the Inland Revenue, not the liberation of Belfast. La Paddy Nostra.

  21. jupes

    Wow, Sinc trolling.

    Playing down the danger Islam poses to the west is stupid and dangerous.

  22. Viva

    He wants to hold any and every Christian accountable for the criminal and murderous behaviour of terrorists who claim religious inspiration for their actions. It is clearly ludicrous. Yet there are many who make precisely the same claim about Muslims.

    Even during the Troubles I don’t recall people thinking that all Irishmen were terrorists. However, they could rightly accuse them of being a breeding ground for sectarian hatred.

  23. Dr Faustus

    He wants to hold any and every Christian accountable for the criminal and murderous behaviour of terrorists who claim religious inspiration for their actions. It is clearly ludicrous. Yet there are many who make precisely the same claim about Muslims.

    Including Charles Wooley.

    It’s a garbled piece of writing, but Wooley appears to be making the point that anyone who holds a religious belief in an afterlife is accountable for the behaviour of terrorists acting in the name of their religion – and the sub-point that in terms of acceptable Western social behaviour, Islam is about 300 years behind Christianity.

  24. Rebel with cause

    Bit of a difference between some secular troubles largely confined to Ireland, with a bit of spillover to the UK, and the global spate of Muslim terrorist attacks.

    One suggests a peculiar local phenomenon, the other suggests a problem that goes to the core of the faith.

  25. Tintarella di Luna

    Relativism is a mental illness

  26. Habib

    The IRA was (and still is) a motley collective of drunken Marxists and outright criminals. The myth that it was a cattle tick v proddy dog conflict was entirely manufactured, and a great way for the meeja to downplay the commintern angle, likewise the involvement of Boston bogtrotters in enabling the boyos to bomb away, and ambush unarmed squaddies. And when Thatcher let the lead off SFO and they were treated as such, all of a sudden “the troubles” went quiet and they wanted to negotiate- pity it happened before the likes of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would up in the boot of an Austin Allegro.

  27. rickw

    And I would have replied that I remember Christians indiscriminately blowing up innocent civilians during the so-called Troubles in Northern Ireland. They believed God was on their side, so any atrocity was ­justified. And then my mission­aries would have argued that their God was a God of love and I would have argued that the fanatical clerics of the Irish Republican Army and the Unionists would have said that too.

    Highly disingenuous, the actions of the IRA had very little to do with religion and everything to do with Nationalism. There was also no Biblical doctrine that supported there actions where as virtually the entire Koran is devoted to the concept of jihad.

    He’s not just dumb, he’s a muslim apologist.

  28. iain russell

    Generally, I find Scotsmen to be logical, coherent, well-educated, well-balanced individuals. Arran gave us an exception. On the other hand, he was raised in Tasmania.

  29. Benaud

    The PIRA were a organised crime gang (mainly protection racket) with a bit of Marxism.

    There is a reason they signed a peace agreement after the Iron Curtain came down

  30. Y

    Where there is no Islam, there is no Islamic terrorism.

    This continues to be a mystery.

  31. Jessie

    jupes reply @ 11.38
    Wow, Sinc trolling. (Filbert @9.49)
    Playing down the danger Islam poses to the west is stupid and dangerous.

    Tintarella de Luna @ 12.12
    Relativism is a mental illness

    Moral relativism is a serious mental illness.

    cf Sinclair trolling with Warren Mundine on the Uluru Statement

    It seems to me that a lack of economic opportunity drives a lot of indigenous disadvantage and social dislocation. If a treaty (or treaties) approach were to drive or attract economic activity towards indigenous communities it is, at least, well-worth exploring the idea.

  32. fhb

    The Irish terrorist atrocities were carried out with the purpose of changing the politics in Northern Ireland by the IRA . This is exactly what the Muslim terrorists are doing.

    Both groups are vile and deserve no respect whatsoever.

    There is one major difference between thew two. The Muslims holy books actually instruct their devout followers to do this whereas the Catholics’ holy books give no such instruction.

  33. Defender of the faith

    Let’s be specific. The principal support for the propaganda and finance of Islamist terror groups is Saudi. It is their money and their Wahhabism that is dispropriate in its association with violence. This is especially true in Iraq, Syria and Libya. But the reach is growing as they fund a widening network. Yet Trump and others encourage them. At least the Indonesian government has begun to squeeze its agents.

  34. PoliticoNT

    The article is a piece of shit.

  35. Sisipus

    If you think thatChristianity and Islam is the same. Would you care to show me anywhere in the Bible,where it is permissable for a Man to take a nursing baby to use in “thighing” (Google it) Only then will I apologize to members of that horrid faith.

  36. What a pompous prick Wooley is! I actually felt quite sorry for the evangelists that he so rudely slammed the door on.

    Like most Lefties he imputes only selfish motives to them viz “brownie” points to get into heaven. At least they they practise what they preach – unlike people like Wooley who not only fail to understand real charity and humility, but project their own hostility and shortcomings onto others.

  37. duncanm

    .. the IRA was funded by staunch Catholic countries like those in South America, Spain, Italy and the Vatican, vocally supported by many Catholic Bishops and Archbishops and their cause was promoted in many Catholic churches.

    Oh .. … wait.

  38. lily

    iain russell
    Don’t judge all Tasmanian’s by Charles Wooley’s standards.

  39. .

    Defender of the faith
    #2398469, posted on June 2, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Well said.

  40. Fisky

    The US has tens of millions of Irishmen living in it. But virtually no Irish terrorism during the Troubles. Does anyone seriously believe it would be no different if they had tens of millions of Muslims??? No, there would be bombs going off every week.

  41. notafan

    Wooley just made the whole thing about the IRA up.

    In recent months the Irish Republican Army has terrorized England with many a bombing. Last week the Roman Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales unlimbered its biggest gun against the I.R. A.—threat of excommunication. In a statement read in all Catholic churches in Britain, the hierarchy declared: “Among the causes of the present unrest are workings of certain secret societies. The church sternly condemns all societies which plot against the church or state. They are guilty of crime against human society. Members of such secret societies incur excommunication.”

    Not the firs, nor will he be the last

    The IRA were excommunicated in 1939, yes 1939

  42. notafan

    The violence, death and suffering of the Troubles was not confined to Northern Ireland. In the 1970s the Irish Republican Army (IRA) initiated a campaign of terrorist violence in England, bombing a number of military and civilian targets there. From a Provisional IRA perspective the mainland campaign, as it was dubbed, had several objectives. Shifting some of the paramilitary violence of the Troubles offshore reduced the dangers to Irish civilians and IRA volunteers. It also exported some of the suffering felt in Northern Ireland to the English heartland. Like most political terrorism, the mainland campaign was also designed to make the British people feel unsafe, to create a climate of fear and generate public and media pressure on the British government.


    Unlike now no-one bothered with stupid death by refrigerator analogies

  43. Tim Neilson

    If you go into a Loyalist pub in Belfast you won’t see any religious imagery.
    I suppose though that that may not mean a lot since Protestants aren’t always heavily into that kind of stuff.

    But if you go into a Nationalist pub (not just a pub in a Catholic area, but one which is all “Nationalist”) you won’t see any religious imagery either. You’ll see only the kind of whiny sub-adolescent Che Guevara type masturbation fantasies that you’d get at a university political meeting.

  44. notafan

    Interesting to compare the reactions to the 1939 IRA bombings to reaction to islamic terrorism today.

    In sad scenes at Liverpool‟s Princes landing Stage, families gathered to bid farewell to relatives deported on steamships under the new terror legislation. Forced to leave against a backdrop of hostility, many lost jobs and property acquired over years of working in England. While people crowded on to the packed last sailing to Ireland on the evening of 27 July 1939 (the day before the Prevention of Violence Act came into force) the slippery Liverpool IRA chief Deegan made good his escape. Clutching a ticket
    bought in someone else‟s name, he managed to break past the police line and make it onto the gangway
    just as it was being raised. The ship‟s officers, thinking him a mere latecomer, refused the police permission to make an arrest and Deegan was able to sail away to safety.

    52


    Fear and Loathing in Liverpool

  45. Combine Dave

    So we should ban IRA bombers and Islamist terrorists.

    Moral equivalency achieved.

  46. Combine Dave

    In sad scenes at Liverpool‟s Princes landing Stage, families gathered to bid farewell to relatives deported on steamships under the new terror legislation. Forced to leave against a backdrop of hostility, many lost jobs and property acquired over years of working in England.

    This is needed again now.

  47. Habib

    Taigs love Marxism, they used to blame their misfortune on Beelzebub and his minions, now they can blame it on oppressive colonialists. Instead of them mostly being dumb and lazy. Which is why we’re rooted, there’s a heap of the sods and their descendants here, and they lurve politics. The ALP would’ve never gotten off the ground without them.

  48. test pattern

    Wooley simply makes the point that I have made here for a year, a point that is a perennial concern in all security services: can religious ie superstitious individuals ever be assessed as rational actors.

