Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 An opinion piece from Bill Maher condemning Christian hypocrisy in celebrating the death of an enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 An opinion piece from Bill Maher condemning Christian hypocrisy in celebrating the death of an enemy. I think that Bill's piece proves that Christianity and the attendant dialogue are still very much a part of our culture, even if the religion itself has reduced influenced today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 I would like the press to ask every leader of every country who is joining the US on this mission of terrorism, that question. My view on Hussein and OBL, they knew too information on the US and had to be dealt with, plus the fact, US wants to control over the Middle-East. Besides, war is big business, the USA is the #1 export of weapons. I don't think there's too many governments that ask their God for forgiveness for killing. Maher is right but then were does that leave Israel on that same question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 An opinion piece from Bill Maher condemning Christian hypocrisy in celebrating the death of an enemy.Is much less a concern than the hypocrisy of the typical liberal atheist who rationalizes and condones the murder of civilians when they are committed in the name of fighting 'western imperialism'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 I would like the press to ask every leader of every country who is joining the US on this mission of terrorism, that question. My view on Hussein and OBL, they knew too information on the US and had to be dealt with, plus the fact, US wants to control over the Middle-East. Yep..this is why PM Diefenbaker had JFK assassinated....he knew too much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Is much less a concern than the hypocrisy of the typical liberal atheist who rationalizes and condones the murder of civilians when they are committed in the name of fighting 'western imperialism'. Where is the hypocrisy though ? There's nothing in atheism that denies the necessity of war in some cases is there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Yep..this is why PM Diefenbaker had JFK assassinated....he knew too much! No, you're wrong. JFK was killed because he had too many people within the US government that wanted him dead. The CIA, the military, the oil companies, Johnson, Bush, the list goes on. Canada hasn't gotten around to killing one of are own, as yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) There's nothing in atheism that denies the necessity of war in some cases is there ?There is nothing in Christianity that says capital punishment is wrong.I just watched the video. It is the most pathetic commentary I have seen in a long time. He starts out by admitting he has no problems with shooting bin laden but criticised Christians for failing it uphold his interpretation of their beliefs. Far from "nailing it", Mahar shows that he is quite a contemptible individual. Edited May 19, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Where is the hypocrisy though ? There's nothing in atheism that denies the necessity of war in some cases is there ? There is nothing in atheism that denies the desire for war in any case, necessary or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Is much less a concern than the hypocrisy of the typical liberal atheist who rationalizes and condones the murder of civilians when they are committed in the name of fighting 'western imperialism'. Who is condoning it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 This might be the dumbest thread ever created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 There is nothing in Christianity that says capital punishment is wrong. Except that whole "turn the other cheek" thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Except that whole "turn the other cheek" thing. Except that whole "eye for an eye" thing. Yep, plenty of contradictions. Nothing new. Apparently this is an epiphany to Maher and Hardner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Except that whole "eye for an eye" thing. Yep, plenty of contradictions. Nothing new. Apparently this is an epiphany to Maher and Hardner. Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is): “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is):It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means. Edited May 19, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means. You gotta love it! Don't ya know they're religious scholars. Either way, so what. Some Christians apparently might have sinned by celebrating. That's what confession is for. However, it's pretty funny the way this has been used to denounce Christianity as a whole. If this was Islam, we'd here the usual "only a small minority of Muslims" line. Ironically, from the same people that created and posting in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means. It's not presumptuous to observe that in the English translation provided, recognizing that "but" followed by an admonition about the first clause is distinctly an instruction to not follow it too rigidly...if at all. Fortunately for my argument, English words and syntax have meanings and connotations which can be found out. If you think it means something else...by all means, enlighten me. Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 You gotta love it! Don't ya know they're religious scholars. Do religious scholars interpret "but" differently than I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Except that whole "eye for an eye" thing. Yep, plenty of contradictions. Nothing new. Apparently this is an epiphany to Maher and Hardner. Sorry, but 'eye for an eye' is not Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is): “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Aha, Bloodyminded got the quote from the Man himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Do religious scholars interpret "but" differently than I do? No, they do not. Selective Christians take it upon themselves to ignore the words of Jesus and follow contradicting excerpts from the Old Testament. Why they still call themselves Christian, I'm not sure but it's probably a cultural identity thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) No, they do not. Selective Christians take it upon themselves to ignore the words of Jesus and follow contradicting excerpts from the Old Testament. Why they still call themselves Christian, I'm not sure but it's probably a cultural identity thing. Yeah...or maybe they haven't fully considered the matter...or have had bad teachers. (After all, there is a whole slew of contemporary Evangelical preachers who focus on attaining material wealth through Faith. The pop-psychology self-help movement gone religious, which I suppose is inevitable in a consumer society. God and Mammon, united at last!) I have no problem with Christian inability to follow Christ's teachings. We're all only human, and I'm not going to demand more from others than I do myself. It's the self-indulgent justification for their weakness that I find distasteful. Shady is right about one thing: I'm no religious scholar. I'm perfectly open to hearing a different interpretation of Jesus' words here, if different interpretations exist. But while Shady and Tim inform me of my ignorance, mockingly, they make no attempt to correct it through their superior understanding. Why not? As I said, I'm willing to listen. Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 It's not presumptuous to observe that in the English translation providedSure it is because you are apply a meaning to a metaphor. The literal meaning of the words is that one should turn the other cheek when slapped and that has no relevance to the broader question of what to do with criminals.Hear are some interpretations by scholars: Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Sure it is because you are apply a meaning to a metaphor. The literal meaning of the words is that one should turn the other cheek when slapped and that has no relevance to the broader question of what to do with criminals. Hear are some interpretations by scholars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek Yes, just so. We're not in disagreement. What sounds cruel to contemporary ears was actually a great improvement in justice (pre-Jesus): avoiding vengeance (including, for example, punishing a family for the actions of one person, or committing to disproportionate punishment). Why this underlines my point--already forgotten from the beginning of the thread--is that one of Maher's original points was that many people are celebrating bin Laden's death from a perspective of vengeance; which, if one is a Christian, is distinctly going against the message of their Messiah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.