How did Christ handle rejection?

Originally posted by Devil King
It's not really that difficult. As a human being I enjoy rights. You say those rights come from god, while I say they simply exist by virtue of my existence. It's a lot like you're saying that the golden rule can only exist because of god. Well it doesn't. Rights and existence are not concepts that srung out of the christian religion. The christians and the jews called it religion. But many other cutures called it philosophy.

So in otherwords, your reasoning is "just because". You're a human who enjoys rights, and your mere existence brings virture with it? The [secular] Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" would seem to contradict that. The cheetah killing the gazelle doesn't stop to think that the gazelle has a right to live. And in Atheist/secular lines of thinking, there is very little to seperate humans from non-human animals. So "virtue of existence" doesn't really cut it. Nothing backs it.

If one person kills another its just "survival of the fittest".

----

Tell me a culture that specifically says to turn the other cheek, and then show me it does.

Originally posted by Devil King
But since it's not so hard for me, then you must not be right.

Try giving an example of a document that governs the United States of America. And if anyone who wrote or agreed to the Mayflower Compact was still around to sign the constitution or the delcearation on indepedence, then I'd love for you to point them out.

And on many levels I would agree with you. I somehow managed to come to that conclusion without god. I'm not going to say the "savages" are wrong and corrupt because they have a different religion though. And I'm certainly not going to call them savages simply because they aren't christians. I'm going to say you're both wrong for letting it control how you both think and how you both act, but I'm not going to selectively choose which religion is more or less silly.

You mean I can't logically do it with out pointing to god.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's not really that difficult. As a human being I enjoy rights. You say those rights come from god, while I say they simply exist by virtue of my existence.

Being human or even simply being alive gives you no rights whatsoever whether you rationalize the claim that you have them through God, philosophy or "because I say so".

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, you must not be logical.

Well, I haven't hurt myself trying to justify why murder is wrong, so you are actually incorrect that doing so would require some herculean effort on my part.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So you're going to shift your argument from "show me one thing that does X" to "I'll ignore what the very first settlers of America said and jump forward 150 years; therefore, what you said is invalid"?

No, my argument hasn't shifted at all. The Mayflower Compact is not a document that governs the United States of America, nor does it frame the intent of the founders of this nation. The Mayflower Compact was certainly a founding document, just not of this nation. I would also not hold out the tribal rules of the Native Americans as being a valid example of what this nation considers to be it's founding principles. I am not arguing the religious choices made by many founders of this country or even that many of the were christians. But they also never wrote that bias into law. In fact, the only times religion is mentioned it is done so ambiguously and addresses how it is not to interfere with the goverment of the country.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not saying they're badwrong because they're not Christian. I'm saying they're badwrong because of the way that they act.

I'm not sure the record of christian societies are unblemished. But you are blaming their behavior on their religious choices, just as you are saying we are right because of our religious choices.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Without a set of permanent moral values, no, you can't do it. It ends up being, "Because I think so."

And in this you are illustrating exactly what is so silly about your position. My morals aren't disposable just because I didn't get them from a fairytale. My morals are just as entrenched as your are. I'm not going to say killing is wrong today and then wake up tomorrow and think it's okay.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Being human or even simply being alive gives you no rights whatsoever whether you rationalize the claim that you have them through God, philosophy or "because I say so".

In this we disagree. In fact, I would say that certainty is what leads to people thinking their religion should rule the world.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So in otherwords, your reasoning is "just because". You're a human who enjoys rights, and your mere existence brings virture with it? The [secular] Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" would seem to contradict that. The cheetah killing the gazelle doesn't stop to think that the gazelle has a right to live. And in Atheist/secular lines of thinking, there is very little to seperate humans from non-human animals. So "virtue of existence" doesn't really cut it. Nothing backs it.

If one person kills another its just "survival of the fittest".

----

Tell me a culture that specifically says to turn the other cheek, and then show me it does.

But I am not a cheeta. I'm sure if we were to take what your saying to the opposite extrem, we could ask ourselves why the cheeta hasn't figured out that he wouldn't have to kill a deer to eat if he would just get a job. Sadly, that's what many people thinkn evolution is; a process with a goal where everything is moving inexoribly towards some finish line. (And I'm not saying that is your position on the theory, but rather the position of many people who argue against it's validity.)

What backs it is the fact that we're all here and we all want basically the same things when we remove politics and religion from the equation.

Murder isn't survival of the fittest. Killing might be, but not murder. And the survival of the human being that murders isn't advanced somehow because he murdered another human being. The murderer isn't going to die unless he kills. The cheeta will. At least if he doesn't learn how to make a salad first.

I can't think of any society that actually turns the other cheek.

