Omega Red:
I find it hard to accept the credibility of such a person whose current "ministry" is at odds with the foundations it ensued... "God has good principals" and then says "God is despicable". So which part of his testimony is to be believed?

Good point.

Another thing that struck me as odd about his testimony:

I would read a passage in one version and then the same passage in another version and so on through several versions in both English and French.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of reading it in the original versions - Hebrew and Greek. Or of reading it from the point-of-view of someone living in that time and place.

Hail Jimbo, Master of Repeated Gas and Space! yes, folks, only Jimbo could think that re-re-repeating his ad hom is an argument. Well, only him and:

This is from a good buddy of yours who finally figured it out ; ) :

Yes, I know. I have often quoted the part where he admits to being a liar. Your role model, I suppose.

Mr. "Holding,"

JIMBO: The problem, of course, lies with you. You are in a cult.

"HOLDING": Nothing like a bit of ad hominem when your rear end is being skidded along the racetrack, eh, Jimbo?

Nothing like living in denial, eh "Holding"? The fact is, this is the explanation for your problem with morality: You believe in a false religion and are compelled by your belief system to defend moral atrocities.

End of story.

"The problem, of course, lies with Jimbo. He is a skeptic. He is a godless fool."

I am not the one defending the torture and murder of people for their opinions. You are. I am not the one with the problem.

JIMBO: It is a cult called Christianity. As a member of this cult, you have been convinced that an ancient war god that was

"HOLDING": Spare us the hyperbole, little Jimbo. My answer would be the SAME even if I were an atheist.

Until you become an atheist and-as an atheist-continue to defend moral atrocities done in the name of the Christian god, your claim is undemonstrated and unbelievable.

And if I were an atheist, I would be embarrassed by know-littles like you who spread around their garbage arguments like peanut butter on a horse's corpse.

If I were a Christian, I would be ashamed to see someone like you engage in sophistry and play word games to protect the faith. I would wonder why anyone had to use such tactics to defend something that was supposed to be absolute, undeniable truth. And maybe someday I would come to the realization that the reason for your behavior was simply that you were trying to protect a very comforting delusion.

JIMBO: You have been convinced that this god inspired or wrote a book called the bible.

"HOLDING": Yes, data and arguments DO tend to have a convincinge effect.

Do data and arguments about the age of the earth from "experts in the field" convince you that young earth creationists-such as your "friends" at AIG-are ignorant? Or do you willfully blind yourself to facts that contradict your particular interpretation of the bible?

JIMBO: god exists, that you will get to live forever.

"HOLDING": I already told you, silly man, I don't CARE if I live forever.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

As I noted before, you have been convinced that if you maintain your faith that this god exists, that you will get to live forever. Justifying moral atrocities that you feel are associated with your god is something you do to maintain your faith.

JIMBO: These beliefs compel you to defend biblical atrocities and to defend and support the Inquisitions.

"HOLDING": Um sure, Jimbo,

Yes, right "Holding."

which is why secular historians like Kamen and Stalcup make the same arguments defending them...they have that axe to grind for Jesus, don't you know.

So if these two authors actually defend the Spanish Inquisition (singular) as morally good, what would that mean? Would this actually mean the Spanish Inquisition was morally good? If I could find three historians who held an opposing view, would that mean that I was right? Yes or no?

In any case, I asked you for these two authors' "arguments" which they supposedly used to defend the moral rightness of the Spanish Inquisition, and this is what you presented:

Stalcup [13] asks the honest question, "How could the leaders of the church reconcile the terror and destruction wrought by the Inquisition with the doctrine of mercy taught by Christ?"

So the leaders of the Church were trying to reconcile the "terror and the destruction" of the Spanish Inquisition with the "mercy" supposedly taught by Jesus. Interesting.

The answer she gives is a familiar one

Does Stalcup give an answer of her own, or one from the "leaders of the church"? Inquiring minds want to know.

-- one we have also seen given in answer to such questions as, "Why would a God of love order the Canaanites exterminated?" or "Why does Proverbs teach corporal punishment?" Eventually different forms of the Inquisition grew up in different places for different reasons. But in terms of why and started, the simple answer is that the Inquisition was seen as an instrument of social survival.

This does not appear to be a quote from Stalcup, but rather your own words. Please provide direct, full quotes from Stalcup which demonstrate that she defends the Spanish Inquisition as being morally good or morally righteous.

Stalcup notes that the Catholic Church (CC) in the Dark Ages "was the one stable institution that provided leadership and order"

This is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. Try again.

and quotes historian Bernard Hamilton as saying that "as the sole vehicle of a more civilized tradition in a barbarous world"

A partial quote lifted from some unknown context which does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not from Stalcup in any case.

the CC "became involved in social and political activities which formed no part of its essential mission, but which it alone was qualified to discharge." [14]

Again, this is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition.

With the exception of a few Jews and Muslims, all people in Western Europe depended on the CC for meaning and survival. Any undermining of this social construct was a threat to the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the whole.

Who wrote this, you or one of the authors in question? Remember, I am asking you to support your claim that these two authors defend the Spanish Inquisition as being morally righteous.

(Kamen likewise says of the Spanish variation, "It fulfilled a role...that no other institution fulfilled." [K82])

"Spanish variation" of the Catholic Church or Inquisition? This quote is fragmentary, it is nebulous because its context is unclear, and, as is, it does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. Please try again.

Did you plan on answering a word they said or is mulluguthering and babbling all you have in response to them?

Nothing you quoted from these two authors demonstrates that they actually defend the Spanish Inquisition as being morally good or morally righteous. Keep trying, fat boy.

JIMBO: Specifics, please. Please cite the regulation that was in effect when you made this claim.

"HOLDING": Jezz did this above.

There was not and is not now any regulation forbidding links. Your claim that I knew links were forbidden is false, twice over.

JIMBO: This is misdirection and misrepresentation, cult boy. I asked you specifically about the Inquisitions, plural, and you respond with a comment about the Spanish Inquisition, singular.

"HOLDING": Becuase, little man, YOU arbitrarily expanded the matter to ALL of them when all I ever addressed was the Spanish variation.

False. I started off talking about the Inquisitions, plural, you acknowlegeded that and in response to this specific question about the Inquisitions, plural, you continually answered it by referring to the Spanish Inquisition, singular. If you don't know about the torture methods used in the other Inquistions, plural, then they only honest answer to give is "I don't know."

You tried to get away with broadening the field because you know that I will not debate that which I have not studied.

False. I never "broadened the field" but was the first person to talk about the Inquisitions, plural, in this thread.

