Facebook ban

[Harlequin]

In what sense? Is there anything you need from the Old Testament other than the nonsense...

As a Christian I believe I 'need' the Old Testament as a point of reference. I believe the Old Testament prophesised the coming of the Messiah for example.

about the Earth being created in six days (which isn't true),

Which you don't believe. You can't prove it isn't true.

it being flat and having pillars (which obviously isn't true),

Where does it say that?

the bit about the (global) flood (also not true),

The Sahara was supposedly once fully submerged under water.

the Earth being 6000 years old (not true again),

Where does it say that?

Not that I'm suggesting I know it is or isn't.

Are you by any chance 6001 years old to know yourself?

and there being a god that created the world (highly questionable)?

It is highly questionable.

Ah the miracle of free thought. Beautiful isn't it?

What about the ten commandments? How do people know they are still valued in Christianity, and not simply condemned because it's a part of the Old Testament?

The Old Testament doesn't have to be condemned. There were laws on how to treat slaves, sure, but you were never told it was morally sound to enslave them. In Revelations it's said to be wicked and abhorrent to deal in human lives.

The problem about the Old Testament is that it was incredibly criptic, partly due, in my opinion as well as other interpreters, to the oppression of Roman rule. Man wrote the book on divine ordenance, but how would they be expected to operate under a regime which rooted out perceived rebellion. Slaves were used a lot throughout ancient civilisation. Man needed to be weaned off of their use.

I hope that's explained the perceived contradiction.

Who told you what you can take from the Old Testament and what you can't take and still call it a part of Christianity?

I believe the only authority is God and Christ. No one else has that authority over anyone else.

I do however have that authority over my interpretation. I can take most of it out and call that 'sect' Awesome-ism if I wanted to, the religion doesn't change.

My problem with it is that it's arbitrary; you don't have a criteria for determining what is part of Christianity and what isn't,

I believe the Bible is the criteria. By believing Jesus Christ is the son of God at any point in your life you've become a Christian. You could logically only reach that conclusion based on what is written in the Bible, therefore the Bible is your point of reference.

I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

That verse in the Bible would suggest it's also intergral to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

just as you don't have any criteria for determining if any of the above is nonsense other than science and just plain spotting of contradictions.

Science attempts to provide irrefutable proof. I don't believe such proof exists, judging by that quote I'd say you believe it does.

As for nonsense. In this life, whether it's nonsense or not is down to your belief. If you believe it is nonsense, it is nonsense. If you believe it's meaningful, it's meaningful.

Either you die and become nothing, or you embark on an afterlife of sorts.

It's all based on choice. To want proof, a definate, is to not have faith.

To me it flies in the face of the very foundation of religion.

This is a common problem called cherry picking. You pick out the verses that appeal to you most and that you think make the most sense to you, and ignore the ones that don't.

I haven't ignored any unappealing verses you've brought to my attention. Not that it would be the religion's fault were I to. Editing the Bible is considered taboo by many Christians and is frowned upon in the Bible.

They can give you their interpretation. Much like I am now. Nothing else.

It's a similar problem to the metaphor issue. By doing this, you are basically just creating your own version of a religion,

I am that I am (Exodus 3:14)

The religion is what it is. I can warp what I believe the religion to be, but I can never change something outside of my power.

which might be similar to the Christianity that people believed in centuries ago, but it's different somehow.

You mean the morality of men has altered. Christianity is what it is.

for the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the Outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the Heart. (Samuel 16:7)

I believe that Christians are defined in their belief of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

I take the teachings and interpret them. If I am willing to study rather than take someone else's interpretation, I come to my own based on the scriptures. These are all morality and are all exclusive to the human who believes in them.

Therefore, Christians build their own personal moral codes based on dispositions which they believe will be subject to adjudication after their eventual passing.

To suggest that because a religion's morality is indefinate it's wrong is to have a narrow understanding of the concept of religion and morality.

Either that or a complete lack of statement qualification.

Which is why I think the Enlightenment had something to do with this.

I've told you why I believe it didn't.

I can't prove it didn't. Much in the same way I can't prove my legs are real.

Well, I could probably provide you several of them,

Bluffing is easy. I'd wager you can't find a single passage.

but that wouldn't prove anything because you can twist the passages metaphorically to mean anything you want (and go as far as ignoring them, as quite a few people do).

That wouldn't prove anything because no proof is irrefutable.

The only certainty is uncertainty. With that, the only concept that can exist is belief, opinion, interpretation.

As for the verses being ignored, your qualms are with the humans who ignore them.

Instead, what we need to see is that Christians who existed before the Enlightenment and did not have humanism or secularism to compare their religion up against

Humanism is a mental disposition, nothing more. It's based on the philosophy of the betterment of human beings.

