- Canonical texts are nothing to do with atheism, but to do with communism, economics. You could arguably be a Christian and be communist. It was a failed experiment and a quasi-religion, not evidence based.

I refer willingly to the 19 suicide bombers to make my point – they were inspired by the Qur’an, they lifted the verses directly from the book. It set them on a path to believe mass murder was the most holy, the most dutiful, the most honorable, the right thing to do. They were set on that path because they were brought up not to question, not to doubt, to submit to the teachings of their holy teacher, to the will of god. The plain fact is, that book indeed mandates that non-believers, women be treated as slaves, or worse. That is my opinion about the teaching of a book. That in itself does not tar those enlightened muslims who do not accept that kind of barbaric nonsense.

Don’t take my word for it – why not ask Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan? He is, after all, of perfectly sound mind.

But by the way, a radical form of Islam is already engulfing the USA. Statistics show only 28% of US muslims consider themselves american first; 26% of muslims aged under 30 think suicide bombing is justifiable; 66% of US mosques partition women off so they can’t even see the imam when he preaches (source: Council on American Islamic Relations). You let Saudi funded wahhabi extremist groups take them over, and open schools, brainwashing kids with hate. As we have discovered here in England, radicalism creeps, like japanese knotweed. You need to deal with it before it’s too late. Funny how the only poeple in America to speak out about this are either so-called new atheists, or other fanatics like The Peter.

If Quo’s interpretation of the sentence “And that is what some of you were” is correct, then Paul was extremely remiss in not providing details of the Corinthian ex-gay program so that it could be used by subsequent generations. Clearly the secret is lost for ever.

“Only Christianity offers a way out of homosexuality as a condition, a fundamental difference between it and other religions, and one infinitely to its credit.”

Certain individuals and groups who describe themselves as Christian offer “a way out of homosexuality as a condition [sic]”; Christianity as such does not.

What is creditable about offering people something that they are highly unlikely ever to get? Even the adverts in “Old Moore’s Almanack” can do as much.

Yes, I’m quite familiar with your pattern of inciting anger in the hopes of eliciting insult. I know that the emotional rush of feeling a martyr validates your personal choices and confirms your biases.

Nevertheless, it is not wise of our readers to fall for this tactic and feed your neurosis. Nor is it good for them to behave without class and consideration – even towards those who are seeking to encourage exactly that behavior.

Further, since the word and the concept of homosexuality as we understand it did not exist in Paul’s time, it would seem illogical to think that Paul understood former homosexuals aka ex-gays, which isn’t a sexual orientation as much as a political or religious orientation that was recently invented.

The evidence that Paul accepted former homosexuals into the Christian fold is his testimony that he did so in 1 Corinthians.

If that’s your evidence than it’s pretty thin. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that Paul accepted gays who refrained from same-sex relations, but we do not know one way or the other.

Paul’s comments show great insight into homosexuality, as well as an impressive capacity for moral judgment.

Even assuming that Paul intended a complete moral condemnation of homosexuality, there’s no insight given in his remarks at all other than that which you wish to read into them.

The evidence that Paul accepted former homosexuals into the Christian fold is his testimony that he did so in 1 Corinthians. Paul’s comments show great insight into homosexuality, as well as an impressive capacity for moral judgment.

Timothy,

Thanks for suggesting that people not hurl abuse like “the only living things attracted to you are flies” at me.

I’m not much worried about the abuse, however – on the contrary, I’m grimly satisfied by it, because it confirms my impression of the commenters who practice it.

It only took 19 fanatics to bring down the Twin Towers, flight 93 and a chunk of the Pentagon. If one or two people are so poisoned, that’s dangerous enough.

Indeed. Yet what possible relevance does this have, other than a poor attempt on your part to tar everyone of a particular faith or group because of the actions of a few? How does this make you any different from The Peter with his smears against gays?

I’ll play that game any time, any place.

Of course you will, which is hardly surprising because then you get to set the rules as you see fit to arrive at a conclusion you’ve already drawn.

The difference is that Stalin, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mao and so on happened to be atheist. There is no atheist canonical text to inspire them to commit unspeakable evil.

Actually for 3 of these persons you name there are: the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Mammals, human beings included, should not be worshipped.

If there’s one thing Christians, Jews and Muslims can all agree upon with you it is this statement here.

Getting rid of religion is the first stage in freeing mankind of tyranny – replacing it with reason, and human rights, fair representation, is the basis for a fair, moral society.

I agree with you that reason, human rights and fair representation are the basis for a better society – one in which religion has a place but not control. Yet contrary to what you assert there has never been a society in all of recorded human history that has successfully gotten rid of religion without degenerating into a monstrosity, ironically this includes even the nominally atheist ones you yourself name.

AS mentioned, I can throw at you texts directly from the New Testament which mandate and incite hatred against the Jews.

Let’s stick to the “mandate” portion of your claim here. By all means, please do cite the portions of the NT that “mandate” Christians to hate Jews.

I can give you statements from countless religious leaders too.

I’m familiar with quite a number of them. Do you care to start with John Chrysostom or would you prefer something earlier?

Can you find any similar statement in the Declaration of Human Rights (or more importantly, the improvement on this, the UN Declaration of 1948)?

That’s precisely the point. Even in the absence of a direct command in an influential document, humans have a long history of inciting themselves towards evil. So it matters not that the NT nowhere allows or “mandates” such things as say the Inquisition, because humans who cherish the text quite easily perverted the teachings of their own faith in what they saw as defense of the truth. Ditto for the Declaration and the Reign of Terror. Whether you dehumanize your opponents as being nothing more than enemies of God or enemies of the People it makes little difference as the end results are usually the same: discrimination, oppression and murder.

