Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
My entire argument is that they are WRONG to think this. You seem to be under the impression that "hypocrisy" is some kind of conscious evil they have chosen, and that I'm accusing them of deliberately acting against their beliefs. That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that there is a fundamental contradiction between what they actually believe and what they SHOULD believe if they want to call themselves followers of Christ.
Again, you're basing that on your interpretation of what a follower of Christ should be, which was my original point.
The Catholic Church seems to be a pretty good authority on what the teachings of Christ were, have specific provisions about waging a justifiable war, which presumably, includes activities such as building/supplying the weapons to fight that war.
The debate then is not, "How can these guys build weapons and still call themselves Christians", it's "Is this a justifiable war".
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
You foget the part where Jesus said that Paul (the first Pope) was his representative on earth, and what he said on earth, Jesus would hold true in Heaven.
No, he said PETER was all that, except that he didn't actually say anything about what Peter "said" being holy writ. Paul inserted himself into the narrative later.
Maybe read the Bible first and then argue about what it says. How can you be certain I'm the one with the misinterpretation problems when you aren't conversant with what I'm supposedly misinterpreting?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Thats the problem with religious debate right there, the goalposts are moving in this sense because everyone who is religious has slightly different beliefs under a banner of whatever their religion is.
Its why I try to just fight the battle over a real issue, because the wide field discussion of religion is so confused over how people interpret it and how they live their particular beliefs.
This issue is so small in the scope of things, but we know its wrong what that company did and it should stop.
Now where have much more pressing things to attend to.
Yep.
Although I do think we have to look at the 'Christians in the military' issue with some common sense.
I don't think its as black and white as people say it is. But I don't have a real answer either.
As for the bible verses on the scopes? Absolutely needs to be stopped.
I seriously don't get the point of doing it in the first place.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
How are the goal posts moving? the context of Jammies argument is the interpretation among Christians at least that's what it looks like. If we talk about religion as a whole then yes it's a wide open field but in Christianity there is a great deal of support on how to interpret war, government/institutions and it's actually one topic among Christians where there is very little argument or debate.
Within Christianity or any other major religions there are numerous factions, whom interpret from the same holy books very differently. You might face some consensus on some major points say for example on Christianity but there is a whole plethora of denominations and beliefs amongst Christians.
Thats evident in all major religions.
Edit, made me think of this cool video showing the branching off from all the major religions.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
No, he said PETER was all that, except that he didn't actually say anything about what Peter "said" being holy writ. Paul inserted himself into the narrative later.
Maybe read the Bible first and then argue about what it says. How can you be certain I'm the one with the misinterpretation problems when you aren't conversant with what I'm supposedly misinterpreting?
Sorry, screwed up my guys who's names start with a "P", big deal.
The point was that Peter was the first Pope, and that that authority would extend to future Popes, so my point stands.
Attack a simple mistake all you want, it doesn't change the fact (one that you've not addressed), that the Catholic Church (and I'm sure many others), has some very simple rules about when it is justifiable to wage war. So if this is a justifiable war, then are the guys making the guns being hypocrites despite following the teachings of Jesus?
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Within Christianity or any other major religions there are numerous factions, whom interpret from the same holy books very differently. You might face some consensus on some major points say for example on Christianity but there is a whole plethora of denominations and beliefs amongst Christians.
Thats evident in all major religions.
Edit, made me think of this cool video showing the branching off from all the major religions.
Yes there are numerous denominations within Christianity and every other religion but the topic is surrounding war, killing someone when you consider yourself a follower in Christ's teachings. I am saying there is very little variation in the belief system among Christians on this topic. The rest is irrelevant to what this thread is looking at specifically.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finny61
Yes there are numerous denominations within Christianity and every other religion but the topic is surrounding war, killing someone when you consider yourself a follower in Christ's teachings. I am saying there is very little variation in the belief system among Christians on this topic. The rest is irrelevant to what this thread is looking at specifically.