You WANT to get away from the SI because you know I have caught you with your drawers down on this subject and now want to try to redeem yourself by changing the subject. Forget it.

Bluster and dishonesty. You understood my question was about the Inquisitions, plural, from the very beginning and have repeatedly answered it by referring to one or two author's descriptions of the Spanish Inquisition, singular. You are the one who has his pants around his ankles, pudgy, and I got to tell you, it is not a pretty site

The SI is all I will discuss. I will work on the others Inquizzes at a later date if I so choose. I have no idea what techniques were used by other Inquizzes,...

Good, you finally answered my question. You do not deny outright that these torture methods were used by the Inquisitions, plural. Thank you.

...but your sources have ALL been WRONG about the SI,...

Really? Where did you demonstrate this?

...which for now does imply that they haven't done their homework on the others either. Smoke that.

Back up your statement that "your sources have ALL been WRONG about the SI" with information that you have already presented.

”HOLDING”: Only if they were not guilty, poochy. Your efforts to personalize such issues is a glib and manipulative attempt to demote reason to emotion, but reallly, little Jimbo, if your mommy was an axe murderer, would you be outraged and do what you could to free her? See how your argument blows up in your face? Begged questions do tend to clog the exhaust pipe of reason.

JIMBO: Excellent-another blatant misrepresentation! Since when did axe-murdering and holding a non-Catholic religious opinion become moral equivalents?

"HOLDING": Excellent, another evasion! Since when did you prove that it was merely a case of holding an "opinion"? ”

JIMBO: It is you who is engaged in evasion, cult boy. Answer my question: Why do you equate axe murdering with not believing in the official state religion? Is this just another one of your cynical word games, or do you actually believe that these two things are morally equivalent?

"HOLDING: Thimk carefully, little man. Not one word of what I said implies that they are "morally equivalent"

Then what is your point, pudgemeister?

and whether or not they are is irrelevant.

So again, what is your point? When I have asked you whether you would have had your own wife and mother tortured and/or killed for their religious beliefs during the Inquisitions, you have said yes, if they were indeed "guilty." And then you have presented the example of an axe murderer being sentenced to death. So tell me-why do you think these two things-axe murdering and holding an opinion-are analogous? If you do not think they are analogous, then what is the point are trying to make, if any?

HOLDING”: I did think the people who did it (911 terrorist attacks-Ed.) were in error, on the grounds that their reasons for doing so were false. Anything else? ”

JIMBO: In “error”? Interesting. If you were on a plane that was hijacked by Muslim fanatic terrorists, and they started slitting the throats of the pilots, the stewardesses, and the passengers-including grandmothers and toddlers-would you feel any measurable anger towards them?

"HOLDING": No, moron,

So you would not feel any measurable anger at seeing grandmothers and toddlers getting their throats slit by Muslim terrorist fanatics. Thank you.

I'd try to stop them.

Why? These people just made a "mistake" and "their reasons for doing so were false." That's all. No big deal. Heck, everybody makes mistakes. They certainly were "not morally responsible" for what they did.

So, how would you try and "stop" them?

Would you try and stop them because you actually felt that what they were doing was morally wrong? If so, do you think it is good to fight against moral wrongs?

If you get angry you tend to make mistakes. As in, your problem, little man.

You claimed that you would not feel any measurable anger at seeing fellow passengers-including toddlers and grandmothers- slaughtered right before your eyes. Let me ask you: Do you ever have any emotions at all in response to anything that ever happens in your life or are you completely emotionless? Thank you.

JIMBO: Remember, torture and murder in the name of God is justified and righteous. Just ask the Muslim fanatic extremist terrorists!

"HOLDING": If the Muslim fanatic extermist terrorists have a correct epistemic foundation, then it (9/11 attack-Ed.) could very well be justified.

Provide "a correct epistemic foundation" that would justify the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"HOLDING":If Islam is true -- figure it out.

JIMBO: Huh? If these fanatics' version of Islam is true, then Allah is an immoral monster, and the atrocities they committed on September 11th, 2001, are no less evil.

"HOLDING": No kidding. You just agreed with my point.

What was your point? It seems that you believe that if the Muslim extremist fanatic terrorists' theology was correct, then they could "very well be justified" in having slaughtered nearly 3000 people on 9/11. I believe that even if their god exists and they did what their god wanted them to do, then their god and their actions would be evil.

So explain what your point was.

Now tell us how this proves that their version of Islam is factually in error and why you are justified in condeming these terrorists for expressing their "opinions" in a concrete way.

Sophistry, again. "(E)xpressing opinions in a concrete way" is a clumsy and cynical effort to confuse beliefs with actions. Nice try, blimpy.

JIMBO: Would you become an inquisitor and torture people yourself?

"HOLDING":Perhaps. The career options were limited in that area, though. It might also have been nice to be the physician that attended all sessions.

Yes, wouldn’t that be “nice”? You'd obviously want to take along some ear plugs so the howls of agony and the cries for mercy wouldn’t produce any lasting damage to your tender ear drums or give you a headache. And as a doctor you could keep people alive longer so they could be tortured into desperately confessing all sorts of things that had absolutely nothing to do with reality, and then they could be burned to death for their "confessions."

How wonderful.

Two more questions for the road:

Is anything morally wrong?

Were the friends and family of the men, women and children slaughtered in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks justified in feeling that what the terrorists did to their loved ones was morally wrong?


Keep "defending" Christianity!


Jimbo

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Nothing like living in denial, eh "Holding"?

Heck, Jimbo, you're renting rooms in denial.

The fact is, this is the explanation for your problem with morality:

The fact is, you cannot answer any arguments presented here by informed Christians, being that you are woefully ignorant of the social conditions of the ANE, and cannot think past bare emotion and your personal misotheism. End of story. Gee, did Jimbo just vanish in a puff of acrid smoke?

I am not the one defending the torture and murder of people for their opinions.

No, you are the one defending a uni-dimensional view of society and a naive conception of "opinions" as insulated systems of belief that affect no one. Of course there's a simple reason why you are so naive. You are a victim of the current politically correct conception that "opinions" can be held in isolation from action, inasmuch as there are so many "tolerant" people supposedly doing so today. What you fail to grasp (in your primitive mental conceptions which thinks a "paradox" is two general practitioners standing next to each other) is that those who do this are ACTING on their OPINION that what others believe should be tolerated. You therefore maintain indeed that "opinions" ALWAYS result in some action, but are too blindsided by your hanky-waving ignorance to recognize it.

Until you become an atheist and-as an atheist-continue to defend moral atrocities done in the name of the Christian god, your claim is undemonstrated and unbelievable.

