Reason vs. Religion

The Stranger [Seattle] ^ | 10/24/02 | Sean Nelson

[jennyp]

The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About

On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.

Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.

This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.

Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.

The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.

Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.

As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):

It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.

Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.

There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.

[cornelis]

This is from Prometheus Bound, by Aesculus

Well, not exactly. It is from E. H. Plumptre's Prometheus Bound

Here are the lines (484 in particular) from Smyth (the one who wrote that nit-pickin' grammar) and there is no mention of reason. It appears that Plumptre has adeptly plugged reason in for mantikhV which is speaking of the art of a prophet. This is where we get the word mantic from, as in praying mantis.

Hear the rest and you shall wonder the more at the arts and resources I devised. This first and foremost: if ever man fell ill, there was no defence--no healing food, [480] no ointment, nor any drink--but for lack of medicine they wasted away, until I showed them how to mix soothing remedies with which they now ward off all their disorders. And I marked out many ways by which they might read the future, [485] and among dreams I first discerned which are destined to come true; and voices baffling interpretation I explained to them, and signs from chance meetings. The flight of crook-taloned birds I distinguished clearly-- which by nature are auspicious, [490] which sinister--their various modes of life, their mutual feuds and loves, and their consortings; and the smoothness of their entrails, and what color the gall must have to please [495] the gods, also the speckled symmetry of the liver-lobe; and the thigh-bones, wrapped in fat, and the long chine I burned and initiated mankind into an occult art. Also I cleared their vision to discern signs from flames,which were obscure before this. [500] Enough about these arts. Now as to the benefits to men that lay concealed beneath the earth--bronze, iron, silver, and gold--who would claim to have discovered them before me? No one, I know full well, unless he likes to babble idly. [505] Hear the sum of the whole matter in the compass of one brief word--every art possessed by man comes from Prometheus.

Here we see all the arts do come from him, arts meaning techne. And that is found in the Greek. Aeschylus may still be the culprit, but so far we don't know who is first to attribute "reason" as one of the gifts.

[cornelis]

Give him time to mature

The problem is, he has matured and is in full bloom. And not only does he yap, (auditor caveat) he speaks eloquently about things at which he is very adept, masterful, poikiloV

[Tribune7]

He had me fooled. I though he was a smart high school kid.

You got me on the Greek.

[PatrickHenry]

There are two different passages (by Aesculus) in which Prometheus describes his gifts to man. You posted a translation of the 2nd. Here's another translation from the 1st (it uses "sense" instead of "reason"):

but listen to the tale
Of human sufferings, and how at first
Senseless as beasts I gave men sense, possessed them
Of mind. I speak not in contempt of man;
I do but tell of good gifts I conferred.

[general_re]

So who was the first to attribute the gift of reason to P.?

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you asking for the first person to read it in that manner, as Prometheus bringing reason to Man? Because, honestly, I don't know who the absolute first person to give it that treatment was, but it's not a new reading, to be sure. The part I posted above was from Thoreau's translation, which I've always been partial to. Here's the bit the PH posted above, in Thoreau's version.

Think not indeed through weakness or through pride
That I am silent; for with the consciousness I gnaw my heart,
Seeing myself thus basely used.
And yet to these new gods their shares
Who else than I wholly distributed?
But of these things I am silent; for I should tell you
What you know; the sufferings of mortals too
You've heard, how I made intelligent
And possessed of sense them ignorant before.
But I will speak, not bearing any grudge to men,
But showing in what I gave the good intention;
At first, indeed, seeing they saw in vain,
And hearing heard not; but like the forms
Of dreams, for that long time, rashly confounded
All, nor brick-woven dwellings
Knew they, placed in the sun, nor wood-work;
But digging down they dwelt, like puny
Ants, in sunless nooks of caves.
And there was nought to them, neither of winter sign,
Nor of flower-giving spring, nor fruitful
Summer, that was sure; but without knowledge
Did they all, till I taught them the risings
Of the stars, and goings down, hard to determine.
And numbers, chief of inventions,
I found out for them, and the assemblages of letters,
And memory, Muse-mother, doer of all things,
And first I joined in pairs wild animals
Obedient to the yoke; and that they might be
Alternate workers with the bodies of men
In the severest toils, harnessed the rein-loving horses
To the car, the ornament of over- wealthy luxury.
And none else than I invented the sea-wandering
Flaxen-winged vehicles of sailors.
Such inventions I wretched having found out
For men, myself have not the ingenuity by which
From the now present ill I may escape.