  49. iampeter

    Uh, how many people did Jesus behead?
    Which of the Ten Commandments says to kill the unbeliever?
    Which of the TC’s says to beat your wife until she complies?
    Which of the TC’s exhorts Christians to lie to advance the cause of Christianity?

    Sure, but do you remember what the punishment is for breaching the TC’s according to the bible? We’re not just talking beheading, we’re talking wiping out entire cities, families and ethnic groups.
    Also note the order of the commandments and the corresponding severity.
    Also ask yourself if aside from the do not kill and steal commandments (which even tribal societies had on one level or another), which of the remaining commandments have any place in a free society?
    Also note that the Islamic faith doesn’t have anything as horrifying as the crucifix, the symbol of an innocent man suffering and dying for the sins of others in their religion, while this somehow remains the most significant symbol of Christianity.

    Don’t get me wrong, Islam is definitely the more warlike of the Abrahamic religions but Christianity is still very death worship-y and utterly incompatible with human life and prosperity.

    The only difference that really matters between Islam and Christianity is thankfully most Christians today do not take their religion seriously, which allows us to peacefully coexist.

    And if we actively promoted atheism, as a lot of journalists and letter-writers suggest, which brand of Atheism?

    How about instead of promoting religion or just atheism itself, we agree to promote reason instead?

  50. Haidee

    Most Christians today do take their religion seriously. More so, in countries other than our own.

  51. notafan

    Old testament history of the Israelites blah blah blah
    The OT, is not an instruction manual, but confusing to the willfully ignorant I suppose.

    You do know that Christ is God don’t you Iampeter? It sorta kinda makes a difference.

    and fyi muslims love a good crucifixion, even today.

    Ten commandments

    “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.
    “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.””
    “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”
    “Thou shalt not kill.”
    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
    “Thou shalt not steal.”
    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”
    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

    You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between morality and legality.

    Also Mo and his boys have no problem with lying stealing adultery etc as long as whatever they desire belongs to non muslims

    Also reason and faith are not opposites.

  52. Tim Neilson

    test pattern
    #2398667, posted on June 2, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    Dogmatic atheism.

    A mental deficiency which causes the belief that:
    (1) there is no non-material reality that can influence this universe [i.e. God];
    (2) i.e. this universe consists solely of matter and energy;
    (3) however, the tiny and transient scrap of configured matter and energy that comprises the dogmatic atheist is capable of having things called “thoughts” which have some sort of validity other than merely being biochemical phenomena occurring within the material structure of the dogmatic atheist;
    (4) in fact not only that but those thoughts are capable of validating the non-existence of anything in the whole universe other than the matter and energy capable (in principle) of physical verification of which the dogmatic atheist represents a minute evanescent sample.

    Only a nanosecond’s logical thought should be necessary to perceive the psychotic megalomania in dogmatic atheism but somehow the dogmatic atheists themselves can’t seem to do so.

    (I can fully understand an atheist who says that there’s no definite proof of God – the Christian scriptures would confirm that since they say we have to live partly by faith – and that therefore religious belief depends on perceptive judgement beyond fact and logic, and their own perceptive judgement precludes them believing. That is unarguable. But that kind of atheist doesn’t pretend to have a universal – dare I say Godlike? – knowledge of reality.)

  53. .

    You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between morality and legality.

    Neither does the electorate. 🙁

    Sad.

  54. Chris

    The OT, is not an instruction manual, but confusing to the willfully ignorant I suppose.

    Yes. It is really confusing to the atheist who wishes to feel superior because he doesn’t execute people who wear mixed fibre clothing, eat crayfish or refuse correction from their father . Like all Christians would, because he has seen two thousand years of Christians and another thousand years fo Jews acting like that. Right?

    /sarc

  55. Tim Neilson

    iampeter
    #2398684, posted on June 2, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    There’s one important difference which is well known to Christians (and I expect to Dues).

    Every command by God in the Old Testament (there are none in the New Testament) for His people to commit what we would regard as atrocities was very specific as to time and place. Every general instruction God gives to His people requires justice mercy and kindness to all including the foreigner and the powerless.

    Which is why you just don’t get Christian clergy advocating terrorism the way the Muslim clerics do.

    Yes, the crucifixion was horrible but that’s the point. It was God voluntarily sacrificing Himself, not inflicting punishment on someone else.

    PS why do you think that “bearing false witness against your neighbour” is cool in a free society?

  56. iampeter

    You do know that Christ is God don’t you Iampeter? It sorta kinda makes a difference.

    Yea in that he kinda has to own the crazier parts of the Israeli Old Testament as well. Not sure this helps your argument.

    and fyi muslims love a good crucifixion, even today.

    Yes this is true, I’m not saying Islam is less violent, I’m saying it’s followers today take it more seriously than Christians take their creed.

    You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between morality and legality.

    One of my favorite topics. So firstly by definition, you cannot have moral commandments. Morality is a code of values to help you make the right choices for the purpose of living your life. It has to be accepted by choice. It’s voluntary.

    The Ten Commandments are literally commands from a supernatural dictator. This is not moral, nor is any morality possible to be derived from it. It’s the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head. You’re a victim, no longer in control of your destiny.

    Secondly, while morality is about how you should live your life, legality is how you should live your life among other people. Basically it’s the application of morality to a social context. So the big question for those who think the Ten Commandments are a good thing is: how do you support a rights protecting legal system when morally you believe in the obedience of totalitarian commands from a supernatural dictator?

    Also reason and faith are not opposites.

    Oh yes they are. Literal opposites. Reason is the non-contradictory integration of information provided by your senses. Faith is accepting something because someone says so, or because someone wrote so (ie there is no reason to do so, but you choose to do so anyway).

    To the extent you are going by reason you are rejecting faith and to the extent you are operating on faith you are rejecting reason, but you can never do both at the same time.

  57. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Iampater, good Christians would live by Jesus’ preferred commandment, to treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself. Mohammedism does not have any such commandment. How are they equal?

  58. Tim Neilson

    Yea in that he kinda has to own the crazier parts of the Israeli Old Testament as well. Not sure this helps your argument.

    It mightn’t help it but it doesn’t harm it either, to anyone capable of thinking logically. Christian belief has never been dependent on “karma” in this material universe, and we have no way of telling what plans God had for any of the people who were killed in the ways described in the Old Testament.

    I hope that you understand that just because the Old Testament describes someone, even one of the Israelite heroes, doing something, that doesn’t mean that God approves of it. But yes God commanded some serious shit. Strange to say, God isn’t obliged to deal with his creation in ways that would elicit murmurs of approval over the sauvignon blanc at suburban dinner parties.
    I know that that in itself is an incomplete explanation. But Jesus Himself pointed out in the Gospels that shit happens and that no-one need think that what happens to someone in this earthly life tells us whether they were good or bad or what prospects they have for an eternity of happiness in God’s Kingdom.

    The Ten Commandments are literally commands from a supernatural dictator. This is not moral, nor is any morality possible to be derived from it. It’s the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head. You’re a victim, no longer in control of your destiny.

    That’s wrong. You are at liberty to follow God’s will or not. The consequences of disobeying God’s commands are as unemotionally mechanistic as the consequences of ignoring the physical laws that govern the universe, and no-one pretends that an individual isn’t “free” just because they’ll die if they fire a bullet into their own head.

  59. Haidee

    What plans God had …. one famous writer thought God was too excited with his creations.
    He thought God should’ve revised his ‘rough draft’, instead of going to print immediately.
    According to him, the Creator should’ve shown more modesty.

  60. Tim Neilson

    He thought God should’ve revised his ‘rough draft’, instead of going to print immediately.

    God has certainly written some very bizarre characters into the script.

  61. Roger

    The Ten Commandments are literally commands from a supernatural dictator. This is not moral, nor is any morality possible to be derived from it. It’s the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head. You’re a victim, no longer in control of your destiny.

    Mmm…because Kantian ethics has turned out so well, eh?

  62. .

    What’s your problem with Kant?

  63. Roger

    What’s your problem with Kant?

    His rejection of what he called ‘heteronomy’ (i.e. a divinely given moral code to which we must submit) and advocacy for ‘autonomy’ severed Western culture from its Biblical roots and set us adrift on the murky waters of subjectivism.

    Next…

  64. .

    He was a moral realist. Tell me which divine moral code is the best…oh wait we need reason to figure that out or argue the point.

  65. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    It’s not about being a believer, Charles Wooleyhead, but about what you believe in.

    That’s surely obvious and pretty elementary.

  66. iampeter

    I hope that you understand that just because the Old Testament describes someone, even one of the Israelite heroes, doing something, that doesn’t mean that God approves of it. But yes God commanded some serious shit. Strange to say, God isn’t obliged to deal with his creation in ways that would elicit murmurs of approval over the sauvignon blanc at suburban dinner parties.

    Yea I get this, but this also proves my point. Your morality amounts to the right thing to do being determined by what God says you should do and the wrong thing being determined by what God says you shouldn’t do. How does this differentiate itself from the beliefs of ISIS?

