tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6535800868667479253..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Credit where Credit is DueVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54218936430172237562011-10-30T06:05:57.749-07:002011-10-30T06:05:57.749-07:00VICTOR
Has anybody noticed that, before Christiani...VICTOR<br />Has anybody noticed that, before Christianity...<br /><br />CARR<br />Don't you mean before Judaism?<br /><br />I guess Jews just aren't as enlightened as Christians.<br /><br />Or the Judeo of Judeo-Christian values can be dropped whenever it is no longer necessary to pretend that Christianity is an inclusive religion , which does not regard other religions as barbarismSteven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55486329222765193512011-10-29T09:46:39.034-07:002011-10-29T09:46:39.034-07:00Son-of-Confusion: "Gee brother none of these ...<b>Son-of-Confusion:</b> "<i>Gee brother none of these people seem to get the "We are not Protestant Fundie literalists so your arguments are non-starters we are Catholic" vibe?<br /><br />Is it us?</i>"<br /><br />Yes, it's you, you sneer-worthy fool.<br /><br /><b>Son-of-Confusion, sele-confused:</b> “<i>Our Lady be with you.</i>”<br /><br /><br />Let’s see: according to “classical theism”, the human person is the <i>union</i> of physical body and immaterial mind … that is, dead persons do not (presently) exist.<br /><br />As someone (i.e. you) might say: 'She's dead! get over it', you sneer-worthy idolater.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87205131750368799902011-10-29T09:36:17.959-07:002011-10-29T09:36:17.959-07:00"The Hebrews were living in a world where the..."<i>The Hebrews were living in a world where the norm for a small offense was a disproportionately large retribution. (e.g., You hit me; I kill you.)</i>"<br /><br />And, without the tutelage of the Bible, humans *still* think and operate that way, or worse: “<i>You (or your cousin) ‘dis’ me; I kill you.</i>”Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60684390637682077592011-10-28T16:04:46.748-07:002011-10-28T16:04:46.748-07:00SteveK: "Okay, Tony. I was mistaken."
T...SteveK: "Okay, Tony. I was mistaken."<br /><br />Thank you. That means a lot. And I promise you that admitting you made a mistake makes you much more impressive in my eyes.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65024378392808132262011-10-28T15:53:47.469-07:002011-10-28T15:53:47.469-07:00Illion,
On what basis do you say that? I haven...Illion,<br /><br />On what basis do you say that? I haven't said one way or the other about whether "an eye for an eye" was an improvement or not. <br /><br />You must be thinking of someone else's comment.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69269570417272466452011-10-28T15:35:53.091-07:002011-10-28T15:35:53.091-07:00Okay, Tony. I was mistaken.Okay, Tony. I was mistaken.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16451007907658600042011-10-28T14:03:49.421-07:002011-10-28T14:03:49.421-07:00Terri: "Ben, You are being inconsistent. ...&...<b>Terri:</b> "<i>Ben, You are being inconsistent. ...</i>"<br /><br />Even without having followed the exchange between you, I can say that he may well be.<br /><br /><b>Terri:</b> "<i>... You were the one who kept bringing up the law about cutting off a woman's hand which is in the same category as "eye for an eye" and stoning people for adultery. You are claiming the passage about hands is figurative, yet seem fine with eye for an eye being literal.</i>"<br /><br />At the same time, you appear to be refusing to understand that "an eye for an eye" was not only a vast improvement over prior human concepts of justice, but is also a vast improvement over today's humans, left to themselves and without the witness and moral suasion of Judeo-Christianity, will do while calling it justice.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49776407865562416882011-10-28T13:42:40.393-07:002011-10-28T13:42:40.393-07:00SteveK, look up where I said the first comment you...SteveK, look up where I said the first comment you quoted above. The context couldn’t be clearer. Bob mentioned what I thought was a non-sequitur – that the Allies were right to fight in WWII. I agreed with him, but said that I didn’t see how it was relevant to the discussion. I asked him how he thought it was relevant.<br /><br />My last paragraph in your last comment couldn’t be written any more clearly. I don’t know what to say if you can’t understand it.<br /><br />I think it might really, really help you if you read the OP. Maybe do it twice or something. I think my statement after that might make more sense to me.<br /><br />I am still waiting for you to show me evidence of how it is that I have taken both sides of the argument vis a vis the OP. Please do that, and if you can’t, admit that you were mistaken and stop wasting my time.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47368970741066049322011-10-28T13:29:14.208-07:002011-10-28T13:29:14.208-07:00Tony,