Well, isn't it just too bad that Jimbo cannot accept that theism isn't part of the equation for me when it comes to this. Of course never mind that professional historians with no axe to grind for Jesus have offered essentially the same conclusion. It runs down to that little Jimmy can't accept that his argument is no based on rational grounds but rather on his personal problems and his emotional dysfunction.

If I were a Christian, I would be ashamed to see someone like you engage in sophistry and play word to protect the faith

Good thing I don't, then. However, I am very good at showing that those who make that sort of charge are a bunch of sore losers who got themselves whacked when confronted by social data beyond their education. Kind of reminds me of you, little Jimbo. When you get whacked by social data from the ANE, all you can do is fall on the ground and roll around in the grass, smacking the ground beside you with your little palms and shouting, "IT'S NOT FAIR! IT'S NOT FAIR! WAH! WAH! GOD IS SUCH A MEANIE!" and then using the word "torture" in 500 consecutive sentences without a single rational argument or epistemic justification for your position. A truly sad case you are, little man.

And maybe someday I would come to realize that the reason for your behavior was simply that you were trying to protect a very comforting delusion.

Maybe that's because paradoxically, it's the only way you can protect your own "comforting delusion" that you didn't have to worry ever again about God. Isn't this fun, little Jimbo? You can be your own personal psychologist. I'll bet you eat a lot of Kentucky Freud Chicken, Jung Man.

Do data and arguments about the age of the earth from "experts in the field" convince you that young earth creationists-such as your "friends" at AIG-are ignorant?

Nope. Because I don't have enough expertise to gauge who is right and who is not. Meanwhile, nice dodge of your continuing ignorance of the social world of the ANE *and* of the SI era, which is an area I DO have sufficient expertise in, and you clearly don't. Now this, to you: "Do data and arguments about the SI from 'experts in the field' convince you that hobbyist websites-such as your 'friends' at witchcraft.ca-are ignorant?
Or do you willfully blind yourself to facts that contradict your particular interpretation of the SI?" Hmmm.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

As usual Jimbo is his crybaby mentality has no conception that I'm mainly concerned for "living forever" and so merely denies it and reasserts the original, irrelevant ad hominem. Let's try this: "As I noted before, Jimbo, you have been convinced that if you maintain your faith that this god does not exist, that you will get to live as debased a life as you please, having carnal relations every five minutes, swilling booze and popping pills, cutting in line at the express lane, and watching dirty movies. Ignoring social data and name-calling with loaded language ('moral atrocities') that you feel are associated with this god is something you do to maintain your faith."

What, you deny it?

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

So if these two authors actually defend the Spanish Inquisition (singular) as morally good, what would that mean? Would this actually mean the Spanish Inquisition was morally good? If I could find three historians who held an opposing view, would that mean that I was right? Yes or no?

Oh, perhaps -- if they provided a direct rebuttal to the arguments offered by these historians. In other words, they need to provide a reply on the specific points made by these writers. It's not going to be worth ten cents for you to find some historian who offers a one-sentence appraisal, "The SI was bad," and then goes on to talk about something else. You see, little Jimbo, because your thinking processes are so primitive, you think that this is just a "numbers game" I'm playing, when the matter is actually data + authority + argument. The obvious reason for your inability to think beyond mere numbers is that you have no capacity for critical analysis, so everything is a "numbers game" to you. This is also why you so readily "throw down" for the evolution view, in spite of not knowing the difference between a proton and a neutron ("Jimbo Neutron", ha ha!): Because you think "majority", not arguments, is the deciding factor. Whereas I, having a far more mature view of the process, reserve judgment knowing that ignorance is not a suitable framework for throwing in my lot.

I can hardly imagine you going out and doing any hard research on this subject, but if you can indeed get your mommy to take you to the library, make sure that any person you find is:

1) An authority on the Inquisitions and/or the medieval period. That is, a professional and credentialed historian. No hobbyists or bunglers like Barbara Walker.

2) Offers a direct reply to Kamen, Stalcup, et al; or to their arguments. Remember not to keep erecting that same strawman you did above; not "morally good" per se, but in the moral hierarchy, a necessity for the surivival of that society. As usual, you have serious problems with black and white thinking, which is not surprising considering you were once a fundamentalist, and still are.

If and when you get off your sorry tuckus, and do this, then we can talk as you will have actually taken a step towards growing up.

So the leaders of the Church were trying to reconcile the "terror and the destruction" of the Spanish Inquisition with the "mercy" supposedly taught by Jesus. Interesting.

Yes, very. Grow up and smell the coffee. As I have already said, "moral hierarchy". Look up those words before you answer.

Does Stalcup give an answer of her own, or one from the "leaders of the church"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then one wonders why "inquiring minds" like little Jimbo's don't get off their cerebellums and actually find Stalcup's book. The obvious answer is that this "inquiring mind" called Jimbo prefers "National Enquirer" sources like hobbyist websites worked up by Satanists who think that a children's encyclopedia is a definitive source. No "leaders of the church" were used to answer this question by any writer I consulted, little man.

This does not appear to be a quote from Stalcup, but rather your own words. Please provide direct, full quotes from Stalcup

I did in the next paragraph, Goofus.

This is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. Try again.

That IS a defense of the SI, Goofus. Try reading a little more holisticially. You have this problem where you think that the words "Spanish Inquisition" have to be mentioned, which shows that you are seriously low-context, but not much else. Of course little Jimbo would have us believe that Stalcup was just observing that the CC "was the one stable institution that provided leadership and order" for the sake of her health.

A partial quote lifted from some unknown context which does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not from Stalcup in any case.

It is from a pro historian, which is all that matters, and used by Stalcup in any event for the same defense. Other than that, it is clear that you are desperately dodging by pretending that maybe just maybe just maybe a "real" quote from Anderson would contain something completely contrary to the point being made. In other words, you are spinning and spitting in the dark trying to insert uncertainty where none exists.

Again, this is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition.

It is, Goofus. Again, just because you do not see the words "Spanish Inquisition" does not detract from the contextuality of the explanation.

Who wrote this, you or one of the authors in question?

It is a paraphrase and summary of their material over several pages. If you doubt it, get off your rear and get the book.

Remember, I am asking you to support your claim that these two authors defend the Spanish Inquisition as
being morally righteous.

Remember, I am telling you 2000 times now that the matter is not "morally righteous" per se but necessary in the moral hierarchy, and remember that the CC was the impetus for the SI, and that all you have done so far is whine and kick and scream by pretending that if the words SPANISH INQUISITION do not appear in the text, you can assume that it was written on some entirely different topic and that the authors said things like this just for their health.