    That’s wrong. You are at liberty to follow God’s will or not. The consequences of disobeying God’s commands are as unemotionally mechanistic as the consequences of ignoring the physical laws that govern the universe, and no-one pretends that an individual isn’t “free” just because they’ll die if they fire a bullet into their own head.

    Oy vey. Scary, scary stuff. So like I said:

    The only difference that really matters between Islam and Christianity is thankfully most Christians today do not take their religion seriously

  67. Roger

    He was a moral realist

    No, he wasn’t; no moral realist would reject original sin, the Christian doctrine for which there is the most abundant empirical evidence. So great, in fact, that Kant actually had to acknowledge the propensity of man to evil and yet he still advocated moral autonomy, thus cutting man off from the possibility of moral knowledge extra nos, outside himself.

  68. Roger

    Your morality amounts to the right thing to do being determined by what God says you should do and the wrong thing being determined by what God says you shouldn’t do. How does this differentiate itself from the beliefs of ISIS?

    In essence:

    The God of Christians is a loving Father.

    The God of Muslims is a ME potentate.

  69. .

    He was a moral realist. You don’t need to be a theological moral realist.

    most abundant empirical evidence

    So you’re relying on reason and settling on christian divine law.

    Others may come to different conclusions.

  70. Roger

    So you’re relying on reason and settling on christian divine law.

    No, I rely on revelation and discover empirical evidence to support it.

    Besides which, there is no contradiction between faith and reason, provided they are maintained in that order.

    Revelation is master (magister), reason is servant (minister).

    Aren’t you a Catholic? If so, you should know this; or have you lapsed?

  71. Tim Neilson

    Yea I get this, but this also proves my point. Your morality amounts to the right thing to do being determined by what God says you should do and the wrong thing being determined by what God says you shouldn’t do. How does this differentiate itself from the beliefs of ISIS?

    Interesting that you skipped the rest of my explanation, and my previous post, when posing this question. Was it purely rhetorical?

    Oy vey. Scary, scary stuff.
    Sorry to frighten you with reality. If you’d prefer to believe that firing a bullet into your own head won’t kill you, then please keep believing that, but I’d strongly advise you to leave it in the realm of theory.

    So like I said:

    The only difference that really matters between Islam and Christianity is thankfully most Christians today do not take their religion seriously

    If you insist on ignoring all of the posts, including mine, which explain why Christians do not regard themselves as even entitled, let alone obliged, to kill in the name of God, you will no doubt remain in your state of self-imposed ignorance. There’s nothing more we can do for you.

  72. .

    Besides which, there is no contradiction between faith and reason, provided they are maintained in that order.

    This is becoming axiomatic. It is about choice. Faith and reason have their own domains.

    Aren’t you a Catholic? If so, you should know this; or have you lapsed?

    Don’t be rude.

    The fact is perfectly reasonable people can reject what you say. Which is why it isn’t a common enough basis for law.

  73. iampeter

    Sorry Tim, I’m not sure what I missed.

    Bottom line is what you are saying is that morality amounts to what God says you should do? Right? Or have I got it wrong?

  74. Piett

    I’m an agnostic, not a ‘dogmatic atheist’, but I find myself on Iampeter’s side of the argument.

    One particularly telling para above:

    But yes God commanded some serious shit. Strange to say, God isn’t obliged to deal with his creation in ways that would elicit murmurs of approval over the sauvignon blanc at suburban dinner parties.

    This is precisely the argument Islamist terrorists make, when asked about the moral consequences of the atrocities they commit. Allah is calling us to do these things, we don’t have any say in the matter, Allah doesn’t care whether or not His moral laws receive ‘murmurs of approval’ from people, they are what they are.

    The difference, as Iampeter noted, is that parts of Islam are extremely militant, but Christianity isn’t (these days).

    If you insist on ignoring all of the posts, including mine, which explain why Christians do not regard themselves as even entitled, let alone obliged, to kill in the name of God, you will no doubt remain in your state of self-imposed ignorance.

    OK, that’s how things stand at the moment … but what about all those Christians in earlier ages who certainly did regard themselves as entitled to kill in the name of God? Devout Catholics, Prots, Orthodox, and members of minor sects, were all willing, at various times, to kill people in the name of their interpretation of Christianity. Were they not real Christians?

  75. The Skpetoc

    Jesus said “Love your enemy” and “Love your neighbor and pray for those who persecute you.”. Jesus went on to die on the Cross as a statement of his love for those who hated him.

    Mohammad said “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”Mohammad had people killed for insulting or criticising him (or his religion).

    Anyone who advocates terrorism cannot be a follower of Jesus teachings or life.

    Anyone who advocates terrorism can find reason to be considered a follower of Mohammad.

  76. Tim Neilson

    Bottom line is what you are saying is that morality amounts to what God says you should do? Right? Or have I got it wrong?

    If you want to put it that way, why not? (But what the God of the Bible commands is totally different to what the Koran commands, for reasons explained in numerous posts above.) What alternative would you propose?

    To put it in simplistic terms, God doesn’t send people to Hell, they choose to go there.
    “Hell” isn’t a place. It is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “outside the Temple”, which in Christian context simply means a separation from God. And ultimately that’s something that people choose. Jesus said “ask and you will receive”. God never rejects anyone – people reject God.
    As CS Lewis said, “there are in the end only two kinds of people, those who say to God “thy will be done” or those to whom God says “thy will be done””.
    God’s moral laws are like His physical laws. We are free to obey them or ignore them, but as is the case with any freedom, actions have consequences. God is willing to provide anyone who wants it with an eternity of happiness, but if people turn down the offer God won’t compel them to accept it. God’s “moral laws” if you want to phrase it like that are His key performance indicators, whereby we can see how far we fall short of what would make us truly happy and seek His help to attain that happiness. If we want to try to run our engines on diesel when God had made us to run on petrol we can, but we shouldn’t blame God if we don’t like the results.
    Christians aren’t unanimous on what the consequences of rejecting God’s offer are, because it is an irrelevancy to a believing Christian. Jesus’ words imply to me a total cessation of existence. He refers to “gehenna”, the rubbish dump outside Jerusalem where objects ceased to exist by being consumed by fire. No doubt only a metaphor, but presumably one which Jesus meant to convey the reality. The Divine mercy won’t leave us to suffer in eternity if we reject His offer. We’re created with a form of “limited liability”. But why would anyone choose extinction ahead of perfect and eternal happiness?

  77. Tim Neilson

    OK, that’s how things stand at the moment … but what about all those Christians in earlier ages who certainly did regard themselves as entitled to kill in the name of God? Devout Catholics, Prots, Orthodox, and members of minor sects, were all willing, at various times, to kill people in the name of their interpretation of Christianity. Were they not real Christians?

    That’s for God to judge, not me. All I can say is that I firmly believe that their interpretation of the Bible was wrong. I don’t think that God will condemn anyone for genuine error – perhaps not even members of ISIS, but we as ordinary mortals can’t pass final judgement on the soul of another, we can only make practical decisions as to how we react to their actions in this world. And that requires a prima facie judgement about what actions are right and wrong, and doing our best to combat what we genuinely believe to be wrong and promoting what we genuinely believe to be right, no doubt all the time acting with a sense of humility that we may be mistaken.

    Suppose it were somehow proved conclusively that the Koran was simply the literal truth, that there was no god but Allah and that he did command all true believers to kill infidels.

    We’d just have to live with it. Or die with it as the case may be.

    My opposition to ISIS is founded on a belief that their view of reality is simply false. Not just morally wrong. My view that it is morally wrong couldn’t be justified without a prior conclusion that their premises are factually incorrect. You can’t really get to the stage of judging what is morally right or wrong until you have formed some basic beliefs about reality.

    That’s why middle class pinkos are so ineffectual against Islamic terrorism. They have swallowed the value relativism kool aid and so have no real basis for opposing Islamic jihad. The starting point is to decide – is the Koran true or false? If it’s true, get with the program. If it’s false, then what is true? And what does the truth justify us doing to thwart the jihadists?

  78. iampeter

    If you want to put it that way, why not? (But what the God of the Bible commands is totally different to what the Koran commands, for reasons explained in numerous posts above.)

    Because if the right thing to do is because God commands you to do it then the differences between the Koranic and Bible God commands doesn’t matter, just being commanded is all that matters.

    Of course there are no Gods or Demons or heavens or hells, so you’re really doing or not doing things based on what men command that God commands, which makes it all so much worse.

    What alternative would you propose?

    The alternative that built Western civilization by rejecting religious teachings: reason and reality.

    The purpose of morality is to help you with the decision making required to live your life to the best of your ability on this earth, while leaving others free to do the same. It’s reality based and identified and understood using reason. It doesn’t come from commands from on high or people claiming to have commands from on high.

    To put it in simplistic terms, God doesn’t send people to Hell, they choose to go there.

    So I guess the hostage taker didn’t kill the hostage he shot who was disobeying his commands, the hostage chose to die, didn’t he?

    If you believe this stuff, why would you oppose ISIS or any kind of totalitarianism for that matter?

  79. Nelson Kidd-Fridges

    Of course there are no Gods or Demons or heavens or hells…

    Well that’s the question, isn’t it. What if one is true? You’re betting your life on it. Perhaps some further investigation is in order.