The major contradiction there however, is that what if I, as a human being, determine one thing to be beneficial to human beings and another person detemines the opposite? Would a vote ensue? What if the humanists in the positions of power decide a vote would be detrimental to mankind?

So by that particular definition either all of us are humanists or none of us are and humanism doesn't exist.

I believe in the latter. Humanism is a malleable moral code with no context in which to justify the endeavour.

Christians strive to go to heaven. Humanists wait for death.

Besides, there has always been liberty in Christianity. Man takes physical liberty from Man.

--so what most likely happened was that when they interpreted the verses about Jesus, they interpreted them to mean he wasn't peaceful, or tolerant about people not loving him or following him, and saw nothing wrong with it.

Jesus replied: "Love the Lord thy God will all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbour as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39)

Man will make of that what Man will. I don't believe that is hate.

If someone does, I can't prove them wrong, I can only believe they will be judged for it, much as I am judged for whatever I do.

Well, it is a fact that the bible is highly metaphorical.

A fact only by your interpretation.

Were it to be as definate as you would perhaps like to believe it is you would probably use that format to poke more holes in the philosophy based on how it should be about 'faith' but it's speaking literally and using definates.

Well, I'm sorry you're struggling to understand my use of "absolute" words in relative terms.

I'm not. My issue is when you make a statement based on your belief but word it as an absolute. Such as the quote above this one.

Anyone who believes in the god described in the bible, and that Jesus is their savior.

That's supposedly the most accurate definition out there.

And because there are many versions of it,

These 'versions' you refer to are man made.

Jesus states we are all brothers and sisters under one Lord.

and many variations on practices, including baptism,

for the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the Outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the Heart. (Samuel 16:7)

Baptism is fine, but you don't have to die baptised to reach the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe repentance is all you need.

church attendance,

Wherever there is a congregation of two or more Christians. Stone buildings are stone buildings.

verdict of homosexuals,

The only verdict that matters is that of the Adjudicator.

What I think of a homosexual is entirely inconsequencial to the definition of the religion.

it's nearly impossible to define who is actually Christian and who isn't

It is because a definition is a definate and therefore cannot be certain. That's why I've tried to refrain from using definitions.

When you speak of altering views on Church attendance, baptism, homosexuality and so on, you speak of morality, which is personal and can never be attributed to a religion as a definate, because we only supposedly find out when we die.

Whether or not they believed slavery was condoned, or that witches, homosexuals or heathens should have been condemned is irrelevant.

Which by a curious coincidence is all morality. :dave:

the bible has a notorious tendency to say one thing while saying another. In one verse, you'll find it says god can do anything. Then in another, it says he can't move people driving iron chariots (oh, but he can create the Earth, which is full of it...whatever.) And in one verse, it says people are capable of doing good. Then in another, it says they aren't. In fact, in order for any of these contradictions to make sense, you have to ignore parts of it.

Quite the contrary. In fact, I find to make as much sense of it as possible, as much of the Bible must be included.

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)

God forbade the people of Israel from counting their populace because if they faced overwhelming numbers many would waver. The battle would only be won with the Lord's approval.

In ancient times chariots were considered the tie breaker in armies. The kingdom that could afford chariots were likely much better trained in warfare. This too provided food for thought among lesser equiped armies.

When you go to war with your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. (Deuteronomy 20:1)

For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory. (Deateronomy 20:4)
These verses would suggest he could defeat chariots should he wish to. It would also suggest in the passage you're refering to that he chose not to saction Judah's assault on the people of the valley, perhaps based on the disposition of Judah and/or his men.

But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong. (Joshua 17:18)
That verse would suggest he could beat iron chariots should he wish to.

Of course, the entire thing could also be down to an idiosyncracy in the English language.

If I'm tasked with shooting my mother, am issued with a gun and I say:

"I can't do this", it doesn't mean I literally can't, it means I'm unwilling to do so.

The same could easily apply to the extracts in question.

I don't mind if people admit that they're ignoring the horrible parts in the bible because they either don't make sense or because they don't think it's right. But I think they should eventually ask themselves how they came to that conclusion. There must have been some external criteria to determine all that. Otherwise, it's just arbitrary cherry picking.

If by 'the horrible parts' you mean slavery and bigamy, the Bible condones neither.

If one person realizes that what the bible says is nonsense

Realise? Nobody realises anything. You merely come to an opinion. The way you've worded your argument suggests the Bible being 'nonsense' is factual.

and can be twisted to mean something else (or the numerous contradictions in it), it's not going to mean much.

Anything can mean anything. For example:

If you tell me you are hungry, you've just spoken those words. Those words could mean that you're physically hungry, those words could mean that you're hungry for another kind of sustenance as opposed to a physical one.

And that's all going under the assumption you've intended to speak English and haven't actually articulated something you would have wished to say in an ancient tongue or maybe a language you've made up and by some curious coincidence means something in English.