There's actually quite a bit of variation about this.
That's why you have a whole bunch of Catholics, Protestants, and many other branches, heading off to war, while you've got Mennonites and Quakers (don't know if I've got the specific sects correct) staying at home as conscientious objectors.
Some sects believe that under certain circumstances war is justifiable, others do not.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
What's a John 8:13? Some sort of code for arresting a John?
"We've got a John 8:13 going on over here" "that's right, soliciting hookers AND blow"
Honestly, if some terrorist blew up me, my work area, or the plane that I'm on - I think I'd be shocked if the bomb didn't have some sort of godly script on it.... I think I might even be disappointed if it didn't!
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Sorry, screwed up my guys who's names start with a "P", big deal.
The point was that Peter was the first Pope, and that that authority would extend to future Popes, so my point stands.
What point? I was saying that what Paul said isn't what Jesus said, and your counter-point is that the Pope is the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church? So what?
Further, not knowing the difference between Peter and Paul isn't exactly a "little" mistake. It's like confusing Judas and Jesus and then covering up by confessing you can never keep those "J" guys straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Attack a simple mistake all you want, it doesn't change the fact (one that you've not addressed), that the Catholic Church (and I'm sure many others), has some very simple rules about when it is justifiable to wage war. So if this is a justifiable war, then are the guys making the guns being hypocrites despite following the teachings of Jesus?
I'll make it very simple for you: the Catholic Church is also at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Why don't YOU show me where Jesus talked about justifiable war - not the Church, but Jesus.
The institutional perversion of the original message was the main problem that the Reformation was supposed to address, but didn't. Nowadays, instead of one misinterpretation of the words of Christ, we have hundreds to choose from - or reject. Humans are much better at changing the meanings of their religious texts to accord with their beliefs rather than vice versa.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I'm in Florida right now (a pretty Christian state) and this is getting a lot of airtime, and while there are those who say "The guns should have scriptures on them, they're doing the work of the Lord killing Muslims" there aren't very many.. most say that they should just get the company to stop it or change manufacturers and get over it.
Personally I agree, it's not like the government specifically ordered this stuff this way.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
What point? I was saying that what Paul said isn't what Jesus said, and your counter-point is that the Pope is the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church? So what?
Further, not knowing the difference between Peter and Paul isn't exactly a "little" mistake. It's like confusing Judas and Jesus and then covering up by confessing you can never keep those "J" guys straight.
I'll make it very simple for you: the Catholic Church is also at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Why don't YOU show me where Jesus talked about justifiable war - not the Church, but Jesus.
The institutional perversion of the original message was the main problem that the Reformation was supposed to address, but didn't. Nowadays, instead of one misinterpretation of the words of Christ, we have hundreds to choose from - or reject. Humans are much better at changing the meanings of their religious texts to accord with their beliefs rather than vice versa.
Okay, to the first bolded part, come on dude.
I know the difference, it was a simple mistake. Shoot me.
As for the second bolded part, I can't. But my point was, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jesus granted Peter and all Popes after him the authority to make decisions on these types of things. So a Pope endorsing the rules of justifiable wars is, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, just as good as if Jesus had said it.
This is one school of thought, and there are many Christian Sects that don't share the same thinking.
My original point was that people often try to disprove someone's faith, or argue the validity of it by saying things like "Well if you belive in Jesus, then you're a hypocrite for doing such and such". But often times they are substituting their own understanding, or interpretation of what they think that person believes. That's the problem, applying your own definitions to someone else's morality.
That's where this all started. You said the guys were being hypocrites because they claimed to be followers of Jesus, and yet you think they contradict this by buidling weapons.
I pointed out that there are many doctrines that have their own interpretation of his followings, and that the contradiction only exists if you subscribe to an interpreation where you preceive it to exist.
In this guys case, he could be a Catholic who sees this as a just war, so as far as he's concerned, there is no conflict between his actions and his beliefs.