    A clue: Don’t bother starting with islam.

  80. TheDAwg

    Keep it up Sinclair!

    On a weekly basis you remind us why our kids are screwed listening to blithering idiots like you with less than the most basic research skills to make their case.

    What an A-grade Professor fuckwit you are.

  81. Jimf

    Woolley’s another one of the commercial TV principle-free tossers who take the $ but also lamely aim to keep their progressive credentials afloat ( think Ray Martin) . God forbid the alumni might sneer at his venture into Kerry world. This garbled price of shit writing and it’s theme of “whattaboutery” insults anyone who has half a clue . The IRA battle was territorial at its heart . And I mean very tightly contained in a NI sense . Had nothing to do with an ideological spread of doctrine as per the aims of the Islamic germ we are dealing with today.
    This type of fraudulent moral equivocation has become a lazy meme for virtue seekers.

  82. Jannie

    Charles Wooley studied at the ABC and they colonised his mind. Why bother about what he writes.

  83. Fisky

    Because if the right thing to do is because God commands you to do it then the differences between the Koranic and Bible God commands doesn’t matter, just being commanded is all that matters.

    This is coming from a guy who believes the collected works of Ayn Rand are the gospel.

  84. Rayvic

    Woolly thinking at its best.

  85. Tim Neilson


    Because if the right thing to do is because God commands you to do it then the differences between the Koranic and Bible God commands doesn’t matter, just being commanded is all that matters.

    Totally wrong. If the Koran were true then Allah’s commands would matter. If the Koran is false Allah’s commands don’t matter. Same with the Bible. But you have to start by determining what’s true.

    Of course there are no Gods or Demons or heavens or hells

    And your evidence for that is…? See my post above about dogmatic atheism.

    reason and reality

    Yes, precisely. Start by trying to identify reality.

    The purpose of morality is to help you with the decision making required to live your life to the best of your ability on this earth, while leaving others free to do the same. It’s reality based and identified and understood using reason. It doesn’t come from commands from on high or people claiming to have commands from on high.

    Who says? If the Bible is correct, all of the premises you’ve stated are wrong. Evidence please.

    So I guess the hostage taker didn’t kill the hostage he shot who was disobeying his commands, the hostage chose to die, didn’t he?

    The hostage taker isn’t the one who has given the hostage life, and the opportunity to live a happy and full life, in the first place. We wouldn’t exist but for God. If we choose to cease to exist that’s our choice but hen God hasn’t denied us anything.

    If you believe this stuff, why would you oppose ISIS or any kind of totalitarianism for that matter?

    Because I believe that the factual premises that they are acting on are false.

  86. Fisky

    The alternative that built Western civilization by rejecting religious teachings: reason and reality.

    But Western civilization wasn’t built on rejecting religious teachings at all. If anything the pre-Christian Romans were more superstitious than the Christians.

  87. Piett

    Of course there are no Gods or Demons or heavens or hells…

    Well that’s the question, isn’t it. What if one is true? You’re betting your life on it. Perhaps some further investigation is in order.

    Pascal’s Wager. Unfortunately, it gives no guidance as to exactly which God to place one’s chips on. Maybe one should answer that by means of a calculation like …

    [plausibility of foundational religious story] x [severity of punishment awaiting you if you don’t believe]

    Join up with the religion with the highest value. I think the Christian foundational story is more plausible than the Muslim, but then the horrors that await disbelievers in Islam seem much nastier. So maybe I should go for the latter.

    Can anyone recommend a good mosque in Adelaide?

  88. Nerblnob

    Having been stuck with a group of GFA-released IRA lifers in a hotel bar only a few weeks ago, I can confirm that:
    They were all avowed atheists
    They were left-wing doctrinaire about any topic, except their own crony/sectarian business scams
    They knew rather more about Libya (and had more southern Sicilian/Calabrian connections) than any normal Irish person.

    It was all drinks and good crack until I realised they were asking a lot about me and giving very little about themselves and then found out what they had in common.

    I kept my distance after that.

    And as notafan pointed out, Catholics had been excommunicated for joining the IRA for decades.
    It’s one thing for disgusting hypocrites to claim equivalence and another worse thing for a compliant media to be so ignorant, incurious, unethical and just plain dishonest that they promote it.

  89. Piett

    Tim, why do Christians insist that we have to make a choice about the existence of God during our mortal lifetimes?

    If I die in 5 minutes time, and find myself before the Throne of God, I’ll tell the Lord that I’m grateful that He brought me into existence, and I’m happy to know the universe has a creator, and that people have souls and an afterlife. Glad to see the atheists proved wrong. I never worshipped God during my life, but I’m happy to make up for lost time in the hereafter.

    But in standard Christian doctrine, as I understand it, I’m screwed. I’m off to Hell, whether that be a pit of fire, or cessation of existence. Why? Why should God care whether or not I worshipped him during my life?

  90. iampeter

    Totally wrong. If the Koran were true then Allah’s commands would matter. If the Koran is false Allah’s commands don’t matter. Same with the Bible. But you have to start by determining what’s true.

    Isn’t it whatever God says it is?

    And your evidence for that is…? See my post above about dogmatic atheism.

    So it’s the other way around. I don’t need to provide evidence in order to dismiss unsupported assertions such as the existence of the supernatural. Especially all of the self-refuting assertions to do with religions (ie you can’t have something exist before existence, or life after death or some other plane of existence outside of existence, etc). All the ideas required to accept religion are self contradicting and can be dismissed as a result. So it’s you who has to provide evidence for their existence in the first place and explain how you got passed all the contradictions.

    Yes, precisely. Start by trying to identify reality.

    The definition of reality is everything that exists, has always existed in one form or another and which excludes everything that doesn’t exist. This means the basic definition of reality is a great way of disproving the existence of the supernatural. (ie. if you accept reality exists you have to accept nothing exists outside of reality, so no heavens, no hells, no angels, no gods, etc).

    Who says? If the Bible is correct, all of the premises you’ve stated are wrong. Evidence please.

    What are you asking for the evidence for? The definition of morality or it’s purpose? The evidence for both is reality. You can observe that when you make certain decisions your standard of living improves, you can also observe when you make different decisions that your standard of living goes down. But you are also fallible so you need something to help you make those right decisions to improve your life instead of ruin it, hence the need for morality which provides that code. There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s the basic idea.
    Also what are you suggesting morality is? Biblical commands to be obeyed from on high because they are commands from on high and for some purpose other than living your life? I’m pretty sure that’s not going to end well for you or people around you if you were to take it seriously.

    “The hostage taker isn’t the one who has given the hostage life, and the opportunity to live a happy and full life, in the first place. We wouldn’t exist but for God. If we choose to cease to exist that’s our choice but hen God hasn’t denied us anything.”

    But what I’m saying is that’s the logic of any murderer, hostage taker or other type of rights violator. If that’s also what you consider holy then why would you oppose any murderers, hostage takers, tyrants or other types of rights violators? It’s holy according to you.

    Because I believe that the factual premises that they are acting on are false.

    The premise of ISIS is to do what God commands and you agreed with this.

  91. Tim Neilson

    We’ll take this in sequence.

    Isn’t it whatever God says it is?

    Only once you have first come to the conclusion, as best you can, that God exists, and that he has particular attributes, including that He has chosen to give humanity particular information as to what the truth is.
    God’s attributes can’t be both what the Koran says and what the Bible says. So at least one must be wrong, even if God exists.
    That’s why Christians don’t kill people on the sayso of the Koran. Is that so difficult to/ understand

  92. notafan

    God’s attributes can’t be both what the Koran says and what the Bible says. So at least one must be wrong, even if God exists.
    That’s why Christians don’t kill people on the sayso of the Koran. Is that so difficult to/ understand

    There are many religions but there can only be one that is true, or none that is true

    take your pick

    Even muslims do that

  93. Tim Neilson

    So it’s the other way around. I don’t need to provide evidence in order to dismiss unsupported assertions such as the existence of the supernatural. Especially all of the self-refuting assertions to do with religions (ie you can’t have something exist before existence, or life after death or some other plane of existence outside of existence, etc). All the ideas required to accept religion are self contradicting and can be dismissed as a result. So it’s you who has to provide evidence for their existence in the first place and explain how you got passed all the contradictions.

    A formidable series of errors and falsehoods.

    Christianity is not “unsupported assertions”. You are at liberty, if you wish, to disbelieve the claims in the New Testament of eyewitness testimony that Jesus rose from the dead and performed feats that were “supernatural”, but to attempt to deny that the New Testament is evidence would merely betray total ignorance of what evidence is. Even non-Christian historians don’t doubt that in the mid first century AD numerous people suffered hideous death by torture rather than recant those eyewitness claims.

    “Existence before existence”. This is your fundamental category error which permeates your post. You assume that “physical existence in this universe” equals “existence”, without any proof except your own megalomania. (See my post above on dogmatic atheism.) As for existence “before” existence, scientists have now come to accept the Christian view (see St Augustine) that time as we experience it is a component of or by product of the physical universe we inhabit (see any modern explanation of the Big Bang). So your reference to existence “before” this physical universe is anti-science more than anti-religion.