"Spanish variation" of the Catholic Church or Inquisition?

If you are that insensate I don't know if an answer would help. Excuse me, how in the world could there be a "Spanish variation" of the CC?

This quote is fragmentary, it is nebulous because its context is unclear, and, as is, it does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition.

To quote my own favored words: "It is not unclear. You are simply stupid." Jimbo always backs off into charges like these because he has no other alternative in the face of clear and profoundly impacting data that destroys his position. Keep trying, little man. We know what your point is, and if you comb just right, it won't show.

So tell me-why do you think these two things-axe murdering and holding an opinion-are analogous?

Because as has been said so many times that you lost it, what you call "opinions" are not able to be held in isolation. And as noted above, if you evade to the politically correct answer, you lose upon being found self-contradictory. The axe murderer had an "opinion" that their victim ought to die. al-Qaeda has an "opinion" that Allah has commanded them to kill Americans. This point has been made numerous times, and scuttling like a coward behind your catch-all excuse-question, "What's your point?", is merely an unschooled attempt to pretend that no point has been made and to convince any gullible suckers that that is indeed the case.

So you would not feel any measurable anger at seeing grandmothers and toddlers getting their throats slit by Muslim terrorist fanatics. Thank you.

You're welcome. Perhaps if your sweet granny were on the plane, and I, the only one with a cool head not enflamed with passion, were the only one who had the poise and wherewithal to save her because of it, you'd change your tune. What do you think?

Why? These people just made a "mistake" and "their reasons for doing so were false." That's all.

That's enough.

No big deal. Heck, everybody makes mistakes. They certainly were "not morally responsible" for what they did.

Which of course has no bearing on whether or not one should stop them, Goofus.

So, how would you try and "stop" them?

I would show them several pages of Brooks Trubee's Christianity: Boogied Beyond Belief website, and while they were on the floor splitting their guts out of howling laughter, I would tie them up with back issues of The Skeptical Review.

Would you try and stop them because you actually felt that what they were doing was morally wrong?

No, I would try to stop them because I *knew* (so much better than "feeling") they were epistemically wrong, which in turn does make them morally wrong, albeit not necessatily morally culpable. Is this too hard for your poor brain? If so, let us know and we will turn on Romper Room for you.

Let me ask you: Do you ever have any emotions at all in response to anything that ever happens in your life or are you completely emotionless?

I would say I am 98% emotionless.

Provide "a correct epistemic foundation" that would justify the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

If Allah were really real, if we really were tools of Satan, if we really were corrupting the truth, if we really were (as they claimed) unjustly oppressing Muslims worldwide. Simple, wasn't it?

It seems that you believe that if the Muslim extremist fanatic terrorists' theology was correct, then they could "very well be justified" in having slaughtered nearly 3000 people on 9/11

Bingo. Give little Jimbo a girlie scout cookie to jaw on.

I believe that even if their god exists and they did what their god wanted them to do, then their god and their actions would be evil.

Of course you would, because you would be the one who would be in Allah's sights. We would expect you to spin-doctor the matter; not that you could answer a single argument they'd offer, such as that you were indeed corrupting the society at large, or oppressing innocent Muslims, or bringing moral evil to the world. That is as far as your primitive arguments go, and they haven't advanced since you left the grade school playground and thought, "He hit me first!" was a proper epistemic justification for reply.

Sophistry, again. "(E)xpressing opinions in a concrete way" is a clumsy and cynical effort to confuse beliefs with actions.

What Jimbo means by "sophistry" is, "I am still too confused to realize that beliefs and actions are inextricably intertwined and that beliefs ALWAYS result in action. It is very cynical of you to force me to think in such an advanced way." Nice try, little man.

Yes, wouldn’t that be “nice”?

Poor little Jimbo. He missed the irony of there being attending physicians at the torture sessions. Notice how he automatically assumes it was to "keep people alive longer" and not to attend to injuries if the torture went further than it was supposed to. What clumsy, cynical attempt to maintain his faith!

You'd obviously want to take along some ear plugs so the howls of agony and the cries for mercy wouldn’t produce any lasting damage to your tender ear drums or give you a headache

Perhaps so.

and then they could be burned to death for their "confessions."

Um, yeah, Jimbo. Forget Kamen's comments?

Once a confession was made, punishment ranged from fasting and prayer (the equal to writing "I will not be a heretic" 100 times) to a brief imprisonment. Those who had committed serious crimes were given life imprisonment (perhaps such as the one who assassinated Innocent's rep). Execution was reserved "for unrepentant or relapsed heretics" (Kamen, 21)
Maybe it's time you got your nose out of hobbyist websites and into the real world of history.
Is anything morally wrong?

Yep. Using hobbyist websites and trying to contort your way out of answers given by authorities is one example.

Were the friends and family of the men, women and children slaughtered in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks justified in feeling that what the terrorists did to their loved ones was morally wrong?

Yep. But mark this: You can guarantee that almost all, if not all, either would agree that the terrorist's epistemic justification for the attacks was in error -- thus providing justification for their moral outrage -- or that they neither knew nor cared about the epistemic grounds, in which case, while their "feelings" (what a wondersul epistemic foundation!) were justified in fact, they were not epistemically justified in their own minds and were merely a product of "argument by outrage". In other words, while their target was right, their reasoning remained fallacious.

Maybe when you grow up, little man, you'll start grasping these subtle differences and realize that the world is not just you taking from the cookie jar.

Keep "defending" Christianity!

Keep "your head" in the sand! And don't forget to flush when you're done posting.

Mr "Holding,"

"HOLDING": Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Hail "JP" cult boy, rationalizer of biblical absurdities and atrocities!

JIMBO: The fact is, this is the explanation for your problem with morality:

"HOLDING":The fact is, you cannot answer any arguments presented here by informed Christians,....

You worship a god that promotes slavery. You worship a god that murders children and infants. You worship a god that repeatedly orders its chosen people to massacre men, women and children. You worship a god that is said to torture people for eternity for their opinions. You believe that anyone who does not worship this god deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity.

These statements have been attributed to your god.

By any reasonable measure, you have a problem with morality. I believe that this problem results from your mistaken belief that an ancient war god is real and is a god of love. I believe your morality has become skewed and distorted by your religious beliefs.

JIMBO: I am not the one defending the torture and murder of people for their opinions.

"HOLDING": No, you are the one defending a uni-dimensional view of society and a naive conception of "opinions" as insulated systems of belief that affect no one...

