No Morality in Christianity: Theologian Justifies Genocide and Infanticide

[clambake]

fiatlux wrote

Lol, Ed. I had a huge collection of chick tracts growing up in the 1970s. I wish I still had them, as several have become very rare and worth hundreds of dollars. I enjoy his work in a strange way, in that it makes me laugh my ass off that anybody could take it seriously. It's a very strange worldview, but actually (and unfortunately) quite ubiquitous in the fundie world.

Interestingly, he has quite the cult following among the hipster heathen community (like the subgenious types). They regard him as kind of a bizarro crumm. Which isn't far off.

You may enjoy The Jack T. Chick Museum of Fine Art, if you haven't found it already.

[Davin]

lostsheep wrote

True: it's better never to be born, or to die very early, before you can risk damning yourself to eternal hell. For some reason, no Christain I've ever met seems to understand this simple fact. Like it's been said: Christains should rejoice when innocents are killed, or when the "saved" die (actually sometimes they do): it's a free pass to happy land, with no risk of sinning and ruining your chances. How people can swallow this, I don't understand, but then, I don't really want to. On some level, some of them must realize it's shit...if they allow themselves to think that far. I've confronted religious people about this, and they just get irritated, and go into denial mode.

But some will, like Lane, outright claim that it was "a blessing" that a child dies right after being saved. I've heard this from missionaries I've met, who claimed they were able to "save" a child who died soon after they "knew" Jeebus, and they felt pretty good about it. One told me how a child was shot, but this particular missionary felt so good about the "fact" that this child was "saved" before she was shot (and of course the missionary took credit for "saving"/converting this child). It is a disturbing sickness, to me, and an irreconcilable difference in thinking about the value of life and the meaning of death.

Aye, people like Lane are very disturbing people.

I have come up with the perfect Christian system:

1) A Christian kills one or several other Christians right after they repent everything and/or after just getting saved.
2) That Christian repents for the killing of another person/people.
3) Another Christian kills the one that just repented for killing people and follows step 2.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until there is only one Christian left.
5) Last remaining Christian repents and lives their life until they die from someone else or natural causes.

I don't see how that can fail unless one of the Christian killers is killed by someone else before they can repent, but I think that's a risk worth taking if it means that all your loved ones will live in heaven forever singing show tunes to Jesus and god. They could call it "the rapture" and do it on the 22 of this month.

[thomastwo]

If you think that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a justified act does that also mean that there is also possibility that the killing of the Canaanites was also a justified act?

[fiatlux]

clambake wrote

You may enjoy The Jack T. Chick Museum of Fine Art, if you haven't found it already.

Thanks a bunch! good stuff. Haw haw haw.

[West491]

Davin wrote

Aye, people like Lane are very disturbing people.

I have come up with the perfect Christian system:

1) A Christian kills one or several other Christians right after they repent everything and/or after just getting saved.
2) That Christian repents for the killing of another person/people.
3) Another Christian kills the one that just repented for killing people and follows step 2.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until there is only one Christian left.
5) Last remaining Christian repents and lives their life until they die from someone else or natural causes.

I don't see how that can fail unless one of the Christian killers is killed by someone else before they can repent, but I think that's a risk worth taking if it means that all your loved ones will live in heaven forever singing show tunes to Jesus and god. They could call it "the rapture" and do it on the 22 of this month.

It is the belief of some Christians that suicide is a sin and dying with sin "in your heart" buys you a one-way trip to the disco inferno.

[West491]

thomastwo wrote

If you think that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a justified act does that also mean that there is also possibility that the killing of the Canaanites was also a justified act?

Were the Canaanites terrorists? Did they bring more harm to society than benefits? If yes, then my answer to your question is yes.

[fiatlux]

thomastwo wrote

If you think that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a justified act does that also mean that there is also possibility that the killing of the Canaanites was also a justified act?

Sure. Why not? Like the T-shirt from the original post said, "kill 'em all and let god sort em out," right?