What is your intended disagreement below in ...Tony,<br />What is your intended disagreement below in your comment to Bob? Is it that Christian's did what they did despite Christianity teaching the opposite, or not teaching anything on the subject, or that Christian's weren't the primarly group leading the way, or ????.<br /><br />>>> Tony to Bob: And I thought your argument here was about the supposed pioneering activities among Christians in the conduct of war against non-combatants... <br /><br />>>> continuing...What I think you mean to say is that some Christians, some of the time, helped develop a set of (still often ignored and more often meaningless) set of rules of combat that seek to reduce the violence and cruelty against non-combatants. That is, of course, true, and we have evidence for it.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35393046328416046812011-10-28T12:16:25.434-07:002011-10-28T12:16:25.434-07:00SteveK, I see that you are still having trouble fi...SteveK, I see that you are still having trouble finding evidence for me taking both sides of the argument vis a vis the OP. I'll continue to wait for you to show me that one.<br /><br />I also see that you are still incapable of understanding what I have written and summarizing it correctly. That and your inability to write clearly make it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.<br /><br />Everyone can learn how to think and write critically, I imagine. I hope that you may someday do so. Keep on trying.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40087434056510691172011-10-28T12:06:33.067-07:002011-10-28T12:06:33.067-07:00And about the "gotcha" comment, Tony. I ...And about the "gotcha" comment, Tony. I try very hard not to do that, although I sometimes do succomb to the temptation. <br /><br />I can say that I'm not *trying* to do that here.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76859294691774083722011-10-28T11:48:47.627-07:002011-10-28T11:48:47.627-07:00Tony,
>>> My argument has been throughout...Tony,<br />>>> My argument has been throughout the that OP is obviously ridiculous <br /><br />I'm talking about your rejoinder to my comment about giving credit.<br /><br />Your argument was that no individual group should get credit. That sums up the first comment I quoted that you later objected to. <br /><br />Your argument also was that Christians deserve to get some credit. That sums up the comment you just cited in response to me saying the above. <br /><br />How is that not taking both sides?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18210515622857490712011-10-28T11:10:18.018-07:002011-10-28T11:10:18.018-07:00Isn't it amazing -- and amusing -- that person...Isn't it amazing -- and amusing -- that persons who *hate* God always seem to imagine that he *owes* them <i>more</i> than he owes those who love him (or, at aly rate, are trying to love him)?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85867432714195686342011-10-28T09:15:25.170-07:002011-10-28T09:15:25.170-07:00SteveK: "Okay, you took both sides of the arg...SteveK: "Okay, you took both sides of the argument."<br /><br />Ha. My argument has been throughout the that OP is obviously ridiculous (for reasons provided). Feel free to provide me taking the side of the argument where I agree with the OP -- please, do this -- I look forward to you wasting as much time as it seems I do by responding to your attempts to form a "gotcha!"<br /><br />I'm sure you can do it. After all, you wrote that I took both sides of the argument, and I think you know then that it must be true. So if you don't find it right away, keep on looking.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47153573827776545992011-10-28T08:58:45.905-07:002011-10-28T08:58:45.905-07:00Tony,
Okay, you took both sides of the argument. I...Tony,<br />Okay, you took both sides of the argument. I can do that too if it helps.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41007113373611923492011-10-28T08:35:32.615-07:002011-10-28T08:35:32.615-07:00I sincerely don't follow (I just can't tel...I sincerely don't follow (I just can't tell what it you're trying to say) most of your last comment.<br /><br />You did write this:<br /><br />SteveK: " Thank you for confirming what I just said about the comments - that Christianity is due no credit."<br /><br />But if that was a fair summation of the comments, you'd have to suffer from either poor reading comprehension or simply be dishonest. <br /><br />For instance, I wrote this upthread:<br /><br />Me: "What I think you mean to say is that some Christians, some of the time, helped develop a set of (still often ignored and more often meaningless) set of rules of combat that seek to reduce the violence and cruelty against non-combatants. That is, of course, true, and we have evidence for it."<br /><br />Thank you for showing us all, I suppose, that there are some things you will remain consistent about. Unfortunately, it seems to be that you are consistent at providing poor summaries and misrepresenting the argument of your opponents.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48910418576177578002011-10-28T08:14:31.794-07:002011-10-28T08:14:31.794-07:00Tony,