You obviously see this conflict because you subscribe to a different interpreation, which was my point. The Contradiction is based on what you believe, not necessarily what he believes.
I'm not trying to debate the validity of each interpreation, as no one but Jesus (if he existed) knows exactly what he meant. Chances are no one has it 100% correct. I'm just trying to show that arguments like "Well if this guy believes in Jesus, he's a hypocrite for building weapons" are inherently flawed due to the multiple interpretions possible.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 01-21-2010 at 04:05 PM.
A Muslim extremist isn't going to be mad about a biblical passage on a gun site, its certainly not going to ramp up their hatred or retoric. They were already calling the American's crusaders long before this came out.
For the ones that aren't extremist, I doubt that it makes a big difference to them either, they're probably more angry that the American's and Brits are actually using gunsights.
To me its no different then some of the stuff that was painted on bombs dropped from planes.
AS a soldier, all I would care about is if the equipment worked properly, they can put gay porn on my gunsight for all I care as long as I can hit my target.
Distastfull . . . sure
A big deal . . . no
Of course it isn't a big deal, unless you're an atheist filled with vitriol towards any sort of religion (of which there's a few on this board) and you need to come up with any sort of excuse for making religion look bad.
Thats the problem with religious debate right there, the goalposts are moving in this sense because everyone who is religious has slightly different beliefs under a banner of whatever their religion is.
Its why I try to just fight the battle over a real issue, because the wide field discussion of religion is so confused over how people interpret it and how they live their particular beliefs.
This issue is so small in the scope of things, but we know its wrong what that company did and it should stop.
Now where have much more pressing things to attend to.
Well played sir.
I agree with you, btw.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Okay, to the first bolded part, come on dude.
I know the difference, it was a simple mistake. Shoot me.
Why not just say, "Oh, you're right, Paul was never the Pope so I guess when I was trying to refute your point by claiming he was given the authority by Jesus to speak for him, I was wrong." What you're doing instead is pretending your argument is still valid, but that you just got an unimportant detail incorrect. There's a large difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
As for the second bolded part, I can't. But my point was, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jesus granted Peter and all Popes after him the authority to make decisions on these types of things. So a Pope endorsing the rules of justifiable wars is, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, just as good as if Jesus had said it.
This is one school of thought, and there are many Christian Sects that don't share the same thinking.
So in other words, you can't point to any quote of Jesus's where he was all gung-ho for war, but because the Church says it's ok, it's ok. What if the Church said slavery was ok - would that make slavery acceptable as well? For that's exactly what the Church DID say at one time. Is the Pope infallible even when he contradicts a previous Pope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
My original point was that people often try to disprove someone's faith, or argue the validity of it by saying things like "Well if you belive in Jesus, then you're a hypocrite for doing such and such". But often times they are substituting their own understanding, or interpretation of what they think that person believes. That's the problem, applying your own definitions to someone else's morality.
I'm not applying MY definitions to anything, I'm pointing out that Jesus says one thing and his followers do something else. Here are Jesus's words:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
Does this seem vague to you? Does this seem like Jesus is saying you can resort to violence to right perceived injustice? Was he just kidding when he advocates pacifism? Is there any possible way you can "interpret" this to mean that anything other than strict non-violence is what he is looking for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
I'm just trying to show that arguments like "Well if this guy believes in Jesus, he's a hypocrite for building weapons" are inherently flawed due to the multiple interpretions possible.
You can interpret the Gospels and be just flat wrong, which is where your argument falls down. Jesus didn't want people fighting, killing, or going to war, no matter what. He specifically preaches against it on multiple occasions. Claiming to follow his teachings while doing the opposite of what he teaches is hypocrisy, and generations of apologists, interpreters and Popes don't change that.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
__________________ "There will be a short outage tonight sometime between 11:00PM and 1:00AM as network upgrades are performed. Please do not panic and overthrow society. Thank you."
The Following User Says Thank You to Redliner For This Useful Post:
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
