Christianity, the religion of peace...

[Tero]

It's all popery, interpretation, Seth. Nothing in the NT says the old is repealed. In practice, Paul said the men did not need to whack off the tips of their penises anymore. That was about it. Popery then decided which of the scribblings went into the new book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[JimC]

That's the thing about those tomes: You can pick and choose whatever suits the argument you wish to promote. The vagueness, incoherence and contradictions make it easy to find justification for whatever barrow you're pushing.

So, it might be reasonable to look at what barrow modern Christians are pushing rather than trying to stuff them into a fallacy. Whatever Jesus is alleged to have said 2000 years ago, the incidence of Christians stoning adulterers or cutting off people's heads today is, well, just about zero. I will note that it is alleged that one Christian fighter somewhere over in the sandbox cut the head off of a Muslim the other day, but that doesn't seem to be either a trend or something modern-day Christians approve of.

And that's why the "Matthew 5:17-18" canard is a Wayback Machine fallacy.

However, christians of the not-to-distant past did torture people to death for disbelieving, and carried out many other similar violent crimes in the name of their religion. I agree that this has largely ceased, but not with your suggested reason, that christianity is somehow inherently free of the potential for such religiously motivated hate.

The fact is that centuries of secular rule has forced christianity into being a much more passive institution, and that islam has not had this enforced reduction in power and aggression.

[Hermit]

So, it might be reasonable to look at what barrow modern Christians are pushing rather than trying to stuff them into a fallacy. Whatever Jesus is alleged to have said 2000 years ago, the incidence of Christians stoning adulterers or cutting off people's heads today is, well, just about zero.

Yes. I said as much often enough, most recently here.

The difference between the Qur'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qur'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

And that's why the "Matthew 5:17-18" canard is a Wayback Machine fallacy.

Does not follow.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?

The part where this has anything to do with proof that Jesus said what you claim he said.

[Seth]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?

The part where this has anything to do with proof that Jesus said what you claim he said.

Um, I didn't claim he said anything, I said that Christian theology claims that he said some things. If you have an issue with Christian theology, take it up with a Christian, or with Jesus.

[Seth]

It's all popery, interpretation, Seth. Nothing in the NT says the old is repealed. In practice, Paul said the men did not need to whack off the tips of their penises anymore. That was about it. Popery then decided which of the scribblings went into the new book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And that's relevant to today's practice of Christianity how, exactly?

[Seth]

That's the thing about those tomes: You can pick and choose whatever suits the argument you wish to promote. The vagueness, incoherence and contradictions make it easy to find justification for whatever barrow you're pushing.

So, it might be reasonable to look at what barrow modern Christians are pushing rather than trying to stuff them into a fallacy. Whatever Jesus is alleged to have said 2000 years ago, the incidence of Christians stoning adulterers or cutting off people's heads today is, well, just about zero. I will note that it is alleged that one Christian fighter somewhere over in the sandbox cut the head off of a Muslim the other day, but that doesn't seem to be either a trend or something modern-day Christians approve of.

And that's why the "Matthew 5:17-18" canard is a Wayback Machine fallacy.

However, christians of the not-to-distant past did torture people to death for disbelieving, and carried out many other similar violent crimes in the name of their religion. I agree that this has largely ceased, but not with your suggested reason, that christianity is somehow inherently free of the potential for such religiously motivated hate.

I have not suggested anything "inherent" at all. I merely state that condemning Christians today for what was done a thousand or two thousand or five thousand years ago is faux intellectualism and is in fact nothing more than bigoted and hateful Atheist religious rhetoric that's as morally bankrupt as anything thing any theist ever says.

The fact is that centuries of secular rule has forced christianity into being a much more passive institution, and that islam has not had this enforced reduction in power and aggression.

Which is why the Wayback Machine fallacy applies here.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?

The part where this has anything to do with proof that Jesus said what you claim he said.

Um, I didn't claim he said anything,

Um, yes you did, liar. Here's what you wrote only a few posts ago:

And do you have proof that Jebus repealed the OT?

He said he did.

Why do you lie so much?

[pErvinalia]

Which is why the Wayback Machine fallacy applies here.

Which is why the Made Up Fallacy fallacy applies here.

[Seth]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?

The part where this has anything to do with proof that Jesus said what you claim he said.

Um, I didn't claim he said anything,

Um, yes you did, liar. Here's what you wrote only a few posts ago:

And do you have proof that Jebus repealed the OT?

He said he did.

Why do you lie so much?

Why do you lie and quote-mine? The complete statement was "He said he did. That was the whole point of his sacrifice, according to Christian theology."

I was quite careful to cite the source precisely because I knew you would lie and pettifog if I didn't. So I did. So kindly fuck off.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I merely state that condemning Christians today for what was done a thousand or two thousand or five thousand years ago is faux intellectualism and is in fact nothing more than bigoted and hateful Atheist religious rhetoric that's as morally bankrupt as anything thing any theist ever says.

No one in this thread is "condemning Christians today". We may be saying that christianity should not be too smug about its current relative passivity in comparison with islam; it cannot proclaim itself a "religion of peace" without admitting that christianity in the past was as violent as islam is now, and looking searchingly at the historical reasons for the change.

[pErvinalia]

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?

The part where this has anything to do with proof that Jesus said what you claim he said.

Um, I didn't claim he said anything,

Um, yes you did, liar. Here's what you wrote only a few posts ago:

And do you have proof that Jebus repealed the OT?

He said he did.

Why do you lie so much?

Why do you lie and quote-mine? The complete statement was "He said he did. That was the whole point of his sacrifice, according to Christian theology."

I was quite careful to cite the source precisely because I knew you would lie and pettifog if I didn't. So I did. So kindly fuck off.

You said HE!! I.e. JESUS. YOU said JESUS SAID HE DID. It doesn't matter what you wrote after that point. You specifically said that Jesus himself said it. So, you are not only a troll, but a liar.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

I merely state that condemning Christians today for what was done a thousand or two thousand or five thousand years ago is faux intellectualism and is in fact nothing more than bigoted and hateful Atheist religious rhetoric that's as morally bankrupt as anything thing any theist ever says.

No one in this thread is "condemning Christians today".

I didn't say anyone in this thread was. I am referring to the standardized and ubiquitous response of Atheists to discussions with theists.

We may be saying that christianity should not be too smug about its current relative passivity in comparison with islam; it cannot proclaim itself a "religion of peace" without admitting that christianity in the past was as violent as islam is now, and looking searchingly at the historical reasons for the change.

Why can't it? That was then, this is now. All the people who did bad things in the name of Christ are long dead. Get over it. Move on.

[Seth]

You said HE!! I.e. JESUS. YOU said JESUS SAID HE DID. It doesn't matter what you wrote after that point. You specifically said that Jesus himself said it. So, you are not only a troll, but a liar.

Pettifoggery. Now do fuck off.

[JimC]

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it...

In essence, a careful examination of the history of religion is required if one wishes to understand current patterns of religious activity.