But I think the point that's being made here is that there's a god that's saying "thou shalt not kill" out of one side of his mouth and "thou shalt kill" out of the other and you've got this Lane fella trying to create rationalizations for why this god, for which exists not the tiniest shred of evidence, is justified in holding both positions simultaneously.

And what he comes up with is that it's justified because humans on the side of a certain arbritary age number are ok to kill because they go straight to heaven and those on the other side of that certain age number are ok to kill because they are evil.

So, hey, if that's what you believe and you want to equivocate that with the acts of UBL, then that's your freak flag to fly, friend. But it sounds to me like, if you hold those views, you may be a lot closer to being UBL yourself.

[thomastwo]

West491 wrote

Were the Canaanites terrorists? Did they bring more harm to society than benefits? If yes, then my answer to your question is yes.

So, you might have titled the thread "Perhaps there might be morality in Christianity"?

[thomastwo]

fiatlux wrote

Sure. Why not? Like the T-shirt from the original post said, "kill 'em all and let god sort em out," right?

I'm not sure why not. I took from the earlier posts in the thread that there was general agreement that the acts of the Israelites and the God who supposedly commanded them were to be considered immoral.

fiatlux wrote

But I think the point that's being made here is that there's a god that's saying "thou shalt not kill" out of one side of his mouth and "thou shalt kill" out of the other and you've got this Lane fella trying to create rationalizations for why this god, for which exists not the tiniest shred of evidence, is justified in holding both positions simultaneously.

It seems to me that the position you describe would be the one that most societies come to in relation to killing. That is, that in general killing is considered to be morally wrong except in certain circumstances where it is morally right. Those circumstances are debated but might include justified war, criminal punishment, abortion etc. I don't think that would typically be described as talking out of both sides of the mouth?

fiatlux wrote

And what he comes up with is that it's justified because humans on the side of a certain arbritary age number are ok to kill because they go straight to heaven and those on the other side of that certain age number are ok to kill because they are evil.

I suppose he has a right to his opinion. And perhaps it is the correct one. I don't know. Nor do I know how anybody could justify the opposite opinion that is being expressed in the thread. Perhaps the killing was justified, and perhaps it wasn't. Definitive conclusions one way or the other seem to be excluded.

fiatlux wrote

So, hey, if that's what you believe and you want to equivocate that with the acts of UBL, then that's your freak flag to fly, friend. But it sounds to me like, if you hold those views, you may be a lot closer to being UBL yourself.

Hope you can see why in the context of what I've written this doesn't apply.

[fiatlux]

thomastwo wrote

I'm not sure why not. I took from the earlier posts in the thread that there was general agreement that the acts of the Israelites and the God who supposedly commanded them were to be considered immoral.

That was kinda my lame attempt at a glib joke. Speaking of general agreement, there is also general agreement on this forum that a god or gods do not exist, so you kind of have to get your head around that concept to understand the absurdity of this whole topic.

thomastwo wrote

It seems to me that the position you describe would be the one that most societies come to in relation to killing. That is, that in general killing is considered to be morally wrong except in certain circumstances where it is morally right. Those circumstances are debated but might include justified war, criminal punishment, abortion etc. I don't think that would typically be described as talking out of both sides of the mouth?

Of course it could be described as talking out of both sides of our collective mouths. That's why the life and death issues you raised are such hot button issues. They are impossible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction and personal moral sensibilities. I guess my bigger question would be why do we need gods imperfect morality if society's imperfect morality does a serviceable job of things. I'm not saying that societal morality is perfect. I'm just a believer that morality is an anthropological phenomena, not a theological one. I'm an atheist. The latter would be silly.

thomastwo wrote

I suppose he has a right to his opinion. And perhaps it is the correct one. I don't know. Nor do I know how anybody could justify the opposite opinion that is being expressed in the thread. Perhaps the killing was justified, and perhaps it wasn't. Definitive conclusions one way or the other seem to be excluded.