    “Life after death”. Same type of category error, assuming that “physical life of the type we know here on earth” and “life” are synonymous.

    “”Existence outside existence” – I trust I don’t need to correct this category error in detail Are you starting to get the point?

    [To be resumed]

  94. Tim Neilson

    So, the alleged “contradictions” exist only in the megalomaniac mind of the dogmatic atheist, and the evidence of the New testament and other Theistic texts is to be judged without preconceived intellectual error.

    The definition of reality is everything that exists, has always existed in one form or another and which excludes everything that doesn’t exist. This means the basic definition of reality is a great way of disproving the existence of the supernatural. (ie. if you accept reality exists you have to accept nothing exists outside of reality, so no heavens, no hells, no angels, no gods, etc).

    I trust we have swept away the category error of assuming, with zero justification, that “reality” must equal “physical reality”.

    [Blah blah blah…]Also what are you suggesting morality is? Biblical commands to be obeyed from on high because they are commands from on high and for some purpose other than living your life? I’m pretty sure that’s not going to end well for you or people around you if you were to take it seriously.

    Of course Christian doctrine is about how to live your life, but we’re not trapped in the intellectual prison of assuming that “life” is solely confined to this physical world. As I’ve said you’re at liberty to think otherwise but you’ve got no real evidence to counter Christian belief, just megalomaniac assertions based on logical fallacies.
    Yo’re “pretty sure” about a lot of things, but given your zero track record so far in this debate I’m not that worried.

  95. Tim Neilson

    But what I’m saying is that’s the logic of any murderer, hostage taker or other type of rights violator. If that’s also what you consider holy then why would you oppose any murderers, hostage takers, tyrants or other types of rights violators? It’s holy according to you.

    Because I believe that the factual premises that they are acting on are false.

    Funny, you’ve quoted a previous comment by me that perfectly refutes your assertion and answers your question.

    The premise of ISIS is to do what God commands and you agreed with this.

    I don’t criticise ISIS for wishing to follow God’s commands (if they are sincerely doing so). I criticise them for being hopelessly wrong about what God does command. God cannot command both what’s in the Koran and what’s in the Bible. At least one of them must be false and I believe that the Koran is false. Do you really not get that?

  96. Tim Neilson

    Piett
    #2399108, posted on June 3, 2017 at 12:29 am

    Piett some Christian churches have asserted that. Maybe some still do. But since the Reformation it hasn’t been universal Christian doctrine. The seventeenth century Westminster Confession (a Presbyterian doctrinal text) says – and this is of course a simplistic paraphrase – there’s nothing in the Bible that tells us that God isn’t allowed to save anyone on any terms God wishes, but the normal means is through Christian faith and our duty as Christians is to follow God’s instructions. I think that’s sound on a logical reading of the Bible. Certainly one of the great twentieth century Christian writers CS Lewis, who wasn’t any sort of “progressive” surrender monkey on Christian doctrine, believed that.

  97. iampeter

    That’s why Christians don’t kill people on the sayso of the Koran. Is that so difficult to/ understand

    But you would if the bible told you to do it?
    The point is that you think that you should do what God says because God says it. So does any member of ISIS. Everything else is irrelevant to that, aside from the fact that you thankfully don’t take it as seriously as ISIS does because the Bible is no less violent than the Koran.

    Christianity is not “unsupported assertions”.

    Yes that’s exactly what it is and if it wasn’t then it wouldn’t be religion it would be another science. Put simply: if you could prove religion it would no longer be religion. It’s a catch-22 that no religious person can win because the very exercise of religion and faith is to believe in something there is no reason to believe because there is no reason to believe it but you choose to do so anyway. That’s why its so unhealthy psychologically.

    Having said that I think most people engage in religion not because they are trying to be self destructive but because they are looking for morality which most atheist thinkers have failed to provide.

    This is your fundamental category error which permeates your post. You assume that “physical existence in this universe” equals “existence”,

    The fact that existence exists is not a “category error”, it’s what’s called an “axiom” in logical thinking (which you brought up first btw way up in this post). An axiom is something that cannot be disproved because to do so you would have to first accept it which means you can’t disprove it. Accepting that existence exists is the first step in logical thinking and this one step alone disproves all religious thinking. You don’t have to accept it of course but then no logical argument is possible on your part and you are left with those “megalomaniac assertions based on logical fallacies” that you are projecting onto me.

    I don’t criticise ISIS for wishing to follow God’s commands (if they are sincerely doing so).

    Right, and this is a big problem for Christian Conservatives lol. It’s a big reason no proper foreign policy has been put forward after one and a half decades since 9/11 and none is forthcoming. When you agree with someone on such fundamentals, are they even your enemy? Why would they be?

    I criticise them for being hopelessly wrong about what God does command.

    Yep and I bet they’d say the same thing about you. Who is right and who is wrong and why?

    God cannot command both what’s in the Koran and what’s in the Bible. At least one of them must be false and I believe that the Koran is false. Do you really not get that?

    Oh I get that. You just haven’t provided a single reason for why you think this. Why isn’t the Koran the right one and the bible the wrong one?

  98. Stimpson J. Cat

    Not for a moment am I saying all believers will kill you for their faith but clearly all people who kill for their faith are believers, even though probably deranged.

    This is true.
    Atheism is a faith.
    Communism is a faith.
    Socialism is a faith.
    Global Warming is a faith.
    Economics is a faith.
    I could go on….

  99. Stimpson J. Cat

    There are many religions but there can only be one that is true, or none that is true

    No.
    This is a human assumption.
    How does a mosquito understand the thought processes and motivations of a universe?
    Because other mosquito’s told it something?

  100. Tim Neilson

    But you would if the bible told you to do it?
    The point is that you think that you should do what God says because God says it. So does any member of ISIS. Everything else is irrelevant to that, aside from the fact that you thankfully don’t take it as seriously as ISIS does because the Bible is no less violent than the Koran.

    That’s a bit of an “if the moon were made of green cheese” question. It doesn’t so I won’t. And that’s essentially a function of reality. You’re asking hypothetical questions about what I would do if God weren’t like He actually is.
    And as for your “the Bible is just as violent as the Koran”, have you got a memory less functional than a goldfish’s or did you simply not read all of the posts in this thread?
    Yes that’s exactly what it is and if it wasn’t then it wouldn’t be religion it would be another science. Put simply: if you could prove religion it would no longer be religion. It’s a catch-22 that no religious person can win because the very exercise of religion and faith is to believe in something there is no reason to believe because there is no reason to believe it but you choose to do so anyway. That’s why its so unhealthy psychologically.
    OK, if you’d rather we classify Christianity as a “science” that’s fine by me. I really don’t care whether it’s a “religion” or not. I’ve never met a Christian who does. All I care about is whether it’s true.
    The fact that existence exists is not a “category error”, it’s what’s called an “axiom” in logical thinking (which you brought up first btw way up in this post). An axiom is something that cannot be disproved because to do so you would have to first accept it which means you can’t disprove it. Accepting that existence exists is the first step in logical thinking and this one step alone disproves all religious thinking. You don’t have to accept it of course but then no logical argument is possible on your part and you are left with those “megalomaniac assertions based on logical fallacies” that you are projecting onto me.
    “Existence exists” is what’s called a tautology. The error in your reasoning is “existence exists, the physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe is all that exists”.
    Right, and this is a big problem for Christian Conservatives lol. It’s a big reason no proper foreign policy has been put forward after one and a half decades since 9/11 and none is forthcoming. When you agree with someone on such fundamentals, are they even your enemy? Why would they be?
    We don’t agree with them on fundamentals. We are totally in disagreement with them on fundamentals. They believe that the Koran is true, we believe that it is false. Your attempt to separate morality from truth is doomed to failure. You have to start by working out what you think is true before you can start to work out what you think is right or wrong.
    Yep and I bet they’d say the same thing about you. Who is right and who is wrong and why?
    We are both entitled to act on what we believe is right. So we’re entitled to defend ourselves against them, and to defend others against them, even if that means causing them physical harm in the process. (Jesus told His disciples to take swords with them to the Garden of Gethsemane.) As a society we act on the basis of what we believe to be right. We don’t allow ourselves to get paralysed by value relativism just because others think differently.
    Oh I get that. You just haven’t provided a single reason for why you think this. Why isn’t the Koran the right one and the bible the wrong one?
    OK, here’s why, after reading the Koran, I don’t believe it.
    The Koran claims to be the literal word of God as dictated by God himself to Mohammed, yet it contains a factually inaccurate description of Christian belief (that the Trinity is the Father the Son and the Virgin Mary). Even if one were to accept Muslim rationalisation of that, I can’t believe that God would be so inept a communicator. By contrast, though Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired they understand that the books of the Bible were written by ordinary people. No-one pretends that St Paul’s prose style is exemplary. Luke tells us that his books rely on others’ eyewitness accounts and written testimony. We have no need to pretend that every art of the Bible is written with lucid clarity – in fact it’s official Presbyterian doctrine that that’s not so. We just believe it to tell the truth.
    Also I’m inherently sceptical of a religion the first fruits of which are to make the founder wealthy and powerful, whereas Christian belief was anything but beneficial in earthly terms for those who first asserted it.
    Read the Bible and it tells you that we don’t have absolute proof, and we have to live in part by faith, but we do have evidence in the form of the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life death and resurrection.