By imploring us to love our neightbour, it's all down to our concept of love. Is it just my neighbour I treat this way? etc...

And there were more than enough philosophers and free thinkers during the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution required to help people see that.

By profession alone.

We are all philosophers. Heck I'm dabbling in some philosophy right now.

And I say it was because humans didn't have the philosophy to make other choices.

If anything they were more free thinking back then. With globalisation and mass media, we're all straightjacked into one way of thinking.

If you do this you are wrong.
If you do this you are right.
If you do this you are a hero.
If you do this you are a villain.
etc...

There were verses in the bible condoning slavery. Now they have to be downplayed to make it seem like they don't because society doesn't condone slavery.

They don't have to be downplayed in the slightest. Man was never told to keep slaves. Jesus told us to treat one another as we would like to be treated.

There are contradictions in the bible, which if you start at the wrong end of the bible and work your way to the end, it doesn't make sense. So certain verses have to be opted out in order to make any sense out of it.

No they don't. Every verse is explained in the full context of the Bible. It says he who alters the word of God will be punished.

Why on Earth would a recipient of that message disobey it?

And the church has to apologize for not believing scientists over things they know nothing about (namely, certain properties of the Earth and other scientific inconsistencies).

The Church has to apologise? As in the people inside the Church? As in the Pope?

These are human beings. They can't be expected to speak on behalf of an entire religion. The Pope certainly doesn't speak for me.

How on Earth does a religion apologise? How on Earth does that statement make sense?

As for 'having' to apologise, nobody has to do anything.

In fact, religion probably isn't in any position to be talking about anything within the realms of science,

Religion is an all encompassing philosophy. It's in a position to speak of whatever it wants.

if you start to think science will never find out how something happened, you run the risk of being wrong,

You run the risk of being wrong by doing anything. By being born. None of us know 'wrong'. None of us know there is a 'wrong'.

"True knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates.

and scientists actually do find out how it happened.

"True knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates.

Nobody who believed in religion might ever have guessed that evolution was a possibility, but now we know it is.

"True knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates.

And judging by the increasing number of people dropping out of religion, I expect they'd have to do something, or else it will disappear eventually. Okay, it probably won't, but it would become significantly reduced, and lose whatever power it still has now.

What power? Man is endowed with power on this Earth.

The ideals in humanism and secularism are becoming increasingly popular because they encourage fairness and equality towards others,

No they don't. Humanism encourages you to do what you think is best for humanity. Many would say barbarism is want's best.

that doesn't need to be sugarcoated by some fairy-tale story, which we know to be largely untrue or inaccurate.

"True knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates.

Humans do the sugar coating. I prefer delivering brutal realities. I'd be happy to on Atheism and how nothing compels anyone to be moral.

And any reasonable Christian probably doesn't realize it, but they are more humanist than they realize they are.

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God as prophesised in the Old Testament.

A Humanist is someone who believes in the betterment of humanity.

Humanism doesn't exist in Christianity, therefore I don't believe I am one. If people want to make up a moral concept and give it a name go for it.

Spiritually speaking, you can't claim someone is definately something they don't believe they are.

The only thing that probably separates them is that one of them still believes in a god.

Perhaps one has a context with which to base their morality on? If I'm going to die and that'll be it, why shouldn't I step on everyone I can to get higher?

Because it might not be beneficial for that person? Please.

They were corrupted by religion.

They were corrupted by their greed and lust. Religion provided an easy excuse.

Divine Right is not a concept inherent in the Bible, yet Medieval Kings incorporated it en masse to control the populace.

No, because it is not a requirement for any man to feel he needs to be just and right to others,

I didn't say it was.

He probably doesn't have any incentive to throw away his power over people for a moral code based on "righteousness";

The incentive is the Kingdom of Heaven.

The righteousness is the perceived means in which he targets that incentive based on his own moral code.

he might simply believe that what he already believes of the bible is righteous (even if we disagree with it), and any bliss he experiences from his vices may encourage it.

He might. Who am I to say he's wrong? I can't judge.

Christianity is man made anyways. All religions are man-made. Feel free to disagree, but I can't take the claim seriously that the bible is the inspired word of god.

The Bible is written by man. Some believe it was written by divine ordenance. That is where the religion is not man made. If you won't take it seriously you won't take it seriously.

But I can't take an moral Atheist seriously. There's nothing to gain.

Because technically, there is no such thing as a universal, centralized Christianity in which everybody agrees on the same details.

When you say 'same details' you're refering to morality. The religion is what it is.

However, when I say I am criticizing Christianity, I am criticizing what is stated in the bible, along with all the contradictions that are a part of it.

I don't believe there are contradictions. Post them up and I'll do my best to explain them.

You couldn't be wrong about any sect of Christianity if you tried; different sects are allowed to interpret any part of the bible however they want. That's the problem with writing metaphorically.

