Are you an athiest and why?

by LouBelle 100 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  NewChapter

  Murder outside the group is most definitely viewed as murder. Perhaps I am not understanding your meaning?

  Perhaps someone should have told ancient Israel as they set about genocide---and current Christians as they call for war. It's all relative---always has been, always will be---to pretend otherwise is just silly.

  In every group, the penalty for killing someone within the group (and of course these boundaries can be changed. Take capital punishment---this is carried out against someone who has been removed from the group) carries a heavier penalty than killing someone within the group.

  Take the Canaanites. They pretty much had done nothing to the ancient Israelites. Oh, except populate a land they wanted. Therefore, while it would have been wrong for Isrealites to kill children, babies, pregnant women, teenagers, men of their own, it became paramount and obediance to their god to destroy every living person in the land they wanted. But I know you only accept certain portions of the bible, and you dismiss this. However, the point is not whether or not this is true, but that people believe it is true, and believing makes religion.

  At least a non-believer can be honest and say that morality is relative. If we do something horrible, we have only ourselves to blame, and cannot hide behind theocracy.

  NC
• 

  tec

  NC - anyone in war does not consider killing in war to be murder. Being "Christian" has nothing to do with it. The group is whatever country you are part of. Otherwise, christian would not have taken up arms against christian. But they were German, or American, or Russian, or whatever... first. Christian second. That being a problem. Too little Christ.

  At least a non-believer can be honest and say that morality is relative. If we do something horrible, we have only ourselves to blame, and cannot hide behind theocracy.

  This is true of all people. Hiding behind theocracy does not mean you are not responsible for your deeds, or their consequences. Christ did not want his followers to fight for a kingdom on this earth... because his kingdom was from elsewhere. There is a difference there between His teachings and what the Israelites believed.

  Peace, tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Okay, but this wasn't a discussion about your personal view of Christ Tec. This was a comment on how all groups, including Christians, can justify killing outside their group. Perhaps you are objecting to my use of the word murder. Okay, but even that proves my point. MURDER would be consider sinful by most groups, therefore committing the exact same act outside of the group is not called murder. My point is proven.

  And I also knew you would dismiss what the Israelites believed, because they came before Christ. That's not relevant, since a great many Christians DO consider a bit more of the bible as relevant than you do. Individuals will always vary. The more important point is the larger picture and the norms. Even for Christians, KILLING is only MURDER if it occurs within their own group---that group can be defined as Christians, but Christians break down and define their groups nationally. Therefore, they can kill other Christians without thinking of it as murder, because they must first be identifying by their nationality.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  
• 

  tec

  Okay, but this wasn't a discussion about your personal view of Christ Tec.

  I haven't brought my personal view of Christ into it. Christ stated that his kingdom was from elsewhere (or his disciples would fight to implement it), and none of the apostles or letters from Paul advocated fighting or killing, murder or no murder. Nor implied that killing or murder (it matters naught) outside of the group wasn't still murder. This is just going on what is written.

  But even if we disregard all of that:

  War does seem to be an ex ception to any group when it comes to how they view killing... a casualty of war. (not that it necessarily makes it true; just needed to justify the means of war) But if a christian walked up to an atheist and killed him, then that would be murder. In the eyes of Christ, God, and people... including other christians.

  So I am failing to get your point. Unless your point was only related to war?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Not all cultures practiced war in the sense we do today. Often violence took the form of raids. Sometimes people could be killed in raids. Retaliation is another factor. We take it for granted that we live in a city/state structure, and that authority for enforcement is in the hands of the state. That's not true for all, and certainly was not true for the majority of human history. For many, it was perfectly moral to retaliate by killing the offender in another group. Family could take up this task also. We see this (predictably) in the bible too. If a persons there kills by accident, they can be chased down and killed by a family member. Absolam had Amnon murdered for raping his sister, yet Absolam was not stoned.

  Whether you agree these accounts were true, or if you think they weren't really practicing true worship---whatever---my point is simply that religion has some pretty predictable elements, and although Chrisitans, or even Jews may insist theirs is superior, they are practiced very much the same.

  And now we have group as defined as something even smaller---family. That's why I point out that our defintion of group changes---expands and contracts according to need.