Again: you believe that people deserve to be and will be eternally tortured for their opinions by the god that you worship. The fact that you cannot see that this is evil demonstrates that you have serious problems in making moral judgments.

JIMBO: Until you become an atheist and-as an atheist-continue to defend moral atrocities done in the name of the Christian god, your claim is undemonstrated and unbelievable.

"HOLDING": Well, isn't it just too bad that Jimbo cannot accept that theism isn't part of the equation for me when it comes to this. Of course never mind that professional historians with no axe to grind for Jesus have offered essentially the same conclusion.

Three points. One: you have not shown this. Two: even if you could show that two historians agree with you, that would not prove that you or they were right. Three: It seems fairly obvious that your defense of atrocities related to Christianity is based on your desire to protect your faith.

JIMBO: If I were a Christian, I would be ashamed to see someone like you engage in sophistry and play word (games) to protect the faith

"HOLDING": Good thing I don't, then.

False.

However, I am very good at showing that those who make that sort of charge are a bunch of sore losers who got themselves whacked....all you can do is fall on the ground and roll around in the grass, smacking the ground beside you with your little palms and shouting, "IT'S NOT FAIR! IT'S NOT FAIR! WAH! WAH! GOD IS SUCH A MEANIE!"

You are somebody who believes that billions of people who do not happen to share your religious beliefs deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity. Clearly you are not in a position to tell anyone what is and what is not fair or moral.

and then using the word "torture" in 500 consecutive sentences without a single rational argument or epistemic justification for your position. A truly sad case you are, little man.

Sad case? I am not the one engaged in a hopeless battle to rationalize the atrocities attributed to an ancient war god.

JIMBO: And maybe someday I would come to realize that the reason for your behavior was simply that you were trying to protect a very comforting delusion.

"HOLDING": Maybe that's because paradoxically, it's the only way you can protect your own "comforting delusion" that you didn't have to worry ever again about God.

I am not the one flailing about in spastic contortions defending crimes and immorality attributed to a primitive war god.

JIMBO: You have been convinced that this god inspired or wrote a book called the bible.

HOLDING": Yes, data and arguments DO tend to have a convincinge effect.

JIMBO: Do data and arguments about the age of the earth from "experts in the field" convince you that young earth creationists-such as your "friends" at AIG-are ignorant?

"HOLDING": Nope. Because I don't have enough expertise to gauge who is right and who is not.

But you are a (self-proclaimed) bible expert who believes Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the earth's history, a view which flies in the face of all scientific research that touches on the subject. You are clearly unreasonably biased. So what do the stories and genealogies in the bible tell you about the age of the earth? I am willing to bet that you will not answer this question. If you were to answer it, it would reveal yet again that have an unreasonable bias, a bias that prevents you from competently differentiating between fact and fiction.

Meanwhile, nice dodge of your continuing ignorance of the social world of the ANE *and* of the SI era,

What dodge?

which is an area I DO have sufficient expertise in, and you clearly don't. Now this, to you: "Do data and arguments about the SI from 'experts in the field' convince you that hobbyist websites-such as your 'friends' at witchcraft.ca-are ignorant?

What "data" and "arguments" are you referring to?

Or do you willfully blind yourself to facts that contradict your particular interpretation of the SI?" Hmmm.

What "facts" are you referring to?

As usual Jimbo is his crybaby mentality has no conception that I'm mainly concerned for "living forever" and so merely denies it and reasserts the original, irrelevant ad hominem.

Was what you wrote above supposed to make some kind of sense? Feel free to rewrite your sentence and post it again.

Let's try this: "As I noted before, Jimbo, you have been convinced that if you maintain your faith that this god does not exist, that you will get to live as debased a life as you please....

What, you deny it?

Actually, one of the many reasons why I reject your religion as a true religion is because I am a decent and moral person and I can see quite clearly that your god is an immoral monster. It is obviously a war god invented by primitive people. As a Christian, you have been convinced that if you maintain your belief in this god, you will get to live forever. This much is undeniable. My impression is that the lure of eternal life has compelled you to defend atrocities that are in some way associated with this god, or with Christianty. Of course I am sure that you believe that by defending these atrocities, you are helping other Christians stay strong in the faith and eventually get into heaven. That is quite noble of you. Regardless of this, your efforts to defend these things are, I believe, based on a delusion.

NOTE: What follows is a long discussion of two or three authors' comments on the Catholic Church or the Spanish Inquisition-it is kind of hard to tell what they are writing about, since most of the quotes from them are partial and out of context. To reiterate a point I made numerous times previously: I did not bring up the Spanish Inqusition, singular, but rather I brought up the subject of the Inqusitions, plural. However, you have wanted to focus on the Spanish Inquisition, singular, for some reason, so I am responding to your comments about the Spanish Inquisition, singular, to try and understand why you are so eager to discuss it.

JIMBO: So if these two authors actually defend the Spanish Inquisition (singular) as morally good, what would that mean? Would this actually mean the Spanish Inquisition was morally good? If I could find three historians who held an opposing view, would that mean that I was right? Yes or no?

"HOLDING": Oh, perhaps -- if they provided a direct rebuttal to the arguments offered by these historians. In other words, they need to provide a reply on the specific points made by these writers.

Like I said before, I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

It's not going to be worth ten cents for you to find some historian who offers a one-sentence appraisal, "The SI was bad," and then goes on to talk about something else.

Again, I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians. What I saw was a few fairly general statements about the Catholic Church.

You see, little Jimbo, because your thinking processes are so primitive, you think that this is just a "numbers game" I'm playing, when the matter is actually data + authority + argument.

I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

The obvious reason for your inability to think beyond mere numbers is that you have no capacity for critical analysis, so everything is a "numbers game" to you.

I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

This is also why you so readily "throw down" for the evolution view, in spite of not knowing the difference between a proton and a neutron ("Jimbo Neutron", ha ha!)

You claim that I do not know the difference between a proton and a neutron. Why do you claim this?

By the way, please keep denying evolution.

Because you think "majority", not arguments, is the deciding factor.

I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

Whereas I, having a far more mature view of the process, reserve judgment knowing that ignorance is not a suitable framework for throwing in my lot.

I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

I can hardly imagine you going out and doing any hard research on this subject, but if you can indeed get your mommy to take you to the library, make sure that any person you find is:

1) An authority on the Inquisitions and/or the medieval period. That is, a professional and credentialed historian. No hobbyists or bunglers like Barbara Walker.

Now you are talking about Inquisitions, plural?

2) Offers a direct reply to Kamen, Stalcup, et al; or to their arguments.

What "arguments"?

Remember not to keep erecting that same strawman you did above; not "morally good" per se, but in the moral hierarchy, a necessity for the surivival of that society.