I’m glad we weren’t pacifist on 9/11. Or in September 1939.

Indeed. For many Christians, nations defending themselves from attack is not what Jesus was addressing. Hence why I said “near-pacifism”.

But if it takes centuries to decide what the true Christianity is (whereas one can read the UN Declaration in minutes and get a good idea of how one should treat others, and form a good, harmonious society), what is it good for?

If the UN Declaration survives for as long as Christianity, Judaism or Islam have, you’ll find the exact same problem: factions which interpret the document in various ways, individuals who pervert what appears to be the plain meaning of the text to justify evil, etc. Heck, we can see that now to a degree because I can assure that what may seem obvious in the Declaration to you does not have the exact same meaning to everyone else. Sure you’ll have more agreement among Western societies, but even there you’ll find some disagreement and watch how fast the disputes pile up once you involve folks from other cultures. The US Constitution is only 223 years old and how many different interpretations of this short document do you think have cropped up over time just in 1 nation that share a common language and overall culture?

Is there any reason why the supposed Moses should not be held accountable for his actions or writings, like everyone else?

Nope. Of course Moses didn’t author the NT and Jesus never claimed to be speaking for him.

Find me any peer reviewed archaeological study which corroborates any of the events described.

Oh please. The absence of archaeological evidence isn’t evidence in and of itself. How many events from ancient history lack archaeological corroboration yet are accepted as being probably true because of the witness of ancient documents – including religious texts? Quite a number. The portion of Numbers you cited may have been describing real historical events or it may have been relating a mythical tale in order to relay a point. The Bible is filled with both. Scholars cannot say for certian one way or the other. I’m not a fundamentalist so it makes no difference to me whichever it may actually be. The bloodshed described was certainly common in warfare at the time so it at least has that element of believability. Personally, it seems like justification the Hebrews inserted into their religious text for the conquest of Canaan.

There are things to suggest they might be, but in the case of Mao – he had very Buddhist beliefs and in the case of Pol Pot a definite lean to Buddhism(a non-theist, but not Atheist religion).

Absent is any declaration of atheism on the part of these men — be careful not to shove an agnostic into an atheist mold. They have definite strains of areligious thought, but that’s not the same as atheism.

“Does this mean that there are Reconstructionists and Dominionists who do NOT approve of such actions?”

It only took 19 fanatics to bring down the Twin Towers, flight 93 and a chunk of the Pentagon. If one or two people are so poisoned, that’s dangerous enough.

“I can easily point to atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. who hold, or those who have held in the past past, ideas that are not considered mainstream today, as well as actions that are considered to be quite inappropriate by most folks. Do you really want to play the game where we point to individuals or small groups most folks disagree with and tar everyone else?”

I’ll play that game any time, any place. The difference is that Stalin, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mao and so on happened to be atheist. There is no atheist canonical text to inspire them to commit unspeakable evil. The ultimate enemy is worship. Mammals, human beings included, should not be worshipped.

Stalin’s Russia was in every respect built on religious foundations: cult hero worship; excommunication and worse, for anyone who thought differently; miracles – economic / agricultural miracles of Lysenko and 5 year plans; if you include Marx and Lenin on parade banners bearing your face, you have a Trinity. North Korea: all you can do there is grovel and praise, till you die, give your thanks to the father (i.e. head of the party – Kim Jong Il, and the head of state, his dead father Kim Il Sung).

If you want to claim that absence of superstitious belief causes genocide, then you would have to name a society that failed because it was built on the foundations of Reason, of Thomas Paine, or John Stuart Mill. Getting rid of religion is the first stage in freeing mankind of tyranny – replacing it with reason, and human rights, fair representation, is the basis for a fair, moral society.
AS mentioned, I can throw at you texts directly from the New Testament which mandate and incite hatred against the Jews. I can give you statements from countless religious leaders too. Can you find any similar statement in the Declaration of Human Rights (or more importantly, the improvement on this, the UN Declaration of 1948)?

“Of course nowhere in the New Testament can one find anything in support of or commanding those Christians to do any of these. I have no problems with biblical criticism, especially since I’m not a fundamentalist, but I do object to harrangues like this which are a mockery of historical research. Any religion and even non-religion can be used and have been used for darker purposes that have little to do with what they were founded on.”

Don’t blame me; I didn’t write Matt 5:18-19, Matt 15:4-7, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4, John 15:6, 2 Thess 1:6-9, or the book of Revelation, the inspiration for fanatics like Tim LaHaye to make films celebrating death and destruction on a massive scale.
The idea that God decided who should live in what is now Israel and the West Bank was indeed the cause of the Crusades, and the cause of much misery today.

“Indeed. Quite different from the near-pacifism espoused by Jesus of Nazareth.”

I’m glad we weren’t pacifist on 9/11. Or in September 1939. Pacifism and loving enemies is stupid if not itself wicked, especially when it compromises justice.

“Only if one wishes to ignore what Jesus actually taught. But hey, Christians for centuries have done exactly that and only later generations recognize that such was a mistake and yes, sinful.”

But if it takes centuries to decide what the true Christianity is (whereas one can read the UN Declaration in minutes and get a good idea of how one should treat others, and form a good, harmonious society), what is it good for?

“I wasn’t aware that Moses was supposed to be interviewed in the NT…”

Is there any reason why the supposed Moses should not be held accountable for his actions or writings, like everyone else?

“And you know this with such certainty [none of these Old Testament events never happened], how exactly?”

Fair enough, I overstepped the mark here. But, then, if I said fairies or leprechauns did not exist, or that a teapot is currently orbiting Mars, I cannot prove that either. Let us then say, these events almost certainly never happened. Find me any peer reviewed archaeological study which corroborates any of the events described.

OK?