>>> When it’s floated that intrinsi...Tony,<br />>>> When it’s floated that intrinsic value from God might do the trick, it’s pointed out that that can be problematic if one reads the Bible as meaning approximately what it says. <br /><br />Thank you for confirming what I just said about the comments - that Christianity is due no credit. Nevermind that it's not accurate. Heads we lose. <br /><br />>>> I will grant that Christians didn’t invent hypocrisy nor psychological projection, but SteveK, some of you guys seem to have perfected it.<br /><br />Again you confirm that my comments are accurate by adding another example. While Christianity didn't invent this stuff, they are given ample credit in your mind. Not the culture or some preceeding group - but Christian's by name. Tails we don't win.<br /><br />To make it even more clear, I will copy your comment to Bob below so people can see that in the case of moral progress during war you prefer to credit no particular group. Why don't you credit the culture, rather than Christians, when it comes to the lack of moral progress in war? Didn't the Sun Tzu beat Christian's to that too?<br /><br />>>> Tony said: And if merely condemning cruelty against non-combatants was enough, you would concede that Sun Tzu and Abu Bakr both seem to have beaten Christians to the notion that war should be conducted along some morally and officially acceptable lines. (I don't think we should give credit to any individual or group, mind you -- I think we're talking about cultural and moral progress, something that occurs across time and cultures, etc.)SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63473564560809804312011-10-27T20:27:37.401-07:002011-10-27T20:27:37.401-07:00I want to quote something Crude said on another th...I want to quote something Crude said on another thread.<br /><br />I hope he doesn't mind.<br /><br />QUOTE"I keep pointing to Harris and Singer, but I do it for a reason. I see a lot of outrage about the very idea that a Good God could justify the death of a child, for example. <b>But apparently, it's okay for Singer or Harris or company to justify it.</b> That's when I start to question the sincerity of the line of inquiry.<br /><br />And <b>I don't think it does good, as one wag did, to say "Well Singer is just talking about it, God did it!"</b> Because unless Craig committed some genocides when I'm not looking, the 'talking versus acting' bit apparently didn't mean much.END QUOTE<br /><br />So Paps? Hypocrite much?BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21205644443407545012011-10-27T20:15:38.197-07:002011-10-27T20:15:38.197-07:00Paps,
So basically your argument boils down to &q...Paps,<br /><br />So basically your argument boils down to "No it isn't!" & Rah Rah Rah Atheists!<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM<br /><br />Classic Paps. All blather no argument. <br /><br />Bored now.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69840248514427888922011-10-27T19:08:12.312-07:002011-10-27T19:08:12.312-07:00Papalinton,
Where in the world did you get the id...Papalinton,<br /><br />Where in the world did you get the idea I was calling Lex Talionis a Christian idea? Read my post again. I explicitly credited the Hebrews. <br /><br />And as for borrowing from Hammurabi, heck, I myself have brought up the many connections between Mosaic Law and its Mesopotamian analogs on multiple occasions on other threads. No new news here.<br /><br />For reasons I have yet to fathom, you persist in thinking that I should somehow regard antecedents to either Jewish or Christian thought as threatening. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I actually <i>embrace</i> such connections. I seek them out, and shout "eureka" (figuratively) when I find a new one.<br /><br />You're punching into the wind here.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26824296016920937982011-10-27T18:19:09.594-07:002011-10-27T18:19:09.594-07:00Yachov
"Of course thousands of years from now...Yachov<br />"Of course thousands of years from now people like you will insist my Grandmother was really telling me to wash up when she told me to "Go soak your head!" but that is hardly my problem.'<br /><br />Not even close. This form of ahistorical fraud is solely the modus operandi of Christian Apologetics, one of the 'dark arts' of the faithful. Its continued use has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Terri, Tony and Walter among others, including me, have been setting the record straight. No longer will christian theo-speak be accorded compliant deference simply because it demands so. Only the good bits will be accepted as bona fide contributions to society. The rest goes on consignment to the mythology section of the library.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69216341219452610062011-10-27T18:15:21.875-07:002011-10-27T18:15:21.875-07:00@terri