Which means "morally good."

As usual, you have serious problems with black and white thinking, which is not surprising considering you were once a fundamentalist, and still are.

I was? When?

If and when you get off your sorry tuckus, and do this, then we can talk as you will have actually taken a step towards growing up.

Well, I am not the one defending moral atrocities committed in the name of a fictional war god.

JIMBO: So the leaders of the Church were trying to reconcile the "terror and the destruction" of the Spanish Inquisition with the "mercy" supposedly taught by Jesus. Interesting.

"HOLDING": Yes, very. Grow up and smell the coffee. As I have already said, "moral hierarchy". Look up those words before you answer.

Seems that the leaders of the Church had moral reservations about what they were doing at the time they were doing it. Curious.

JIMBO: Does Stalcup give an answer of her own, or one from the "leaders of the church"? Inquiring minds want to know.

"HOLDING": Then one wonders why "inquiring minds" like little Jimbo's don't get off their cerebellums and actually find Stalcup's book. The obvious answer...

Filler, blather and diversion. So what does Stalcup say directly, in defense of the Spanish Inquisition?

JIMBO: This does not appear to be a quote from Stalcup, but rather your own words. Please provide direct, full quotes from Stalcup

"HOLDING": I did in the next paragraph, Goofus.

But not in the paragraph I was responding to, chubster. Here is what you cited from her:

Stalcup notes that the Catholic Church (CC) in the Dark Ages "was the one stable institution that provided leadership and order"

This is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition, anymore than saying that "the Nazi party was the one stable institution that provided leadership and order to Germany" is a defense of the Holocaust. Besides this, the Dark Ages ran from around 500 to 1000 AD. The Spanish Inquisition got its start around 1478.

By the way, I would be interested in seeing the full sentence that this partial quote comes from.

JIMBO: This is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. Try again.

"HOLDING": That IS a defense of the SI, Goofus.

Then explain why it is a defense of the SI, bubberboy. I am not seeing it.

"HOLDING": ...and quotes historian Bernard Hamilton as saying that "as the sole vehicle of a more civilized tradition in a barbarous world"

"(A)s the sole vehicle of a more civilized tradition in a barbarous world"...what? Please provide the full sentence.

JIMBO: A partial quote lifted from some unknown context which does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not from Stalcup in any case.

"HOLDING": It is from a pro historian, which is all that matters,

It might matter if the partial statement was a defense of the Spanish Inquisition, but it doesn't appear to be.

and used by Stalcup in any event for the same defense.

What "defense"? I don't have the book, so I don't know the context this quote is found in. Please, feel free to post the entire sentence that this partial quote comes from, and feel free to post the sentences that are before and after the sentence that this partial quote comes from.

Other than that, it is clear that you are desperately dodging by pretending that maybe just maybe just maybe a "real" quote from Anderson would contain something completely contrary to the point being made.

And what is the point being made? You cite these nebulous, partial, out-of-context quotes about the Catholic Church and claim that they are arguments for the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry-I just don't see any arguments for the Spanish Inquisition.

In other words, you are spinning and spitting in the dark trying to insert uncertainty where none exists.

I think you are grasping desperately at straws and are getting frustrated because these authors don't say quite what you want them to say about the Spanish Inquisition.

"HOLDING": JIMBO: the CC "became involved in social and political activities which formed no part of its essential mission, but which it alone was qualified to discharge."

JIMBO: Again, this is not a defense of the Spanish Inquisition.

"HOLDING": It is, Goofus. Again, just because you do not see the words "Spanish Inquisition" does not detract from the contextuality of the explanation.

What is being explained, blimpy? Saying that the CC "became involved in social and political activities which formed no part of its essential mission, but which it alone was qualified to discharge" is not a defense of the torture and murder of innocent people in the Spanish Inquisition. If I claim that the modern Catholic Church "became involved in social and political activities which formed no part of its essential mission, but which it alone was qualified to discharge," would this be a defense of Catholic priests sexually molesting children, as well as the Catholic Church hiding the molestation, and shuffling molesting priests from parish to parish to rape more children? Yes or no?

"HOLDING": With the exception of a few Jews and Muslims, all people in Western Europe depended on the CC for meaning and survival. Any undermining of this social construct was a threat to the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the whole.

JIMBO: Who wrote this, you or one of the authors in question?

"HOLDING": It is a paraphrase and summary of their material over several pages. If you doubt it, get off your rear and get the book.

I don't have the book. You made the claim that these two authors defend the morality of the Spanish Inquisition. I asked you to support this claim and so I assumed you would provide me with their own words. These are not their own words, but yours. I am not interested in your words here, but in the actual "arguments" these authors make for the Spanish Inquisition. So far all you have provided are some fairly general quotes from them regarding the Catholic Church.

Remember, I am asking you to support your claim that these two authors defend the Spanish Inquisition as being morally righteous.

Remember, I am telling you 2000 times now

False. : )

that the matter is not "morally righteous" per se but necessary in the moral hierarchy, and remember that the CC was the impetus for the SI, and that all you have done so far is whine and kick and scream by pretending that if the words SPANISH INQUISITION do not appear in the text, you can assume that it was written on some entirely different topic and that the authors said things like this just for their health.

I will simply repeat that the quotes you have provided from these two authors do not represent arguments for the Spanish Inqusition.

"HOLDING": (Kamen likewise says of the Spanish variation, "It fulfilled a role...that no other institution fulfilled." [K82])

JIMBO: "Spanish variation" of the Catholic Church or Inquisition?

"HOLDING": If you are that insensate I don't know if an answer would help. Excuse me, how in the world could there be a "Spanish variation" of the CC?

So you are claiming that Kamen wrote that the Spanish Inquisition "fullfilled a role that...no other institution fulfilled"? If so, what "role" was this, according to Kamen? Please use Kamen's own words.

JIMBO: This quote is fragmentary, it is nebulous because its context is unclear, and, as is, it does not appear to be a defense of the Spanish Inquisition.

"HOLDING": To quote my own favored words: "It is not unclear. You are simply stupid."

If that is your belief, cult boy, then simply tell me what "role" Kamen claimed the Spanish Inquisition "fullfilled." Again, use his own words and use full quotes.

Jimbo always backs off into charges like these because he has no other alternative in the face of clear and profoundly impacting data that destroys his position. Keep trying, little man. We know what your point is, and if you comb just right, it won't show.

Bluster, ad hominen, diversion and filler.

JIMBO: So tell me-why do you think these two things-axe murdering and holding an opinion-are analogous?

