Text 436, 162 rader
Skriven 2006-11-20 17:39:44 av MATT CLARK (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GOD DAN
Ärende: Xians show better than words
====================================
>
>

MC> That is a selfish reason.  Again, how do you explain that it's
MC> wrong to kill people?   
 
-> It's quite simple:  Would you like to be killed?  

Basing something on what one wants is little basis for right and wrong.  

We didn't 'want' anyone to invade the US. But was it wrong for the allies 
to invade on D-Day?  Was it wrong to go on and into Germany? 


GD>  If not, why kill someone else?  

Though I naturally do not want to be killed, there are always those who 
have it coming.  Just pick your 'favorite' corporate owned politician.  
Hmm...  That doesn't leave very many of them standing on either side of 
the fence.  'Do it'?

 
MC> Sure, you don't want to be killed because you're
MC> selfish. 
 
-> LOL!   So you aren't selfish and you want to be killed?  
 
MC> want?   What's WRONG with killing?  
 
-> You mean you don't know?  

Yes, but I'm waiting for you give me your reason and what you base it on.  
So far all you've said is one shouldn't kill because one doesn't want to 
be killed.  McVeigh didn't 'want' to be killed.  Saddam doesn't 'want' to 
be hanged.  Is 'THAT" a basis for not killing them?   Hardly.



 
MC> After all, if we subscribe to your
MC> atheistic view then you're nothing but a piece of meat with no soul.  
MC> So what's wrong if I chop you up into pig feed?   Because you don't
MC> want it to happen?  So what?  You're just a stupid piece of meat with
MC> no soul.  Right? Why is it wrong to chop up meat?
 
-> It's a good thing you have your bible to protect me from your 
-> actions.  Otherwise, you'd be nothing but a homocidal maniac 
-> on the loose.  

Not really, I have no reason to.   Still in all if you're just a piece if 
meat with no soul WHY is it wrong?  Your 'wants' are hardly a reason.  
Again McVeigh and Saddam didn't/doesn't 'want' to die.  Are you saying it 
was/will be wrong to execute them?


MC> Apparently the atheist's 'view', is really nothing more than an
MC> estimation of them self:  A stupid piece of meat with no soul.  And if
 
-> What's stupid is your attempt to denigrate what you refuse to 
-> understand.  Because I, and others even of other religions, 
-> are "not of the body" we, in your estimation, must be "ammoral".  

The only point I stress is that if there is no God, you have no soul and 
there for are a piece of meat (with wants and desires), with no soul.
Tell me -why- it's wrong to chop meat. 

 
MC>  And for your information, just as many, if not more 
MC>  people have died at  the hands of atheists.  
  
GD>  Try again.  Religion has been the cause of more 
GD>  deaths than any other cause ever.  
 
MC> World Wars One
 
-> The Black Hand group.
 
MC>  & Two were not fought over religion.   
 
-> Anti semitism, which elicited the support of German xians of 
-> all stripes was the centerpiece of Hitler's rise to power.  

Fought over race.  ie.The so called 'superior race' justified it. But there 
was more to that that.  The Jewish community at the time controlled/owned 
most of the banks, dominated the legal system, news media and academia.
That doesn't justify wiping them out, but still in all, these were major 
reasons why Germany turned on the Jews.  Not 'because' of religion.


 
 
MC> Neither was the
MC> Civil War, 
 
-> Never heard of John Brown or the other Abolitionists?  

John Brown didn't cause the civil war.  The English plantation owners,
the banks that owned them and the Federal gov's attempt to tax them to 
death and impose blockades to prevent the export of cotton was 'the' major 
factor that lead to the civil war.  ie.Fort Sumter.  Things like ending 
slavery, etc, were just thrown in to make fighting the war more appealing 
to those who otherwise had their reservations.  There were many.
Christians are like that.

 
MC> or the War for Independence,
 
-> The First Amendment demonstrates it.  

Fought for independence, and freedom from over taxation, etc...not over 
religion.  Both the English and the Colonists were Christian's overall.
The various Christian religions may have varied in their doctrine, but that
was not why England crossed the Atlantic and committed all those men, time,
resources and money.  Not over religion.

 
MC>   or the Spanish American War.
 
-> Catholocist Spain's treatment of Cubans

Fought over territory.  Not fought over religion.  Spain did not come clear
across the Atlantic ocean, because they had some 'issue' with their
religion.


 
MC> All the Russian wars of the 19th and 20th centuries and the Russian
 
-> Russian Othodoxy vs Catholicism  
 
MC> Revolution were not. 
 
-> Against the religious Czar who claimed devine right of rule.  

Fought over worker's rights, political ideology, etc, ...not over religion.
 
 
MC> The wars between France and England were not
 
-> Catholics vs Protestants 

 Not fought over religion.  Fought over trade and the control of trade 
routes, etc.


Most crime in Japan is committed by the Japanese...not 'because' they are 
Japanese, just because Japan is filled with them.  The same principle 
applies to the United States and Europe.  Almost all were/are Christians.  
It stands to reason that any wars fought in Europe and America were going 
to involve Christians.  Still in all, you have yet to cite one war where 
the CAUSE for it was religion.


 
MC>  Again, the bulk of all wars were not fought over religion.

-> See above;  You lose.  

Now blow out the candles and see if your 'wish' came true.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)