[LogicWings]

LW, I got the joke without you having to explain it to me. As to my “worldview”: What worldview, exactly, do you attribute to me? What, exactly, are these beliefs you attribute to me?

Well, you seemed to take it seriously! How can I tell the players without a program? Gee, you sure seem to be a Christian and it is my understanding that according to that worldview, one is either ‘Redeemed’ by believing that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrificial payment for all sin or one is not Redeemed and, therefore, still corrupt. Am I wrong on either of these counts?

-- an apparent devotee of meditation and contemplation -- next observe:

Leave no stone unturned, looked everywhere, studied everything I could find. Well not anymore than I am a ‘devotee’ of say, jazz because I listen to it from time to time, or fishing because I do that now and then too. I was once maybe, but now these things are just tools. I also have rather, ummm, unusual definitions for these things as well.

IMHO, LW, you here set up a false dichotomy between my “out there” and your “here now.” There’s not an “either/or” choice to be made between them. My argument maintains that both are "normal" modes of human cognitive experience. Taking a hint from Plato, I see these two, not as irreconcilable opposites, but as two tensional “poles” between which human conscious experience normally takes place and unfolds. Man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe is the very point to be made.

You postulated that the ‘source’ as ‘out there’ and I was responding to that assertion. Your only evidence is an alleged ’insight’ yet there are other ’insights’ that assert your insight is false. So how do I know which one is correct? I didn’t set up any false dichotomy, I asked for any ‘evidence’ that the insight is valid and you just dodged the ball and made the assertion again. Since I think Plato is mostly wrong this doesn’t help me. But you raise two points, first you say ‘between which human conscious experience normally takes place and unfolds’ which implies that it isn’t ‘out there’ but is part of my ‘human conscious experience’ which is here-now. This isn’t what you said before and this creates the dichotomy, not me. It was your assertion that the ’source’ was ’out there’ but now you seem to be saying it is also part of the normal human consciousness, so it isn’t ’out there’ after all. Which is it? The second is far more important:

Man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe is the very point to be made.

First I would have to ask, how do you know this? What evidence do you have for this statement? Second, what part of man is that then? (I know you’re probably going to say ’soul’ which doesn’t help me, but I’ll bite anyway) and third, suppose I take this statement as true. First I have to accept that there is anything that exists out of the ’time order of the physical universe.’ You have begged the same question yet again, it is just a different way of saying the same thing. Call it ‘supernatural‘ call it ‘out there‘ call it ‘outside the time order of the universe‘. All we experience takes place within the space time continuum, or the time order of the universe, as you call it. What experience takes place outside this? Second, if man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe then is man partly outside the time order of the physical universe or is that which is outside the time order of the universe part of man?

(please just leave me out of this entirely)

ok, you might be a guy in drag name anyway.

that you could not possibly admire unless you were capable of a certain “spiritual vision.” For what you admire in this person are quintessentially spiritual qualities; and, absent spiritual vision, you would not have been able to recognize them. (I see them, too.) So there’s hope for you yet, kiddo. ;^)

You know, I was thinking something very similar to this this very morning. I was thinking about how the Chinese Communists complain about the ‘spiritual pollution’ from our culture as we come into increasing contact. What is ‘spiritual pollution’ to an atheistic communist? What could they possibly be thinking of? The precise meaning of words is so very important. This such a glaring example. It certainly doesn’t mean what we think it means, of that I can be sure.

I have to hand it to you, of all the people that I have conversed with over these many years, you are the first person to actually get to this point. We are treading upon most difficult ground. This word is like ’insight.’ There is spiritual and there is spiritual and there is spiritual. It all depends upon what you mean by the word, ‘spirit.‘ The concept behind the word all important.

If you want to get a handle on how to reconcile the “out there” and the “here now,” I highly recommend the following excerpt from my favorite pre-Socratic – Heraclitus – as a theme for your next meditation:

There is nothing to reconcile, because there is no ‘out there’ that isn’t ‘here now.’

Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all…. For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] – which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]

Let’s skip the Question begged by the word divine and go straight to defining the Logos.

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it –

Then how does he know it is ‘eternally valid?’

That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it – at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth.

Laotzu reincarnated! This is the Dao. This is noumenon. This is the unknown and the unknowable. The same thing over and over and over again. I’ve seen it a thousand different forms. Mysticism, all mysticism.

My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves;

But the beginnings of something in the word ‘distinguish’ which would later be called ‘Identity.’ How it behaves would be called properties, or qualities. (and some other word I can’t think of at the moment.)

other men, on the contrary, are as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]

Ahh, no dispute here. But I have a different take on this than you do, I’m sure.

“From all is One, and from One is all.” [Fragment 10].

Yes, but this is so general it supports anything and nothing. Laotzu again.

“But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.” [Fragment 2]

This too.

Now, on the word ’Logos’ from John Robbins at the Trinity Foundation:

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is "The true light" who lights every man. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictly speaking, there is no "mere human logic" as contrasted with a divine logic, as some would have us believe. The Logic of God lights every man; human logic is the image of God. God and man think the same way-not exactly the same thoughts, since man is sinful and God is holy, but both God and man think that two plus two is four and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that only the substitutionary death of Christ can merit a sinner's entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic are the way God thinks. He makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted conclusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all our thoughts into captivity to Christ. We ought to think as Christ does-logically.

 

The ‘Logos’ of your pre-socratic author is ‘logic’ before it had been codified as a system by Aristotle. That’s why he thought it was ‘eternal’ and universal and couldn’t be seen or felt but had validity. Aside from the religious tone of this statement I agree with everything here in terms of the absolute nature of logic for man. This is that ‘old time religion’ that Christianity had evolved into (sorry, couldn’t think of a better word) before Calvin destroyed it with the insistence that faith take precedence over reason, and that contaminates most of modern day Christian thought. But that’s a whole other thread.

As for Zen: Arguably, Zen deliberately gets rid of the “out there” simply because it is a system that is designed to rationalize ultimate principles in terms of human reason exclusively.

I can’t tell if you are pulling my leg or what, but you couldn’t be more wrong here. Zen is just the opposite. Zen is the complete rejection of all thought, logical or otherwise, and all reason in favor of a state of ‘no-mind’ or ‘mindlessness’ that is called ’satori.’ In this state, a state of insight, the false separation that the mind creates that there is anything other than the here and now, that there is anything other than the unity of the ‘eternal moment’, is utterly vanquished. As the American Zen philosopher Alan Watts put it on one of his many book titles ’This is It.’ There is no separation between the physical world and the spiritual word, this being an illusion created by the word mind, the ‘rational mind’, the logical mind. There is no divinity and reason is thought to be a disease of the mind. It is the opposite of both your view and my view at the same time.

What you described for Zen actually describes Objectivism perfectly though. These two are polar opposites.

Marx was right: Ideas have consequences. And men are accountable for them; for only men have the freedom to act on their ideas.

This is merely opinion, and one that is devoid of meaning as far as I am concerned. It isn’t the ‘idea’ that has consequences, it is the 'decision' to act on it.

And yes, there is judgment, LogicWings. If you want to “go first” on that topic, please do be my guest. :^)

Don’t Equivocate with me, the subject was justice, not judgment. But I will say this, if judgment is predicated merely upon believing a single thing about a being that lived 2000 years ago for which there is no evidence, and not upon what actions people take, then I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one, that is not justice.

(oh, and hi and bye and all that jazz)

[cornelis]

Because, honestly, I don't know who the absolute first person to give it that treatment was, but it's not a new reading, to be sure

I don't either, but if you ever find out, please let me know.

It's not a new reading, but it ain't that old. My guess is that it could be neo-platonic, if not a typical 18th or 19th century reading (Kant, or Hegel).

[LogicWings]

For some. For others, it was stolen from the gods. Which might attest to the value they placed on it...

Good point. From the looks of things today, sometimes I think they have stolen it back.

[betty boop]

To cut to the chase, LogicWings: Your last comes somewhat as a shock to me; I gather you are (evidently) not "a serious person."

I am on the record here. So if anybody wants to buy a clue as to what I might think about the present question, it's either already posted; or people probably (hopefully!) understand they are free to just ask me.