  101. iampeter

    You’re asking hypothetical questions about what I would do if God weren’t like He actually is.

    That’s not the point. The point is you’d do it because God commands it, which is exactly the justification ISIS uses.
    What God actually commands is neither here nor there after you’ve accepted commandments as the moral.

    And as for your “the Bible is just as violent as the Koran”, have you got a memory less functional than a goldfish’s or did you simply not read all of the posts in this thread?

    Goldfish I guess. Are you seriously suggesting the Christian bible isn’t replete with the most crazy violence on command from God for people exercising individual rights? That would just be false.

    OK, if you’d rather we classify Christianity as a “science” that’s fine by me. I really don’t care whether it’s a “religion” or not. I’ve never met a Christian who does. All I care about is whether it’s true.

    OK which parts are true and what’s the proof of it. Ie. saying “read such and such testimony” is not proof.

    “Existence exists” is what’s called a tautology. The error in your reasoning is “existence exists, the physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe is all that exists”.

    It’s not a “tautology” or a “category error”, as I said it’s what’s called an “axiom” and it’s the starting point of logical thinking. If you accept existence exists, you can start using logic and make persuasive arguments but you have disproved religion and if you don’t accept that existence exists then you have no solid ground on which to make any persuasive arguments and can’t prove religion anyway. It’s one or the other, but under neither option will religion ever be real.

    By the way, suggesting that existence can include things outside of physical existence (e.g. heaven) is what you would call a “category error”, but I would simply call it a “contradiction”.

    We don’t agree with them on fundamentals. We are totally in disagreement with them on fundamentals.

    Well lets see.
    You agree with them that physical existence is not all that there is.
    You agree that knowledge is possible via supernatural, non-sensory, non-logic methods.
    You agree with them on morality that the right thing to do is what God commands.
    Sorry but you agree on literally everything.

    I think the arbitrary biblical assertions that differ from the equally arbitrary koranic assertions you list out later is what you think constitutes disagreement. But in reality those are just semantics. On all the essentials you are in furious agreement.

  102. Tim Neilson

    What God actually commands is neither here nor there after you’ve accepted commandments as the moral.
    Total falsehood. No-one believes that “we should obey true commands from God” equals “we should obey unthinkingly anything which is represented as a command from God”. As I’ve repeatedly explained, you have to start by working out what you believe to be true before you can start working out what’s right or wrong.
    Are you seriously suggesting the Christian bible isn’t replete with the most crazy violence on command from God for people exercising individual rights? That would just be false.
    As has been acknowledged above, God gave specific commands to the Israelites to perform violence in specific situations. That’s His prerogative in order to achieve what had to be achieved for His chosen people to fulfil their historical destiny, in a world where there was precious little safety of the type we have taken for granted till recently. But there’s not one command in the Bible which would justify a Christian doing such things now (apart, as I said, for defence). Christians believe the Bible to be true and Muslims believe the Koran to be true and both can’t be right. The practical matter is that the Koran contains generalised instructions to Muslims, not confined by place or time, to kill unbelievers, which are being acted on now. If the Koran were right, we’d have to put up with it. If the Koran is wrong we can do what it takes to stop them, perfectly consistently with Christian belief. If the Bible is right everyone should deal with that. If the Bible is wrong, then sure no-one should pay attention to it, but there wouldn’t be any need for the sort of action which needs to be taken against the jihadists.
    OK which parts are true and what’s the proof of it. Ie. saying “read such and such testimony” is not proof.
    FMD how often do I have to say it? The Bible itself tells us that we won’t get “proof” but we do get “evidence”. Why is it so surprising that there’s no “proof”? Heisenberg in science and Godel in mathematics have shown that we can never have universal knowledge in this universe, so why is it so strange that there isn’t “proof” of Christian doctrine? We have as much “proof” (really meaning “evidence”) for the facts of Jesus’ life death and resurrection as we do for almost any other historical events of around that time.
    Now, if eleven or more people claimed that they had personally seen phenomenon X, in circumstances where saying that was certainly not to their advantage, it would be a brave counsel who got up in court and claimed that there was no “evidence” for phenomenon X. And the New Testament and other records of early Christian belief including non-Christians like Pliny the Younger is all about exactly that testimony by Jesus’ disciples and other original followers as to the “supernatural” feats of the risen Jesus. You can reject it if you wish but to claim that it’s not “evidence” is beyond stupidity and into the realms of deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
    It’s not a “tautology” or a “category error”, as I said it’s what’s called an “axiom” and it’s the starting point of logical thinking. If you accept existence exists, you can start using logic and make persuasive arguments but you have disproved religion and if you don’t accept that existence exists then you have no solid ground on which to make any persuasive arguments and can’t prove religion anyway. It’s one or the other, but under neither option will religion ever be real.

    By the way, suggesting that existence can include things outside of physical existence (e.g. heaven) is what you would call a “category error”, but I would simply call it a “contradiction”.

    Merely saying something doesn’t make it so. Claiming that “physical existence” and “existence” are synonymous doesn’t make it so. You’ve got zero evidence for your propositions and your increasing retreat into verbal gymnastics is merely ever mounting proof[!] of the hopeless poverty of your illogicality.
    Well lets see.
    You agree with them that physical existence is not all that there is.
    You agree that knowledge is possible via supernatural, non-sensory, non-logic methods.
    You agree with them on morality that the right thing to do is what God commands.
    Sorry but you agree on literally everything.

    I think the arbitrary biblical assertions that differ from the equally arbitrary koranic assertions you list out later is what you think constitutes disagreement. But in reality those are just semantics. On all the essentials you are in furious agreement.

    “Literally everything”. The falsehood is strong in this one. If you really believe that the difference between “kill all unbelievers wherever you find them” and “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is “just semantics” then you have just obliterated your claim to have any idea of what morality is.

  103. iampeter

    Total falsehood. No-one believes that “we should obey true commands from God” equals “we should obey unthinkingly anything which is represented as a command from God”.

    And no one is suggesting this.
    What I am suggesting is that “you should obey true commands from God” equals “you should obey true commands from God”. The fact that there is no God and all you ever have to go on is “representation” of what someone said God said, is a problem for your support of religion, not my opposition of it.

    As has been acknowledged above, God gave specific commands to the Israelites to perform violence in specific situations. That’s His prerogative in order to achieve what had to be achieved for His chosen

    Cool, so like I asked before, on what grounds do you oppose ISIS, Socialism or any kind of dictatorship given what you’ve written in that paragraph? Suggesting that the bible’s atrocities are time constrained while the koran’s are not, is the equivalent of an Islamist arguing that Jihad means internal struggle. It’s just false.

    If the Koran were right, we’d have to put up with it. If the Koran is wrong we can do what it takes to stop them, perfectly consistently with Christian belief. If the Bible is right everyone should deal with that. If the Bible is wrong, then sure no-one should pay attention to it, but there wouldn’t be any need for the sort of action which needs to be taken against the jihadists.

    Well neither the bible nor the koran are right because they reject reason but if the bible was right then why would you need to take action against ISIS? As we’ve already discussed, the ideological essentials of reality, knowledge and morality are the same and the only differences are semantics. You should be supporting ISIS if you think the bible is right and if you take religion seriously.

    Merely saying something doesn’t make it so. Claiming that “physical existence” and “existence” are synonymous doesn’t make it so.

    I’m not merely saying it. Like all sciences, logic has laws that one adheres to in order to practice it properly. E.g. physics has the laws of thermodynamics and logic has axioms, which are self evident facts.

    You’ve got zero evidence for your propositions and your increasing retreat into verbal gymnastics is merely ever mounting proof[!] of the hopeless poverty of your illogicality.

    There’s no verbal gymnastics here, I’m merely stating a self evident fact and this fact alone is enough to disprove religion. It’s that simple.

    Also just listen to yourself. You’re argument here is: “I reject self evident facts that are impossible to reject but choose to accept arbitrary, self-contradictory and unsupported assertions, that are impossible to accept, instead”.

    If you really believe that the difference between “kill all unbelievers wherever you find them” and “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is “just semantics”

    But again, no one has made such an argument. What I said was that in terms of all the essentials of an philosophical ideology, how you see reality, how you believe knowledge is acquired and morality you are in agreement, in your own words, with that of any member of ISIS.

    Also “kill all unbelievers wherever you find them” is not that different from “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, let us go and worship other gods do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death.”

    Like I said, trying to suggest the bible is any less violent than the koran is just dishonest.