No. That's the problem with the tangibility, intagibility, the Unknown.

We know nothing. There are no definates.

Mankind interprets the Bible. Mankind gives a name to their interpretation.

It's hard to believe in a concept of free will when god enforces rules on his believers. Primitive minds have a difficult time grasping such a concept.

God doesn't enforce rules upon anyone. We are given free will to believe it's not the case. If you believe, you abide by the rules and are rewarded, if you don't, you believe you have nothing to worry about. Simple really.

Such as? The bible contains a ridiculous amount of rules on stoning,

As in capital punishment? As in an eye for an eye?

regulations on when to work,

The Bible suggests you shouldn't work on a Sunday. Doesn't mean you're not free to.

what to believe,

You can't be serious. Belief is the basis of religion.

Anyone who read the bible and had no concept of philosophy might be scared into thinking there isn't any free will.

Fair point. Does that mean you'll bash the religion for it?

Particularly with verses like this, this, and this. I am not speaking of people today, who can freely think and believe what they want, and have access to philosophy and criteria of moral standards due to the Enlightenment.

People could freely think and believe back then. Everyone has access to philosophy, it wasn't 'invented'. It's always been there, it's a way of thinking, a way of acting, a way of life.

Moral standards? You speak as if the Enlightenment put us on a moral high ground. There's no context to your compulsive morality.

And really, what you're actually doing is supporting the ideal that you took from the external criteria and trying to make it seem like that's what the bible says, unless you admit that you got the idea to choose one verse over the other one that contradicts it from elsewhere. The contradictions are embarassing anyways. What are they still doing in the bible?

I don't believe there are contradictions. Please post them up should you find any.

Stoning was used as a form of capital punishment.
Adam was given one woman, Eve. God said it was how he intended it, which is why bigamy was never condoned.
Slavery was never condoned, Revelations speaks of the abhorrance of dealing in human lives quite vividly. Just because the Torah included rules on how to treat slaves it doesn't mean they condoned it.

regardless of how you interpret it, are horrible no matter what. Well, if you're the least bit humanist anyways.

There are people who could interpret it to be great for humanity. So that 'no matter what' attitude dies hard.

Like the whole ordeal of the Apocalypse in Revelations (whoever tacked on that nonsense anyways? The New Testament would have been a lot nicer without it, despite still being inconsistent).

Inconsistent how? And what do you mean who tacked on that nonsense? That's the end. That completes the Bible, that's the entire scale of reference.

If you wanted to be brutally honest and leave in all the unpleasant stuff and not sugarcoat it, nobody would probably want to believe in that kind of religion, if they had an informed choice.

And they'd want to believe in Atheism? In humanism? In nothing essentially.

But hey, act nicely, because you know, nobody likes a bully. Pfft.

I am criticizing the whole idea of being killed just for wanting to leave a religion. So it doesn't matter if you have to change your lifestyle just to stay alive; the point is that you shouldn't have to be killed for wanting to change your religion. Islam is providing people with a ridiculous bribe for staying in religion.

I agree. But who knows? I certainly don't.

But our justice is different from theirs. We don't get violent at people ust for disagreeing with us or threatening us.

In fairness we do get violent when it comes to protecting our military superiority. We have nukes, but we prevent them from creating nukes. Is that fair humanist?

Feel free to criticize them, of course. Everyone who is willing should probably know why I'm being harassed. And if they don't stop doing it, it will make them look embarassing. That's what I like about free speech. Much less dramatic than violence.

No no no. I'm talking about them using subterfuge to attack and attack and attack violently.

Action calls for action I'm afraid.

Oh, they're jealous of our freedoms.

Well, I'd rather die than bend over backwards for them.

I wasn't suggesting we bend over backwards. I was suggesting we bring justice to those who would look to harm us.

No, I meant that we haven't done anything to them in order for them to attack us. Sure, some people in another country might have made some cartoons, but that can be easily ignored. It probably won't affect your country's GDP or the practicing of your religion in your country.

Yeah I agree. Although I do think we should be less gratuitous in our protests.

Muslims may be, but we who are not muslims are not. It is (in my opinion; duh) ridiculously stupid to be offended or react violently when a non-believer draws any religious figure in Islam, where if he/she were to draw a religious figure from any other religion, most members of those other religions wouldn't get offended, or wouldn't likely get violent over it.

Fair enough, but you do have to realise that they see their religion as the one true faith and that depictions of Buddha for example are like that of Mickey Mouse, so the tolerance of other religions is inconsequential. Jesus Christ is considered a prophet in Islam which is why I didn't use that example.

I am not stereotyping them; the fact is, there are Christians who get offended by these things. I didn't say all Christians find these things offensive. The usual reason they (not all) find it offensive is because they (not all) find these things offensive to their beliefs, and because it is Satanic or sinful.

I'd say they were uptight. I believe Satan should never come into a Christian's argument.