You really need to read me more carefully ...@terri<br /><br />You really need to read me more carefully my dear.<br /><br />>You are claiming the passage about hands is figurative, yet seem fine with eye for an eye being literal.<br /><br />I never said we should punish people by literally doing to them what they did to others. I said I support the idea the Bible literally teaches capital punishment for the guilty. <br /><br />Capital punishment has nothing to do with mutilation. Mutilation is the cutting off of a healthy body part for no good purpose. Which is an intrinsically evil act. Thus it can't be a punishment.<br /><br />Here is what I said literally since you are focused very heavily on the literal.<br /><br />QUOTE"Because I would never say <b>the laws commanding capital punishment for crimes where not literal</b> since I don't believe it. October 27, 2011 2:08 PM"<br /><br />and the next post:<br /><br />QUOTE" The point of Haram passages is that <b>they might apply taken literally to killing the innocent where as "eye for an eye" refers to retribution against the guilty who have been tried and found guilty on the testimony of two or three credible witnesses.</b>END QUOTE<br /><br />I questioned you comparing legislature that commanded punishment for criminals with Haram which if taken literally slays the innocent. <br /><br />>If you have been keeping up with the chatter from Copan on blogs, he has also talked about how an eye for an eye was probably not literal and was "optional".<br /><br />I agree with him. I merely said the Bible literally authorized the death penalty. You brought up stoning which was an application of the death penalty. Not mutilation or Haram.<br /><br />>So, though you think I can't be taking seriously, you have not proven yourself very familiar with this topic and some of what Copan has said outside of the genocide passages.<br /><br />Rather you should read more carefully I think. If I was not clear I am sorry but I stand by what I wrote & there is no contradiction. You are mistaken.<br /><br />>Copan is trying to reform the violent portrayal of God in many instances, not simply in the genocidal instances.<br /><br />I have Copan's book and I read it nowhere do I read him ever claiming the death penalty wasn't literally applied to convicted criminals under the Mosaic Law.<br /><br />After all why would that be in dispute? Also the fact some things might be taken figuratively like Moses telling them the moral equivalent of "I want you to hit them so hard their mothers get a black eye" doesn't mean all things must be figurative.<br /><br />There is a moral and theological tradition given with scripture. Not scripture alone as the so called Reformers made up 500 years ago.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50089428125110640232011-10-27T18:07:01.305-07:002011-10-27T18:07:01.305-07:00Bob
Lex Talionis
This is another case of christian...Bob<br />Lex Talionis<br />This is another case of christianity stealing another society's moral code. The Jews knew about proportionate justice long before christianity was a twinkle in Paul's eye, indeed the simplest form of the concept is in the Exodus 21:23 'eye for an eye' passage. This is not a christian concept. It was appropriated from the Jews. But even theirs was borrowed from an older source: "In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death (Hammurabi's code, §230).<br /><br />Sorry Bob, this is just another example of religious malarkey being fobbed off as 'christian tradition'.<br /><br />You say, "Talk about moving goalposts! One day you complain that Christians never change and that we quote people from the year 1000, and the next day you complain that every now and then, things change."<br /><br />Yes Bob. I do complain Christians do not change and they do quote people from a 1,000 years ago. And no Bob, I don't complain that every now and then, things change; what I <i>do</i> complain about is that christians can never or are never able to change of the own volition. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming into each new phase as social norms develop. That is so tiring; it is as if looking after a recalcitrant child. And throughout no changing of goalposts has occurred on my part.<br /><br />Reason 1: Christians 0Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25662338445153777512011-10-27T18:02:22.416-07:002011-10-27T18:02:22.416-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32743209102509121472011-10-27T16:39:48.292-07:002011-10-27T16:39:48.292-07:00SteveK: "Christian Morality: heads you lose, ...SteveK: "Christian Morality: heads you lose, tails you don't win."<br /><br />Oh, boo hoo. I have more respect for dogged incoherence and proud proclamations of fideism than I do this sort of phony grand-standing. <br /><br />The OP makes the outlandish claim that it had never occurred to anyone before Christian thinkers that there should be rules about what combatants may do to non-combatants. After this assertion is shown to be false we have attempts to clarify what it actually is that made Christian rules about martial conduct uniquely... good? (Turns out it’s not Crusaders.) When it’s floated that intrinsic value from God might do the trick, it’s pointed out that that can be problematic if one reads the Bible as meaning approximately what it says. <br /><br />And that, with the usual wandering and heckling, is where we are now. <br /><br />I will grant that Christians didn’t invent hypocrisy nor psychological projection, but SteveK, some of you guys seem to have perfected it.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.com