"HOLDING": Because as has been said so many times that you lost it, what you call "opinions" are not able to be held in isolation.

So holding an opinion is morally equivalent to axe-murdering? Yes?

And as noted above, if you evade to the politically correct answer, you lose upon being found self-contradictory. The axe murderer had an "opinion" that their victim ought to die.

Perhaps, but we don't execute the axe murder for his "opinion" but for his actions. Do you understand the difference?

al-Qaeda has an "opinion" that Allah has commanded them to kill Americans.

And Spanish Inquisitors had the "opinion" that God commanded them to torture and kill unbelievers.

And you have the "opinion" that everyone who does not share your religious beliefs deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity. However, I don't think that this "opinion" is morally equivalent to actually torturing people for eternity for their opinions. I can see that there is actually a distinction between beliefs and actions. Can you?

JIMBO: So you would not feel any measurable anger at seeing grandmothers and toddlers getting their throats slit by Muslim terrorist fanatics. Thank you.

"HOLDING": You're welcome. Perhaps if your sweet granny were on the plane, and I, the only one with a cool head not enflamed with passion, were the only one who had the poise and wherewithal to save her because of it, you'd change your tune. What do you think?

I would think that if this did not make you angry, then you must suffer from sort of terrible mental problem.

JIMBO: Let me ask you: Do you ever have any emotions at all in response to anything that ever happens in your life or are you completely emotionless?

"HOLDING": I would say I am 98% emotionless.

If the 9/11 attacks did not make the least bit angry, when was the last time you were angry? Was it when you poked your chubby fist into the freezer and were shocked to discover that someone had eaten all the Pudding Pops?

JIMBO: Provide "a correct epistemic foundation" that would justify the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"HOLDING": If Allah were really real, if we really were tools of Satan, if we really were corrupting the truth, if we really were (as they claimed) unjustly oppressing Muslims worldwide. Simple, wasn't it?

Yes, of course it is. That is the point. Now, tell me: Is there any moral atrocity that is so horrible that it could not be "justified" by inventing some sort of supernatural rationalization for it?

JIMBO: I believe that even if their god exists and they did what their god wanted them to do, then their god and their actions would be evil.

"HOLDING": Of course you would, because you would be the one who would be in Allah's sights.

And Allah would be a immoral monster.

We would expect you to spin-doctor the matter; not that you could answer a single argument they'd offer, such as that you were indeed corrupting the society at large, or oppressing innocent Muslims, or bringing moral evil to the world.

None of which is true. Did you have a point?

JIMBO: Sophistry, again. "(E)xpressing opinions in a concrete way" is a clumsy and cynical effort to confuse beliefs with actions.

"HOLDING": What Jimbo means by "sophistry" is, "I am still too confused to realize that beliefs and actions are inextricably intertwined and that beliefs ALWAYS result in action.

Opinions "ALWAYS" result in what "actions", Mr. glittering generality?

I'll repeat my main point: I believe that you defend atrocities that are said to be condoned, commanded or committed by the biblical god and that you defend atrocities done in the name of Christianity because this is necessary for you to maintain your faith. As a Christian, you believe that if you maintain your faith, you will get to live forever. I do not deny, of course, that you defend Christianity-related atrocities to help other Christians maintain their faith, and therefore (you believe) get them a seat on the eternal-life gravy train.

Maybe when you grow up, little man, you'll start grasping these subtle differences...

Perhaps someday you will realize that if something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Note: this response has been trimmed due to space restrictions.

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

You worship a god that promotes slavery. blah blah blah blah blah

That's the way, Jimbo! Avoid rational argument! Just act outraged and assume you're right! A begged question is much easier than a rational defense! You're slipping, though; you only mentioned "eternal torture" with no rational argument 765 times.

Three points. One: you have not shown this.

I did show it. You just can't deal with it.

Two: even if you could show that two historians agree with you, that would not prove that you or they were right.

And you are helpless and too ignorant to show that they are not. Hence your resort to hiding behind the bushes of unsubstantiated doubt.

Three: It seems fairly obvious that your defense of atrocities related to Christianity is based on your desire to protect your faith.

It seems fairly obviously that your resort to cheap psychologization is based on your inability to offer a rational reply. It also seems obvious that this is done because you are a godless fool looking to hide from God. One ad hom deserves another. Poof! You just vanished.

False.

Yawn.


But you are a (self-proclaimed) bible expert who believes Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the earth's history, a view which flies in the face of all scientific research that touches on the subject.

Which proves, what? That you need this straw man to score points?

So what do the stories and genealogies in the bible tell you about the age of the earth?

That it is possible it is only 6000 years old. Next question?

What dodge?

Every rational and objective argument, including those by scholars in the know, you refuse to answer. Same answer to all your "whats".

Was what you wrote above supposed to make some kind of sense? Feel free to rewrite your sentence and post it again.

Ah, Jimbo's old "I don't get it" dodge to avoid answering. Cool.

Actually, one of the many reasons why I reject your religion as a true religion is because I am a decent and moral person

Who can't provide any epistemic proof of his morality and decency! Awesome! My impression is that you are running from God and are trying to drag others down to hell with you to make yourself feel better. There, what did I win?

NOTE: What follows is a long discussion of two or three authors' comments on the Catholic Church or the Spanish Inquisition-it is kind of hard to tell what they are writing about,

Meaning Jimbo thinks pretending to be dense will solve his problem, or that expanding to all Inquizzes will confuse the issue enough.

Like I said before, I did not see any "arguments" for the Spanish Inquisition made by these historians.

Jimbo's density is not our problem. He gives up, in other words. He also does not see his own nose in front of his face. This is his all purpose answer to clear statements, and only one reply is needed: Take a reading course.

You claim that I do not know the difference between a proton and a neutron. Why do you claim this?

Because you also clearly do not know the difference between your "butt" and "a hole in the ground".

By the way, please keep denying evolution.

I will, along with many educated people.

I was? When?

I know who you are, little man.

Seems that the leaders of the Church had moral reservations about what they were doing at the time they were doing it.

It does? No, it doesn't. You're projecting because you have no defense to offer.

Filler, blather and diversion.

"I can't read."

Besides this, the Dark Ages ran from around 500 to 1000 AD.

Sorry, chuckles, no according to the historians I have consulted. What Hobbyist website did you get that factoid from?

By the way, I would be interested in seeing the full sentence that this partial quote comes from.

Your public library is open.

You cite these nebulous, partial, out-of-context quotes about

"I still can't read." But he can project well his own frustrations and straw-grasping.