  104. Tim Neilson

    And no one is suggesting this.
    Liar! Below, in that very post, you assert that if we believe the Bible we should support ISIS.
    The fact that there is no God
    Excuse me for being so blunt but in this entire exchange you have offered nothing but totally unsubstantiated evidence-free assertions, most of which are demonstrably false, based on nothing but your megalomania.
    For another example, you assert that nothing can exist but this physical universe. Evidence in support? Zero point zero recurring to infinity.
    Evidentiary value of your statement? Zero point zero recurring to infinity, because given the limitations of human existence you can’t possibly have investigated it. (And I should reiterate Heisenberg and Godel have shown us that even in this physical universe “impossible to verify” doesn’t equal “untrue” or “non-existent”.) And of course you dismiss eyewitness testimony to the contrary.
    Cool, so like I asked before, on what grounds do you oppose ISIS, Socialism or any kind of dictatorship given what you’ve written in that paragraph?
    How often do I have to repeat it? Because I believe that the factual premises for those things are false. I believe that the factual premises behind Christianity are true.
    Suggesting that the bible’s atrocities are time constrained while the koran’s are not, is the equivalent of an Islamist arguing that Jihad means internal struggle.
    Another pathetic failure of logic. If an Islamist really believed that “jihad” means “internal struggle” they wouldn’t be killing unbelievers. A Christian accepting the literal meaning of the Bible and not killing unbelievers is action according with words.
    As we’ve already discussed, the ideological essentials of reality, knowledge and morality are the same and the only differences are semantics. You should be supporting ISIS if you think the bible is right and if you take religion seriously.
    How often does it need to be said? Christians believe that the Koran is false.
    Lysenkoism posed as science. Accepting science doesn’t mean accepting Lysenkoism. Accepting the Bible as truth doesn’t require accepting the Koran as truth – in fact it requires disbelieving the Koran.
    I’m merely stating a self evident fact and this fact alone is enough to disprove religion. It’s that simple.
    Mister Zero Evidence strikes again.
    But again, no one has made such an argument.
    Liar! You said that Muslims and Christians agree on “literally everything”. Your words, not mine.
    What I said was that in terms of all the essentials of an philosophical ideology, how you see reality, how you believe knowledge is acquired and morality you are in agreement, in your own words, with that of any member of ISIS.
    Liar! Re-read your own post.
    Also “kill all unbelievers wherever you find them” is not that different from “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, let us go and worship other gods do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death.”

    Like I said, trying to suggest the bible is any less violent than the koran is just dishonest.
    One more time for the slow learners. Yes, God commanded violence in specific circumstances for specific purposes. But there are no generalised authorisations for violence in the Bible. Quite the opposite. Accepting the truth of the Bible is totally different from believing in the truth of the koran, not just in terms of the factual assertions (though they are certainly different in that respect) but in the morality that the two texts prescribe.

  105. iampeter

    Liar! Below, in that very post, you assert that if we believe the Bible we should support ISIS.

    This whole point was about me getting you to confirm that morality to you means doing what God commands and then pointing out that is the same justification as members of ISIS use. You then responded with the point about how God’s commands are not the same as his followers commands, which wasn’t what I was arguing or relevant.

    Excuse me for being so blunt but in this entire exchange you have offered nothing but totally unsubstantiated evidence-free assertions, most of which are demonstrably false, based on nothing but your megalomania.

    Except its the exact other way around. This entire exchange I’ve offered the most basic of logical arguments (because its that simple) that disprove religious concepts but also irrespective of your position on religion, I’ve tried to demonstrate that in terms of the three key pillars of any philosophical ideology – reality, knowledge and morality – Christian and Islamic beliefs, in your own words, are effectively the same.
    In response I keep getting “the bible does or doesn’t say”, “this theologian said” which amounts to “nothing but totally unsubstantiated, evidence-free assertions. You’re just projecting exactly what you’ve done all thread onto me.

    For another example, you assert that nothing can exist but this physical universe. Evidence in support? Zero point zero recurring to infinity.

    It’s a an axiom. It doesn’t require supporting evidence because it is self evident and is the basis for further logical reasoning. You’re way underscoring the value of it’s evidence, it’s closer to 10 out of 10 😛

    “Because I believe that the factual premises for those things are false. I believe that the factual premises behind Christianity are true.”
    But you said Christ was also God and the biblical God is a supernatural dictator. Also you said what he commands is the right thing to do, so obedience to a dictator is the right thing to do. That doesn’t sound like disagreeing with the premise of dictatorship.

    A Christian accepting the literal meaning of the Bible and not killing unbelievers is action according with words.

    But the bible’s God commands to kill non-believers all the time. My point was that Islamists take those commands seriously, while Christians don’t and this proves my point.

    How often does it need to be said? Christians believe that the Koran is false.

    Yea it’s true they will kill you posers because they take their beliefs seriously, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t agree with them ideologically. You just happen to be in the losing gang.

    One more time for the slow learners. Yes, God commanded violence in specific circumstances for specific purposes. But there are no generalised authorisations for violence in the Bible. Quite the opposite.

    Even if that was true how could you possibly be OK with that? And then how can you fight against ISIS or any other kind of tyrant? You still agree with the tyranical religious concepts in principle lol. Your argument is basically “my tyrant is less murderous than their tyrant, so that makes tyranny a good thing”. No, no it’s still bad.

    Anyway it’s Sat night so I’m going out and any further replies will be tomorrow.

    Laters alligators.

  106. Tim Neilson

    PS
    I’m merely stating a self evident fact and this fact alone is enough to disprove religion. It’s that simple.
    That’s really all you’ve got, isn’t it. You can’t conceive of anything other than the physical universe therefore you expect everyone else to fall into line with your mental limitations.
    Evidence free megalomania from Mr Zero Evidence.

  107. Tim Neilson

    You then responded with the point about how God’s commands are not the same as his followers commands,
    No I didn’t you liar.
    In response I keep getting “the bible does or doesn’t say”, “this theologian said” which amounts to “nothing but totally unsubstantiated, evidence-free assertions.
    I have never cited the Bible as “proof” of anything it says. I have said that if people give eyewitness testimony of what they’ve seen, that’s “evidence”. You seem to persist in denying that.
    It’s a an axiom. It doesn’t require supporting evidence because it is self evident and is the basis for further logical reasoning.
    Labelling something as an “axiom” is utterly pathetic as an attempt to justify it.
    Also you said what he commands is the right thing to do, so obedience to a dictator is the right thing to do.
    Pathetically inadequate. There’s a huge difference between the true God and “a dictator”. And as I’ve repeatedly explained we are at liberty to disobey God if we wish, but we can hardly blame God for the consequences of our so doing, any more than we complain about the physical consequences of our free choices in this world.
    But the bible’s God commands to kill non-believers all the time.
    Absolute lie. And that’s the whole point.
    Yea it’s true they will kill you posers because they take their beliefs seriously, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t agree with them ideologically. You just happen to be in the losing gang.
    We don’t agree with them “ideologically”, nor factually. Poor old iampeter, unable to sustain the veneer of an argument without insisting that Christians believe things that the Christians themselves totally disavow.
    Even if that was true how could you possibly be OK with that? And then how can you fight against ISIS or any other kind of tyrant? You still agree with the tyranical religious concepts in principle lol. Your argument is basically “my tyrant is less murderous than their tyrant, so that makes tyranny a good thing”. No, no it’s still bad.
    No, my argument is that Christianity is true and Islamic doctrines (and other ideologies like Communism, Fascism etc.) are false. I’ve explained above why I believe Christians are justified in fighting against ISIS.
    And as I said, if the Koran were true, and did require killing of unbelievers, we’d have to accept it. It’s my belief in the falsehood of the Koran that underpins my opposition to ISIS.
    As for the Old Testament, we have no knowledge of what plans God had for the people who were killed. Perhaps all of them are living in eternal happiness in heaven. If so, earthly death is a small price to pay – indeed it’s one that Jesus himself and many other Christians have paid and no doubt will pay. It is no part of Christian doctrine that everything that happens in this world will be palatable to us. The important issue in practice is whether the truth is Christianity (in which case ISIS is doing wrong) or Islam (in which case ISIS is doing right) or something else.

  108. iampeter

    That’s really all you’ve got, isn’t it. You can’t conceive of anything other than the physical universe

    Because that’s all there is and accepting it is a requirement to even begin to think logically. Without being able to accept that reality exists you will not be able to think logically anymore than you would be good at physics if you refuse to accept the laws of thermodynamics.

    I have said that if people give eyewitness testimony of what they’ve seen, that’s “evidence”.

    People claiming to see things you know are impossible is not proof of anything. Nor is any proof possible because that then destroys the concept of religion. Like I already said, being religious is about believing in something there is no reason to believe, because there is no reason to believe it, but you choose to do so anyway.

    Labelling something as an “axiom” is utterly pathetic as an attempt to justify it.

    That’s like saying labeling a car a car is “pathetic as an attempt to justify”. It’s a statement of fact. It is what it is. Again you’re basically rejecting something that is impossible to reject while at the same time choosing to accepting something that is impossible to accept.

    There’s a huge difference between the true God and “a dictator”.

    So huge you forgot to mention what it is.