I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I obey what is written in the Bible. Satan doesn't figure in my mind.

To speak of the devil is to invite him.

Do what? Get offended and debate about it or kill people for it? If it's the latter, it's nearly impossible to find anyone who would kill in the name of atheism.

Atheism is the belief that there is no spirituality. It's based on that belief that many people kill, steal, rape, etc.. daily.

Atheism just doesn't have a name in today's society, it's faceless. When someone has done something 'barbarous' or 'immoral' they're cast out as a lunatic of sorts. People never think, "Why hasn't that man been touched by our views on morality?"

If I'm an Atheist and I get pissed off at someone and shoot them, as certain as I can be I'll get away with it, I do it because I feel there's nothing wrong with that.

Ja, and we are criticizing their religion because we don't like what it's doing to us. I'm not saying they're not allowed to choose, but at the same time, we want them to know that their religion is causing us problems.

But the bottom line is: Do they care? Will they respect our protest?

No? Then it's on.

Have you seen how many different versions of the bible there are? They've had to revise that thing so many times there's no central, singular version of it.

Translation begats alternation in articulation. I speak three languages. If I say something in English, it might not carry the same exact meaning in Portuguese. Cultures perceive things differently, certain words and phrases alternate in meaning and weight.

Then there are problems. Possible idiosyncracies begin to appear and there aren't direct translations of words and phrases.

Then what do you think it's for? It's there because arbitrary religious rules which have no basis except for some book that is arbitrarily held in high regard, despite being resistant to change and development is not fit to run a country.

Humans run countries, not books. But there are fundamentals that can be easily integrated, such as free will.

A Christian state doesn't mean no adultery, no drinking, no gambling.
A Christian state does however mean no killing, no stealing and no gay marriage, the latter being justified based on the ideal of marriage being strictly a religious union, although they could get a civil partnership which is the same thing.

Perhaps, but Christians (not all; see, this is why it's easier to say "all Christians" instead of writing "not all" after each and every time I mention the word) can argue that homosexuality should be illegal on the reasoning that it is immoral.

You could just say 'some Christians'

Anyone can argue anything, but it's also immoral to impeach on someone's free will. You can call that a contradiction, I say God gave man the right to sin and man is fully in his right to exercise that.

Just as murdering someone is immoral according to many religions and philosophies, including humanism. We do not condemn homosexuals at the request of one religion's morals alone, or indeed, any; they are arbitrary, and a different criteria must be used in order to determine whether or not homosexuals should be condemned.

What criteria is that? You all sit down, throw some ideas around and come out with a decision, regardless of being none the wiser as to why you made it?

I'd add that it's also because they had no access to external criteria like other philosophies with which to compare what they get from the bible. If they could have read it.

There were Pagans across Europe throughout the Middle Ages and still are. To philosophise one only needs to think.

I can find examples of where Christianity has harmed people.

Man harmed Man. Man blamed it on Christianity.

Religion has been given too much credit for things it doesn't explain or show well.

Too much credit? Give it want you want. It's not there for the credit people give it. It explains everything quite nicely. Of course if you wanted an incredibly detailed account the Bible would probably be millions of times larger.

Galileo was prosecuted for showing that the earth revolves around the sun. The church objected this on the basis of a few verses that indicate that the earth doesn't move (and therefore, doesn't rotate around the sun).

Nutcases. What verses were those? I'd also like to mention that the Church is people, not Christianity.

If religion claims precedence over science on the basis of an authoritarian book that resists change, then scientific progress, and indeed economic growth, of which science and technology are necessary, along with better living standards will be hindered.

It doesn't hinder anything. That was clearly the work of bigoted humans.

If religion is given any kind of platform to stand on (not literally of course), then women wouldn't have equality, and homosexuals couldn't have their marriages, parades, or just being themselves.

Women would have equality in Christianity. Homosexuals would have their parades and could express themselves. The only difference about marriage is that it's a union in God. They could get a civil partnership, which is identical to marriage legally speaking, you just aren't 'married', a title too many people scramble to get.

There are verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality and give women fewer rights than men.

Morally speaking I would say homosexuality is condemned.

Women have the same rights as men.

In truth, I find religion to be more dangerous mentally than it is physically.

Religion couldn't possibly have physical influence now could it? Unless you're speaking of possession.

Because quite a few religions condemn people for apostasy, even if it doesn't say in their holy texts that they should be killed explicitly.

I've never read that in the Bible. You must be speaking of Islam.

The fact that apostasy is even condemned does not promote thinking about whether or not what you are reading makes any sense;

Fully agree. Your religion should be able to withstand any examination.

the fact that you are told in quite a few religions to have faith blindly,

We're all blind.

The whole idea of buying into what a book says just because it's held up to high esteem by some people is absurd.

But that particular book is believed to have been written by divine ordenance.