If I claim that the modern Catholic Church "became involved in social and political activities which formed no part of its essential mission, but which it alone was qualified to discharge," would this be a defense of Catholic priests sexually molesting children,

Only if it actually was a real epistemic defense, chuckles. The very issue you avoid like the Black Plague.

I will simply repeat that the quotes you have provided from these two authors do not represent arguments for the Spanish Inqusition.

They do. All the way through, butternut. You just can't answer because your range of ability is limited to what is burped up on hobbyist sites with names like witchcraft.com.

If that is your belief, cult boy, then simply tell me what "role" Kamen claimed the Spanish Inquisition "fullfilled." Again, use his own words and use full quotes.

What I offered is more than enough. Your attempts to avoid answering speak for themselves.

So holding an opinion is morally equivalent to axe-murdering? Yes?

Again, take reading lessons. Opinions are not merely "held" but acted upon, Goofus.

Perhaps, but we don't execute the axe murder for his "opinion" but for his actions. Do you understand the difference?

Yes. You fail to understand however that his "opinion" leads to actions. You will never resolve this conflict in your simpleminded dualism.

I would think that if this did not make you angry, then you must suffer from sort of terrible mental problem.

Jealous of my ability to remain cool and rational under pressure, little man?

If the 9/11 attacks did not make the least bit angry, when was the last time you were angry?

Can't recall, sorry. I hate Pudding Pops.

Now, tell me: Is there any moral atrocity that is so horrible that it could not be "justified" by inventing some sort of supernatural rationalization for it?

Not with such a simple-minded and loaded question, no. Have you stopped kicking your dog?

And Allah would be a immoral monster.

At least you are an equal opportunity question-begger.

None of which is true. Did you have a point?

By evading rational answer, you have already made it for me.

Opinions "ALWAYS" result in what "actions", Mr. glittering generality?

Yes, they do. As noted, lack of action on one opinion reflects an overriding opinion that more trouble will be had by acting than by not. Your loser's robe is on that peg in the corner along with the pointy dunce hat. Now provide an example where opinion does not result in action, keeping this in mind.

I'll repeat my main point:

"I'll repeat myself endlessly for the gullible, because I have no rational argument to offer." So long, gravy train!

I have been observing the following behaviour in "Jimbo" in his participation on this forum:

1. All of "Jimbo's" points are canned.
2. Instead of responding directly to a point, he usually draws in a new (and unrelated) point from his repository of canned points.
3. When he actually does respond directly to a point, it will only be to claim that he doesn't understand the point.

I also can't help but notice that this is typical behaviour for an AI bot such as Mononoke. I think the conclusion is clear - "Jimbo" does not pass the Turing test. He is simply an AI bot. Cirisme is playing a trick on us.

In fact, I think I can predict with a fair amount of certainty what "Jimbo's" response to this (if any) will be:

Jezz, the problem is that you and "Holding" believe in a mythical ancient Hebrew war god. You have been brainwashed to think that good is evil, and evil is good. You are in a cult, so you can't see this from the inside. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

So how about it, cirisme? Do I get some sort of prize for being the first one to figure this out? Like a pick-of-the-day or something?

Jezz,

Actually knowing who Jimbo is, it does occur to me that you may be right. I've seen his picture. He looks like something produced in a factory. We think one of his hobbies is to go around frightening little children by rolling his tongue out as far as he can and going, "AAAHHHHHHHH!"

OK, Jimbo offers some very important points that are both weighty and well considered: if someone that believes the same as you does something (you consider is) bad as a result of those beliefs then you are morally reprehensible for holding your point of view, morally responsible, and I've proved you belief is evil...

I know of a someone who murdered people because he believed there was no God so no consequences for you actions...

Is Jimbo now personally responsible for the murders?
Have I finally proved atheism is morally vacuous (perhaps even evil)?

jpholding:

Jezz,

Actually knowing who Jimbo is, it does occur to me that you may be right. I've seen his picture. He looks like something produced in a factory. We think one of his hobbies is to go around frightening little children by rolling his tongue out as far as he can and going, "AAAHHHHHHHH!"

......

...

JP post your pic ~

Chanoch,

if someone that believes the same as you does something (you consider is) bad as a result of those beliefs then you are morally reprehensible for holding your point of view, morally responsible, and I've proved you belief is evil...

What I have a problem with are people who defend evil done in the name of their religion. Hope that is clear.

Cheers,

Jimbo

BeHereNow:

......

...

JP post your pic ~

Sorry. This is all anyone will ever get below. I'm like the mysterious Dr Claw in Inspector Gadget. You'll never see anything but my pet and one arm.

What I have a problem with are people who defend evil done in the name of their religion. Hope that is clear.

Cheers,

Jimbo

ok, you are right - sorry.

Let me ask a couple of questions then?

Is eating human flesh evil?
Would you condemn a woman for killing her born son?

under what conditions would it be justifiable if ever?

Chanoch,

Is eating human flesh evil?

In the early seventies a passenger plane crashed in the Andes mountains. Most of the people survived the crash. There was a search for their plane, but it was not successful. After awhile, to survive, the passengers ate the flesh of the people who died in the crash. I certainly don't have a problem with this.

Would you condemn a woman for killing her born son?

In most cases, yes, but there could be situations where it would be justified.

under what conditions would it be justifiable if ever?

Perhaps if the son was suffering terribly from a horrific terminal illness and was begging for a lethal dose of morphine from his mother, a nurse.

Jimbo

I'm like the mysterious Dr Claw in Inspector Gadget. You'll never see anything but my pet and one arm.

/ot

Yesterday @ 08:37 AM post located here
jimbo:

Chanoch,



In the early seventies a passenger plane crashed in the Andes mountains. Most of the people survived the crash. There was a search for their plane, but it was not successful. After awhile, to survive, the passengers ate the flesh of the people who died in the crash. I certainly don't have a problem with this.



In most cases, yes, but there could be situations where it would be justified.



Perhaps if the son was suffering terribly from a horrific terminal illness and was begging for a lethal dose of morphine from his mother, a nurse.

Jimbo

well, there are two examples where without context instinctively it feels wrong but with context it could help. Is it not then a valid argument to say that the "atrocities" suppsedly required by God may have been justified if we understood the context better?

For example, what do you think is a valid punishment for someone who kills your children and enslaves you? (Egypt obviously) or for killings off your old women and sick and some children while you are homeless, raiding your fields and thus causing starvation, attacking you on a regular basis etc for 400 years?

What about stoning for adultery in a culture where revenge (usually resulting in a death) is required (even today amongst similar cultures) and a death caused through revenge is payable with a revenge death.......

why are these things outrageous?