Originally posted by Devil King
In this we disagree. In fact, I would say that certainty is what leads to people thinking their religion should rule the world.

It's the belief that the world would be a better place that is behind that. My Muslim employee wants world-wide Sharia, because of that belief. Now the one thing it would do is put the world under one unarguable law, with preset punishments that are made clear in advance. But personally, I like beer and scantily clad women too much for wanting to live under Sharia.

Originally posted by Devil King

I can't think of any society that actually turns the other cheek.

I rest my case.

Christianity was (and still is) ahead of the times in that respect.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's the belief that the world would be a better place that is behind that. My Muslim employee wants world-wide Sharia, because of that belief. Now the one thing it would do is put the world under one unarguable law, with preset punishments that are made clear in advance. But personally, I like beer and scantily clad women too much for wanting to live under Sharia.

Right. they're certain the world would be better for them if no one could argue with their choices. As many problems as he might have with a non-theocratic government, I don't see him pakcing up his tools and heading for Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I rest my case.

Christianity was (and still is) ahead of the times in that respect.

No, let me rephrase that. I can't think of any society, christian or otherwise, that actually turns the other cheek.

Originally posted by Devil King
As many problems as he might have with a non-theocratic government

He doesn't.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, let me rephrase that. I can't think of any society, christian or otherwise, that actually turns the other cheek.

Christianity does. That's one of the basic tenets. Now name another that says that. Exactly, you can't.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity does. That's one of the basic tenets. Now name another that says that. Exactly, you can't.

can you name a Christian nation, or even a nation with a predominatly Christian population who "turned the other cheek" for no reason other than its religious devotion?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I rest my case.

Christianity was (and still is) ahead of the times in that respect.

Buddhism.

"If an evil man, on hearing of what is good, comes and creates a disturbance, you should hold your peace. You must not angrily upbraid him; then he who has come to curse you will merely harm himself."

Sutra of Forty-two Sections

Islam:

"Let there be no injury and no requital."

Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi

Originally posted by Devil King
In this we disagree. In fact, I would say that certainty is what leads to people thinking their religion should rule the world.

Or that their philosophy should or that anything should. Nothing has intrinsic value, only the values we give to it due to our own perceptions which vary from person to person. The thought process that leads to people thinking that their beliefs should rule the world is that theirs are somehow accurate or based on something real, be it God or logic or revelation.

Originally posted by inimalist
can you name a Christian nation, or even a nation with a predominatly Christian population who "turned the other cheek" for no reason other than its religious devotion?

Easy: pick one.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity does. That's one of the basic tenets. Now name another that says that. Exactly, you can't.

How many times have you turned the other cheek?

I can't think of any other culture that uses that phrase, but there are a few examples of pacafism in religion and government. There are those tenants in Buddhism and it's older. Ghandi was not christian and he was a pacifist.

And let's not forget that christianity is founded on the Jewish religion, and there aren't a whole lot of Jews that look the other way.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Easy: pick one.

so your argument is that any group of people who have a majority of Christians in the population will not use violence in response to violence?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Buddhism.

"If an evil man, on hearing of what is good, comes and creates a disturbance, you should hold your peace. You must not angrily upbraid him; then he who has come to curse you will merely harm himself."

Sutra of Forty-two Sections

The devoutly Buddhist Viet-Cong didn't seem to have a problem "upbraiding" the evil American soldiers who created a disturbance in their jungles.

Also, the Buddhist Kingdom of Thailand hangs drug-runners.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that their philosophy should or that anything should. Nothing has intrinsic value, only the values we give to it due to our own perceptions which vary from person to person. The thought process that leads to people thinking that their beliefs should rule the world is that theirs are somehow accurate or based on something real, be it God or logic or revelation.

Sure. But not basing it on a god allows me the freedom not to have a certainty of religion. In fact, I don't think I have more rights than anyone else. Or less for that matter. Even if people in those parts of the world where they don't enjoy the same rights I assign myself, I think they're entitled to all the same rights I have.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The devoutly Buddhist Viet-Cong didn't seem to have a problem "upbraiding" the evil American soldiers who created a disturbance in their jungles.

Also, the Buddhist Kingdom of Thailand hangs drug-runners.

Christian governments invade nations and sack villages and torture people on the rack. Governments and political ideologies rarely take their cues from religions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The devoutly Buddhist Viet-Cong didn't seem to have a problem "upbraiding" the evil American soldiers who created a disturbance in their jungles.

Also, the Buddhist Kingdom of Thailand hangs drug-runners.

And the Christian soldiers didn't have trouble slaughtering them with far superior technology.

There are probably more recent examples of Buddhists turning the other cheek than Christians doing that.