And that's why they need to be ridiculed.

Of course not. They have a right to believe their God above others. I have a right to believe mine. And you have the right to believe the both of them are below you.

Why should anyone be ridiculed for that?

The problem is, we have to live in this world together, even if we don't like it, and even if we don't believe in the same things.

Some muslims believe it is their world. They're not interested in sharing, believe what they believe or die unfortunately.

And in order to make it less unpleasant while we're here, we're going to have to get along.

It would probably be less pleasant for them were they to get along with us.

And you don't get along by bending over backwards everytime there's a conflict. You don't get along better by being violent over every stupid incident that occurs. You don't get along by blaming everything on religion. You get along by ignoring the things that you dislike, and expressing yourself through something like free speech if you feel someone is interfering with your life.

If you're not going to get along, you're not going to get along. I feel as if there will be a 'straw that broke the camel's back' moment.

No it doesn't. To learn something is to become aware of something you were previously unaware of. In some cases, it may mean you were wrong before, but it might just be that muslims are ignorant of the idea of people having a different religion, or the whole idea of respect for other people, regardless of what religion says. It might even be entertaining the idea of their religion not being above everyone else.

But the context in which you used it suggested that you meant muslims needed to learn that they're wrong for believing they're above everyone else. Perhaps I read it wrong.

Well, then that defeats the whole point of expressing the criticism to begin with, doesn't it? I mean, what good is a tree that falls if no one is there to hear it?

True. Similarly, what's the point of saying a racial slur if no one is around to be offended?

Slavery wasn't considered immoral centuries ago. Now it is.

There are still slaves in the middle east. They'll disagree with you there.

Gender inequality wasn't considered immoral centuries ago. Now it is.

Amazonian women will disagree with your concept of gender equality.

Same with racism, and the killing or torturing of homosexuals, witches and heathens. Now it is.

Killing and torture was considered immoral in ancient times.

There is a correlation between law and morality.

Only that law is based on morality and was directly spawned by it.

Those aren't aspects that are uniquely Christian though; had you been born centuries earlier, you'd have been taught something different. And you'd still have called yourself a Christian. If you believed that wasn't truly Christian, then was it necessary for someone to teach you to respect others, or did you somehow know to respect others?

I didn't know how to respect others. I didn't see a need to. Nor was killing wrong, stealing what I wanted. What was the point of this 'morality' if we were all going to the same place? Nothingness. Not that anyone can fully conceptualise nothing.

Then Christianity put it into context. Christianity made more sense to me than baseless Atheism.

And there are verses which tell people to do less than nice things to heathens.

What verses? I've never read any of the sort in the Bible.

But actually, what I find more disturbing is how you've alluded to what you would do without religion. Seriously. You don't just decide you're going to be as immoral as all hell if religion stopped existing.

Why not? Why can't I steal what I like? Because someone else can't deal with the repercussions?

There needs to be personal benefit. As callous as it may seem if it doesn't benefit you it's illogical to restrain yourself.

Morality can exist independently of religion; I don't have religion, but I don't impose my beliefs on other people because of humanistic principles. You don't get along with people by imposing personal beliefs on other people.

Based on what I said under the last quote, why on Earth do you care for your fellow man? Surely you should only care for yourself?

Thomas Paine explains that problem best by explaining that it's written by several different people, independently of each other, and in ignorance of what the previous scribe wrote. So you end up with inconsistencies between books, and some people have opted not to include some of Paul's writings because he gives women fewer rights.

I'd love to actually be provided with said inconsistencies. This Thomas chap sounds like a moron.

Then you have various different versions of the bible, some of which have come about because the original editor changed it to whatever he wanted it to be. The result is certain verses are added or missing, and some words are completely different.

I believe that were the word of Christianity not being spread properly, the World would soon end.

There are way, way, too many to list. Either you haven't read it, or you've somehow interpreted it not to be so horrible. I have a hard time believing you couldn't have found any verses about god condemning those who don't believe into an eternal hell, or condemning people who won't follow Jesus, or even the whole idea of an Apocalypse.

Of course there's condemnation. Sodom and Gommorah for example. These people did worse than just Sodomy, they raped, they murdered. They were condemned because of immense immorality and the repercussions being felt by innocents around them.

But you're not going to go on a violent rampage and kill the guy who drew Jesus in a baby suit.

But I still believe he should refrain from deliberately attempting to offend me. It's like me walking around the street with my middle finger up.

EDIT --------------------

What, you mean like the Enlightenment?

I don't believe the Enlightenment is synonymous with rebellion and revolution, no.

The whole point of bringing that up was because it's normal not to like it when someone makes criticisms about what you believe or what you express.

I rather enjoy it. It's forces me to further consider my viewpoint.

But just because you don't like something isn't a reason for people to remain silent on criticizing you.