The fact is, I don't understand your game. And so do not feel up to playing it.

[LogicWings]

Well then, dear PH, it appears that some kind of insurmountable divide exists between your "take" on the meaning of experience and mine.

The meaning of experience? When did that get on the table? That is a whole other subject.

Surely on your view, valid evidence cannot include oral testimony from the lived experience of actual human beings?

Only to the degree that that 'evidence' can be verified by our own experience today. Logic is as valid today as it was then. Believing the universe is made up of earth, air, fire and water is not. Aristotle transmitted both views. What is verified is kept, what cannot be, is not. It is called discrimination.

What all these people seem to hold in common is the sense that choices we human beings make in our most personal, intimate life may well have public consequences.

Selective reasoning, you are only choosing those factors that conform to your view and ignoring those that don't. "May well have?" I have to live my life according to might bes?

Reminds me of Catholic priests in New York when welfare was reduced middle of last decade. They opposed it on the grounds that if girls who got pregnant couldn't get welfare then they might decide to have abortions instead. So they wanted to pick my pocket to prevent abortions that might happen, even though I have no problem with abortion myself.

URRRGHHH!!!

Luckily they were wrong on both counts. The girls didn't have more abortions, they had less sex. Both pregnancy and abortion went down, not up.

[gore3000]

. Merely thinking that you should, in theory, be altruist, fails the fallacy of the commons test. Rational self-interest dictates hypocracy. Your DNA will do best if you persuade everyone else to be moral, and that you are moral, when you are not. We buy altruistic arguments because we are inclined to--we have the sentiment for it. Not because they are outstandingly pursuasive. If we relied on logical pursuasion to institute morals, they, and probably we as well, would have died off long ago.

There is no doubt that the mind can control the body. We do this from walking to eating etc. But more importantly though when we discern something fearful or something stressful, our body responds to our thoughts. It is not all a one-way path.

Your emotive genes do not lock you into anything. They give you an inclination. They are not iron God's of the universe. All DNA can do is provide capacity--it cannot make you use it.

I think you are proving me correct then. The other 'something' is clearly not material since we are able to deny our physical or emotional inclinations.

[cornelis]

That is closer. This attention paid to nous (hardly Anaxagoras' nous) and phren (the heart--definitely not Kant's Vernunft then) allowed those who had ears to hear and those who had eyes to see a way to alleviate their sufferings through invention. Obviously it is sense perception brought to the operations of the mind. And yet stronger than all these arts produced by the attention to our heart and mind, there is anagke, the very thing that Zeus is blind to, but Prometheus sees. Herein lies the meaning of the play (where else?)

These manifold inventions for mankind I perfected, who, out upon't, have none- No, not one shift-to rid me of this shame.

[LogicWings]

To cut to the chase, LogicWings: Your last comes somewhat as a shock to me; I gather you are (evidently) not "a serious person."

You know, I am truly mystified here. What did I say? I have to laugh because I am so often accused of being a ‘too serious’ person and here you accuse me of being the opposite. At this point you probably won’t believe me but I had absolutely no intention of shocking you, have no idea what exactly I said that did shock you. Don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I really don’t know what being a ’serious person’ really is, but I am every bit as sincere about what I am saying here as you are. There isn’t anything more than that. For the most part I don’t go and look at what everybody posts, I just react to what gets sent to me, so if what I have said is in opposition to some post that I overlooked I can’t help that. I don’t have time to do more than that. I don’t think I found this thread, I think it was sent to me.

I am on the record here. So if anybody wants to buy a clue as to what I might think about the present question, it's either already posted; or people probably (hopefully!) understand they are free to just ask me.

Ok.

The fact is, I don't understand your game. And so do not feel up to playing it.

I’m not playing a game. I don’t really appreciate you insinuating I am, but I’m a big boy with a thick skin so that’s ok. That you don’t understand though, that I can understand. That this threatens you, that too I can understand. But don’t think for one instant that I don’t mean everything I say, that I am just playing with your head and don’t mean any of this. What I understand about reality has come from years of searching and hard cost to me personally. If you don’t understand, fine. If you don’t want to play, that‘s fine too. But before you go away mad, do me one favor. Tell me what so offended you so I apologize.