By saying you don't know, aren't you are the one excluding definitive conclusions? So. Where do you stand? Is Mr. Three-Name-McLane right in his assessment? Were the Israelites justified in their indiscriminate genocide because babies go to heaven and the rest were evil and deserved death?

For the record, I believe he's full of shit. Yeah. Definitely. And, for the record, the navy seal was justified for double-tapping UBL in the noggin. Just my opinion.

[lostsheep]

Davin wrote

Aye, people like Lane are very disturbing people.

I have come up with the perfect Christian system:

1) A Christian kills one or several other Christians right after they repent everything and/or after just getting saved.
2) That Christian repents for the killing of another person/people.
3) Another Christian kills the one that just repented for killing people and follows step 2.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until there is only one Christian left.
5) Last remaining Christian repents and lives their life until they die from someone else or natural causes.

I don't see how that can fail unless one of the Christian killers is killed by someone else before they can repent, but I think that's a risk worth taking if it means that all your loved ones will live in heaven forever singing show tunes to Jesus and god. They could call it "the rapture" and do it on the 22 of this month.

This strikes me as an excellent plan for True Believers (TM) who think like this Craig. So I wonder what objections this douche might have to this logic?

Seriously, logic like this is what makes people deliberately fly planes into buildings and keeps us in the Stoneage, morally speaking.

[Demigod79]

thomastwo wrote

It seems to me that the position you describe would be the one that most societies come to in relation to killing. That is, that in general killing is considered to be morally wrong except in certain circumstances where it is morally right. Those circumstances are debated but might include justified war, criminal punishment, abortion etc. I don't think that would typically be described as talking out of both sides of the mouth?

Nothing ever justifies the wholesale slaughter of entire cities (not to mention the fact that Israelites were the aggressors, invading Canaan for living space). It's called genocide for a reason and there are good reasons why it is condemned all over the world. Craig is using perverted logic to attempt to justify one of the most immoral acts in the bible.

thomastwo wrote

I suppose he has a right to his opinion. And perhaps it is the correct one. I don't know. Nor do I know how anybody could justify the opposite opinion that is being expressed in the thread. Perhaps the killing was justified, and perhaps it wasn't. Definitive conclusions one way or the other seem to be excluded.

... are you serious? The morality of this case is absolutely conclusive! There may be many morally ambiguous events in the bible but this is not one of them. Seriously, if you can't judge the morality of aggressive war and/or genocide then there's something very wrong with you.

[Ed-M]

thomastwo wrote

If you think that the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a justified act does that also mean that there is also possibility that the killing of the Canaanites was also a justified act?

Did the Canaanites take credit for killing 3,000 infidels?

That being said, should we gave gone around killing "Canaanites" right and left for almost ten years instead of going in, capturing or killing Bin Laden, and getting out?

[thomastwo]

Demigod79 wrote

Nothing ever justifies the wholesale slaughter of entire cities (not to mention the fact that Israelites were the aggressors, invading Canaan for living space). It's called genocide for a reason and there are good reasons why it is condemned all over the world. Craig is using perverted logic to attempt to justify one of the most immoral acts in the bible.

You say it's condemned all over the world, but the very fact that it is so prevalent shows that the aggressors presumably believe that it is morally justified on some grounds. You may or may not agree with their moral assessment but that's a different matter....

Demigod79 wrote

... are you serious? The morality of this case is absolutely conclusive! There may be many morally ambiguous events in the bible but this is not one of them. Seriously, if you can't judge the morality of aggressive war and/or genocide then there's something very wrong with you.

So, it sounds like you believe that morality is absolute. What's the basis for your absolute moral judgement above?

[thomastwo]

Ed-M wrote

Did the Canaanites take credit for killing 3,000 infidels?

I think the record says that they were pretty evil in general (child sacrifice etc). But then the record was written by the winners. So who knows?

Ed-M wrote

That being said, should we gave gone around killing "Canaanites" right and left for almost ten years instead of going in, capturing or killing Bin Laden, and getting out?

It seems to me that some of those "Canaanites" had it coming and others were just bystanders wrongly accused of being "Canaanites".