Fair enough. But people rarely ever fully qualify their statements. People will say killing is immoral, but when you press them on it, they'll say it's because 'it's bad for society', then you'll press them on why they should care for society and they become confused and say you should always care for one another, as if that's an inherent quality and a universal fact. Hilarious reasoning.

If they do, you will never improve. You'll never see what other people are thinking of you, or what you believe, if it interferes with them. And something that gives people such great egos about themselves like religion needs to be criticized. People need to see what religion is doing to them.

Egos? If anything religion is humbling. You serve under the Lord. Scientists are the ones who prance around as if they've unlocked the mysteries of the universe.

You speak as if religion were a cancer in society. Without religion the world would be a much more dire place. Movements such as the Enlightenment may well have not come about. It's religion which enforced morality in the first place. Ancient societies all worshiped something and had a moral code in accordance with their religion, whether it was the Sun they were worshiping or Buddha.

Then Atheism came around and rejected the context, but borrowed the moral codes. Illogical really.

(I am not referring to everybody who believes in a religion though; some people are willing to admit that religion can satisfy selfish needs for some people, but they just don't go that route; the other people who do though, need a good wake up call.)

The people who do so don't necessarily need a wake up call. If they believe that it's moral they need only to die and be judged.

It's that simple. If you move to another country, you should be aware of the laws that exist there. They're different, sure, but they're not for you to decide or change; don't like it, then don't go there.

As soon as you're given the vote we as a society respect your views. They are fully within their right as voters to lobby for a change.

You said the government should base their choices on those of the people they represent. If the voting majority want Sharia law, would it be wrong to veto it's integration? Much like the USA vetoed Vietnam's vote as most would vote communist?

Would that not be imposing on your part to suggest it should be vetoed?

Don't think I'm the only one in my neighborhood that thinks Sharia Law in Britain is a bad idea; Pat Condell doesn't like it, and neither do several other outspoken people from Britain. And with that, there are probably several other people in Britain, who haven't said anything about it too loudly, but probably also agree that Sharia Law is a bad idea.

I bet you're not the only one in your area. I don't like it and neither to the vast majority of British voters, who are mostly quite vocal about their displeasure towards it. That doesn't mean those people who believe in it's integration shouldn't have the right to freedom of expression now does it?

Conversely, replace Stephen Hawkings with Hitler, and you'll see the whole point of that. There are more than enough people not like Hitler that their votes would mean more than Hitler's himself.

But the two would have been examined and Hawking's views would have surfaced as well as Hitler's. The examiner may have chosen to deny Hitler the vote based on his bigoted anti-semitic views and military bravado.

Sure, giving everyone an equal vote is not the best solution, but it's certainly better than whatever we had in history.

In a Republic you gain voting power by adhering to certain criteria. It's better than lousy democracy in my opinion. I prefered Rome's use of a republic.

And you can't judge someone's political opinions on status, or even their own words. Politicians have proven themselves bloody liars, and people in the upper class don't represent people of other classes.

They have, but people are liars, people are fake, people are greedy for power. But you can give a vote to those who earn it, why should a criminal be given the right to represent a society he's chosen to harm? Why should an ignoramus be given the right to represent a society he's chosen to ignore?

There's just no good criteria for determining who should have more weighted votes and who doesn't. So instead, we have to compromise by appealing to the majority.

There is. People should be examined. Those who wouldn't vote nor pay attention to politics wouldn't take the test and wouldn't get a vote anyway. Those who would want a vote would take the test. The majority of bigots would be sussed out quite nicely. It would explain why one vote the way one votes. There would be much more awareness among the voting public.

 

[der Astronom]

Note: I put the majority of the Christianity and religion related arguments on a separate thread in the Religious debate thread because I thought it was getting a bit off topic.

Of course not. They have a right to believe their God above others. I have a right to believe mine. And you have the right to believe the both of them are below you.

Why should anyone be ridiculed for that?

I am not ridiculing them on the basis of what they want to believe--I am ridiculing them on their perception of religion in relation with other people who don't believe the same things. If you want to believe in Allah and Mohammed, go right ahead; nobody's stopping you. But if you're going to assert that your religion's figures are so far above others that it gives you the right to treat others like shit even if they haven't done anything to you, or harmed you, then you deserve to be ridiculed.

Some muslims believe it is their world. They're not interested in sharing, believe what they believe or die unfortunately.

Ja, and that's why religion is rather selfish and arrogant. It teaches people that they are special based on ideas that can neither be proven nor disproven, and it elevates them to this status, where they think it will make them better than everybody else. I mean, you just admitted they think their religion and god are above all others, and that couldn't happen without knowing what their religion is telling them to believe.
Would you like to honor their selfish beliefs? Would you like it if someone decided the world belonged to them, and them alone? I'm sure you wouldn't like it.

It would probably be less pleasant for them were they to get along with us.