  NC
• 

  tec

  If a persons there kills by accident, they can be chased down and killed by a family member.

  But this was within the same group, right, so how does it apply to what you stated?

  I am also not talking about true worship or anything else. You stated that christians do not consider it murder to kill outside their group. (a non-christian) I am asking how you come to this conclusion. Unless you were only speaking about war? And I agree that raids is a form of war.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  No, a Christian can be part of the large group Christian, or the smaller group nation, or the even smaller group kin, or even smaller---immediate family. they are not special, neither is their worship. They like all other cultures identify in groups, and that identity, as I have said, can grow larger or smaller as the need fits. Their morality is very relative to the situation. Just like everyone else. It may not be moral to walk up and just smash someone in the head with a rock. However if that person belongs to a competitivie band, or has been excluded for retaliation, then all is well.

  Christians are no different in this regard---whether they consider their larger group as Chrisitan, or as American---which is how they are okay with killing other Christians from different nations.

  I think my point is being lost. You have said that there are fundamental truths (on another thread) in all religion, and that it proves there is a spiritual and a shared effort to find that spiritual. I say that when you look at religion as a whole, and throughout the ages, the type of culture is indicative of the religion, and also quite predictable. The bigger picture.

  Loubelle, wants to look into more of this. I commented that she would be delighted to see the links between us all. Not that there aren't some really original beliefs out there, but that when taken as a whole, we see similarities. Which is why it is amusing to watch Chrisitians suggest that their morality is somehow better or more enlightened, when they simply act like everyone else. Which was my point.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  When the OT was written, the Israelites were quite tribal. We can see this in the authority to enforce laws---often taken care of by family. It's why they didn't use prisons in their laws. The law was enforced on a local level by local people, not necessarily endowed with any special right of enforcement. That's tribal. Therefore, their religion was completely predictable. Wrong doers were handled with fines, slavery, the occasional stoning--whatever.

  Jesus came along, and the structure had changed. Powerful city/states had come into play, prison or detention had come into force, and the Jews fell under that authortity. Suddenly the message has changed. It's a message that fits in much better with the city/state. Now you don't chase down the guy whose axe head flew off and killed your wife---you call authorities sure, but you don't retaliate. Now how are these people with such a long tribal history to deal with this change? Well instead of focusing on taking vengeance or carrying out justice, they should work on forgiveness and not being too angry. This helps them assimilate into a life where this power has been taken from their hands. Again, very predictable. Which is why Jesus was handed over to Pilate instead of stoned in the square for fun and entertainment.

  The religion changed, not because the message was more enlightened, but because culture had changed. Religion is only an expression of culture. When it becomes maladaptive, it must be changed. It did become maladaptive so it changed. There is simply nothing overly special in this.

  NC
• 

  tec

  Christianity is exactly the same, although it pretends to be different, murder outside the group is not viewed as murder.

  This is the point I was objecting to. (even if you replace the first murder with killing) I stand by that. I also do not think even atheists believe killing outside of their group (even if that is just their familial group) is not murder. Defense or accidental killing being a different matter.

  It may not be moral to walk up and just smash someone in the head with a rock. However if that person belongs to a competitivie band, or has been excluded for retaliation, then all is well.

  For some, revenge and retaliation might justify killing outside a group. But Christ changed "eye for eye"... to "turn the other cheek", or 'bless those who curse you'... so revenge or retaliation is certainly not seen as 'all is well' by Him.

  Loubelle, wants to look into more of this. I commented that she would be delighted to see the links between us all.

  Of course. Do not repay wrong with wrong is also a fundamental truth carried through many different faiths as well.

  Now, do some or many people of all faiths ignore this message? I think we know the answer to that is yes. So there certainly are negative similarities as well as positive ones. But it seems to me that this is more indicitive of the person, or perhaps the primary group the person belongs to... which in many cases is nationalism... before the teachings of their faith.

  Loubelle, wants to look into more of this. I commented that she would be delighted to see the links between us all. Not that there aren't some really original beliefs out there, but that when taken as a whole, we see similarities. Which is why it is amusing to watch Chrisitians suggest that their morality is somehow better or more enlightened, when they simply act like everyone else. Which was my point.

  Well, lol, I missed your point under the statement that murder outside the group is not seen as murder.

  Peace,

  tammy