Otherwise, you are the one who is playing the game.

[Tribune7]

Don’t Equivocate with me, the subject was justice, not judgment. But I will say this, if judgment is predicated merely upon believing a single thing about a being that lived 2000 years ago for which there is no evidence, and not upon what actions people take then I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one, that is not justice.

The reason you believe this is because you are influence by a Christian sensibility. Suppose we believed God was cruel and arbitrary? Suppose "justice," or eternal peace, was predicated on some personal accomplishment -- circling a mountain x number of times; killing a dangerous animal; sacrificing a child?

There are cultures that have practiced these things to appease the spirits. We know, and I know, that we don't have to do these things. And the only, reason we know this is because of the Lord Jesus.

[LogicWings]

The reason you believe this is because you are influence by a Christian sensibility.Suppose we believed God was cruel and arbitrary?

You do believe God is cruel and arbitrary. He was from the very beginning. It has always been so. Jehovah has always been a real cruel dude.

Suppose "justice," or eternal peace, was predicated on some personal accomplishment -- circling a mountain x number of times; killing a dangerous animal; sacrificing a child?

Or sacrificing an innocent man? What is more arbitrary than that? It isn't me who had been influenced here.

There are cultures that have practiced these things to appease the spirits. We know, and I know, that we don't have to do these things. And the only, reason we know this is because of the Lord Jesus.

I covered this in a thread elsewhere on the witch accusations that took place all through the Middle Ages. Christians did exactly that, only for different reasons. Women and children were burned at the stake in 'sacrifice' only they didn't call it that. The rational doesn't matter, only the fact. And today, every time you read a story about some fanatic who starves a child, or refuses medical treatment for a child, based upon faith, put it in the same category as that 'sacrifice.' It is no different. It is death based upon irrational beliefs.

You really don't 'know' any better.

[Tribune7]

You do believe God is cruel and arbitrary.

I don't actually.

He was from the very beginning. It has always been so. Jehovah has always been a real cruel dude.

Regardless, He's real.

Or sacrificing an innocent man?

Actually, It's sacrificing Himself.

The rational doesn't matter, only the fact . .

It matters quite a bit. Why do you think burning witches is wrong?

You really don't 'know' any better.

I do, most certainly.

[LogicWings]

I don't actually.

Then you don't have a good grasp on the concept.

Regardless, He's real.

Assertion without Proof, Contradiction in Terms. You have no evidence for the assertion. The 'supernatural' isn't 'real' by definition.

Actually, It's sacrificing Himself.

Then it isn't a 'sacrifice' since there is no substitution and no loss. One can't lose oneself. There was no death, God cannot die. There was no atonement, God cannot separate from Himself.

It matters quite a bit. Why do you think burning witches is wrong?

I don't think burning witches is wrong because there are no witches. I think burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent of being witches.

I do, most certainly.

here, let me introduce you. this is donh

(your turn, if you care to be consistent)

[beavus]

false distinction between reason and religion

Prominent theologians since at least Aquainas have made this distinction. Some have tried, to be sure, to reason their way to some sort of vague omnipotent creator, but I think even the Catholic church holds the foundations of their intricate beliefs to be a matter of faith. Faith--as opposed to reason.

Of course, if you have a logical proof of your religious beliefs, then please share it with the world. If it holds up to rational scrutiny your's will undoubtedly become the final religion and we can finally dispose of what you call a "false distinction".

[Tribune7]

Then you don't have a good grasp on the concept.

:-)

Assertion without Proof, Contradiction in Terms.

No, it's not a contradiction in terms. "Assertion" means one thing, "proof" means another. They in no way contradict.

The 'supernatural' isn't 'real' by definition.

That's incorrect. Use a dictionary when making claims about definitions.

Actually, It's sacrificing Himself . . .Then it isn't a 'sacrifice'

Are you claiming one can't sacrifice himself, or are you claiming that God can't sacrifice Himself? If the latter, scripture claims He did. I believe it.

I don't think burning witches is wrong because there are no witches.

Again, it's a matter of definition. There are people who claim to be witches and practice rituals with the intent to acquire supernatural powers, regardless of how successful they are.

I think burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent of being witches.

If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads ups!!! Hugs!