    And as I’ve repeatedly explained we are at liberty to disobey God if we wish, but we can hardly blame God for the consequences of our so doing

    Which is no different to saying “Syrians are at liberty to disobey the wishes of ISIS if they wish, but they can hardly blame ISIS for the consequences of doing so”. Do you really not see how this sentence is explicit support for totalitarianism on your part? You spend half the post claiming to reject that you are the same as an ISIS member and then in your own words prove that you are no different ideologically.

    Absolute lie. And that’s the whole point.

    OK he doesn’t do it all the time, but he still does do it and for the crimes of people just exercising their rights and going about their lives. Your acceptance of this as a good thing is yet again explicit support for totalitarianism of the ISIS, theocratic variety.

    We don’t agree with them “ideologically”, nor factually. Poor old iampeter, unable to sustain the veneer of an argument without insisting that Christians believe things that the Christians themselves totally disavow.

    LOL yet you’ve spent all post demonstrating that not only do you NOT disavow it, you EXPLICITLY agree.

    You can’t say the following sentence (on top of all the ones I’ve already quoted above):
    “As for the Old Testament, we have no knowledge of what plans God had for the people who were killed. Perhaps all of them are living in eternal happiness in heaven. If so, earthly death is a small price to pay”
    And claim to disavow ISIS style theocracy as a Christian.

    In your own words you clearly don’t and Christian ideology is to blame.

  109. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iampeter.
    You pathetic falsehoods about Christian belief have been refuted so often that there’s no point repeating the refutations.
    Let’s get to the crux of the matter.
    You say that “existence exists”. You define “existence” as the physical universe. If “exists” is to correlate to “existence”, “exist” must mean “Is in a physical mode of being”.
    The mentally competent can see instantly that non-physical modes of being simply aren’t dealt with on either side of your equation. That’s why your so-called “axiom” is useless as “proof” or even evidence of the existence or otherwise of non-physical modes of being.
    Russell Coit’s All Aussie Syllogistic Adventures starring impeter thus comes to its slapstick end.
    My guess is that you’ve been reading Ayn Rand too uncritically and have misapplied her borrowings from Aristotle. Rand is excellent on the practicalities of politics, economics and human psychology, but her attempts at analytical thinking tend to be marred by proleptic dogmatism.

  110. Tim Neilson

    Speaking of dogmatism…

    Dogmatic atheism.

    A mental deficiency which causes the belief that:
    (1) there is no non-material reality that can influence this universe [i.e. God];
    (2) i.e. this universe consists solely of matter and energy;
    (3) however, the tiny and transient scrap of configured matter and energy that comprises the dogmatic atheist is capable of having things called “thoughts” which have some sort of validity other than merely being biochemical phenomena occurring within the material structure of the dogmatic atheist;
    (4) in fact not only that but those thoughts are capable of validating the non-existence of anything in the whole universe other than the matter and energy capable (in principle) of physical verification of which the dogmatic atheist represents a minute evanescent sample.

    Only a nanosecond’s logical thought should be necessary to perceive the psychotic megalomania in dogmatic atheism but somehow the dogmatic atheists themselves can’t seem to do so.

    (I can fully understand an atheist who says that there’s no definite proof of God – the Christian scriptures would confirm that since they say we have to live partly by faith – and that therefore religious belief depends on perceptive judgement beyond fact and logic, and their own perceptive judgement precludes them believing. That is unarguable. But that kind of atheist doesn’t pretend to have a universal – dare I say Godlike? – knowledge of reality.)

  111. Tim Neilson

    Incidentally, your denial of non-physical modes of being would be regarded as nonsense by serious thinkers dating all the way back at least as far as Plato. Google “Realist” and “Nominalist” to alleviate your ignorance.

  112. iampeter

    You pathetic falsehoods about Christian belief have been refuted so often that there’s no point repeating the refutations.

    But you’ve refuted nothing, quite the opposite, you’ve confirmed my worst assumptions. You’re posts have demonstrated repeated agreement on the fundamentals with ISIS as a direct result of Christian ideology.

    You’ve agreed morality is what God commands.
    You’ve agreed there’s more than physical reality.
    You’ve agreed that knowledge is possible through holy books and other non-rational means.
    Well guess what? So does ISIS! Or any other Islamists for that matter.

    Disagreeing on the trivialities of how this or that hangs together in two equally irrational holy books is not disagreeing on any fundamental. The only real difference is they take it seriously, while you are more of a pretend religious person.

    You’re beliefs demonstrate why Christian Conservatives are incapable of formulating a proper foreign policy to address the Islamic threat, since they agree on all the essentials and provide as much comfort to the enemy as all those Islamist’s who sit idly by and do nothing.

    Also, I don’t think you understand what dogma is and are just projecting again. Presenting a logical argument that you’ve failed to refute is not “dogma”. But failing to concede when you have no counter argument is intellectually dishonest.

  113. Tim Neilson

    OK, you’ve conceded defeat on your “axiom”.
    Now,
    Disagreeing on the trivialities of how this or that hangs together in two equally irrational holy books is not disagreeing on any fundamental. The only real difference is they take it seriously, while you are more of a pretend religious person.
    Do you think that the Christian martyrs were “pretend” religious people? Why is a Christian a “pretend” religious person because they assiduously obey the commands to Christians in the Bible to refrain from violence except in defence? Why should a Christian have to disobey God’s word to be thought a serious Christian believer? Your position is totally irrational.
    I’ve repeatedly said that I regard ISIS’s actions as wrong because I regard the Koran as false, not because it’s my place to impose any limits on what God requires of His created beings.
    I’ve repeatedly explained that asking a Christian “what would you do if God commanded you to kill someone” is asking a nonsense question because God clearly is not doing any such thing – Christians are commanded to non-violence except in defence. What God commanded in Old Testament times is between Him and the various willing or unwilling participants. Your insistence that there was injustice to the victims depend solely on your dogmatic rejection of Christian doctrine that this earth is negligible in importance compared with the afterlife, and your ignorance of the circumstances in which the commands were given. Either way it has nothing to do with how Christians should behave today.
    That’s your falsehood. You’re insisting that because Christians obey the true God who commands them to non-violence except in defence, then Christians must approve of violence committed at the behest of the false god of the Koran. All your verbiage can’t disguise that fact.

  114. iampeter

    OK, you’ve conceded defeat on your “axiom”.

    No lol, the fact that reality exists cannot be conceded to crazy people who don’t grasp this. And this fact also disproves the random, assertions of said crazy people. We’ve simply established that even though you were the first to bring up “logical thinking” in this thread, you are not capable of it. Your posts support this, even as you try to project your shortcomings in this area onto me.

    Why is a Christian a “pretend” religious person because they assiduously obey the commands to Christians in the Bible to refrain from violence except in defence?

    Because that doesn’t make you a Christian and believing it does makes you a pretend religious person.

    Why should a Christian have to disobey God’s word to be thought a serious Christian believer? Your position is totally irrational.

    I’m saying its the other way around. The bibles commandments are incompatible with human life and prosperity in today’s secular society and you have to disobey pretty much all of them in order to live among us peacefully. This makes you a pretend religious person.

    I’ve repeatedly said that I regard ISIS’s actions as wrong because I regard the Koran as false, not because it’s my place to impose any limits on what God requires of His created beings.

    But you agree that the right thing to do is what God commands so on what basis do you disagree with God’s commands in the Koran?

    I’ve repeatedly explained that asking a Christian “what would you do if God commanded you to kill someone” is asking a nonsense question because God clearly is not doing any such thing – Christians are commanded to non-violence except in defence.

    But he has commanded it before and if he did so again Christians would be obliged to obey, which is the point and a pretty serious problem if you claim to oppose others who are just doing as God commands them to do (e.g. ISIS).

    What God commanded in Old Testament times is between Him and the various willing or unwilling participants.

    Does not excuse a genocidal dictator or those who still somehow support him knowing he is a genocidal dictator.

    Your insistence that there was injustice to the victims depend solely on your dogmatic rejection of Christian doctrine

    Rejecting a genocidal dictator for being a genocidal dictator is not “dogmatic”. To save you time its also not “category error” or “tautology” or any other word you want to use that you don’t understand. It’s simply the right thing to do. Especially if you claim to oppose groups like ISIS.

    that this earth is negligible in importance compared with the afterlife

    This is once again a fundamental agreement with Islamists. It’s terrifying that so many people living among us, who are screaming the loudest to do something about Islamists hold exactly the same beliefs. Thankfully you’re only pretending.

    You’re insisting that because Christians obey the true God who commands them to non-violence except in defence, then Christians must approve of violence committed at the behest of the false god of the Koran.

    What I’m saying, is that you’re saying that to a Christian the right thing to do is what God commands. That’s exactly what members of ISIS believe too. Hence you are in ideological agreement and have no logical arguments to make to oppose them.

    The first step to opposing groups like ISIS is to start by rejecting religion as a valid means of knowledge or source of morality and until you can do that, all you will do is aid and abet the enemy and give them ideological support, even as you don’t realize you’re doing it.

Comments are closed.