Well, we're not going away any time soon. It's unpleasant to them either way I guess.

If you're not going to get along, you're not going to get along. I feel as if there will be a 'straw that broke the camel's back' moment.

That's a rather defeatist way of going about it. Can you really assert that nobody will change their opinions about getting along with others? People can change you know.

But the context in which you used it suggested that you meant muslims needed to learn that they're wrong for believing they're above everyone else. Perhaps I read it wrong.

If I really believed they were wrong in an absolute sense, and felt they should know about it, I think I'd force them to see those pictures of Mohammed. But I don't.

True. Similarly, what's the point of saying a racial slur if no one is around to be offended?

None, really. But we aren't drawing Mohammed as a racial slur, since Mohammed has nothing to do with race, and more so to do with religion. I doubt the majority of moderate muslims will take flack with this, just as Christians don't take flack with people depicting Jesus, even if it might be offensive.

But I still believe he should refrain from deliberately attempting to offend me. It's like me walking around the street with my middle finger up.

That wouldn't actually be offensive; it would be hilarious because you're doing it at everyone you see indiscriminately.
And if someone had a good reason for drawing Jesus in a baby suit, he'd probably do it. Don't assume people are only drawing pictures of religious figures just for shits and giggles, just because you can't fathom why they'd do it.

The people who do so don't necessarily need a wake up call. If they believe that it's moral they need only to die and be judged.

Then they live in a narrow-minded ignorant world.
I'm not saying they will have to agree if someone were to tell them what's wrong with their religion; someone just needs to entertain that thought with them so that they'll actually at least consider it.

As soon as you're given the vote we as a society respect your views. They are fully within their right as voters to lobby for a change.

You said the government should base their choices on those of the people they represent. If the voting majority want Sharia law, would it be wrong to veto it's integration? Much like the USA vetoed Vietnam's vote as most would vote communist?

Would that not be imposing on your part to suggest it should be vetoed?

No, and there are people there that don't like it; they can convince people to vote against it too. What I meant was that I don't see why people would want to go to another country just to change their rules. It's probably not going to happen unless you can get a large number of people to come with you for the votes, and I can't see why you wouldn't be happier at home, where there is Sharia Law.

I bet you're not the only one in your area. I don't like it and neither to the vast majority of British voters, who are mostly quite vocal about their displeasure towards it. That doesn't mean those people who believe in it's integration shouldn't have the right to freedom of expression now does it?

No, and they can defend it all they want. However, I don't see the point anymore as lots of people already in Britain don't seem to like it, and I don't see any good justification from them for having it.

But the two would have been examined and Hawking's views would have surfaced as well as Hitler's. The examiner may have chosen to deny Hitler the vote based on his bigoted anti-semitic views and military bravado.

And what criteria is the examiner using to determine who is a bigot, and who isn't? Isn't it just easy to lie?

In a Republic you gain voting power by adhering to certain criteria. It's better than lousy democracy in my opinion. I prefered Rome's use of a republic.

How do you determine this criteria? It's hard to say anything at all because it's too subjective.

They have, but people are liars, people are fake, people are greedy for power. But you can give a vote to those who earn it, why should a criminal be given the right to represent a society he's chosen to harm? Why should an ignoramus be given the right to represent a society he's chosen to ignore?

So how can you tell if a liar has earned it? What if you don't know he's a liar?

There is. People should be examined. Those who wouldn't vote nor pay attention to politics wouldn't take the test and wouldn't get a vote anyway. Those who would want a vote would take the test. The majority of bigots would be sussed out quite nicely. It would explain why one vote the way one votes. There would be much more awareness among the voting public.

I can imagine this having problems because there's no clear-cut criteria for determining who is and isn't a bigot--who gets to say who is a bigot, and who isn't? It's not universal.

 

[Harlequin]

I am not ridiculing them on the basis of what they want to believe--I am ridiculing them on their perception of religion in relation with other people who don't believe the same things. If you want to believe in Allah and Mohammed, go right ahead; nobody's stopping you. But if you're going to assert that your religion's figures are so far above others that it gives you the right to treat others like shit even if they haven't done anything to you, or harmed you, then you deserve to be ridiculed.

Fair enough but I wouldn't say they deserve ridicule so much as help. Depicting Mohammed and gloating at them is small and that's sadly what's happening at the moment.

Ja, and that's why religion is rather selfish and arrogant.

Can you please explain to me how a religion can be selfish and arrogant? If you're refering to texts please do pull up as many as you care to in support of that statement.

What about your arrogance? Christianity teaches me to be humble and I don't feel I haven't been. You've constantly tried to disprove things you have no proof of and couldn't possibly know. If you want to say that about muslims, I'd have little evidence to the contrary, but then again that's people becoming arrogant, not the religion teaching them to be.

It teaches people that they are special

That the sanctity of life is special. Not people. Dust to dust I'm afraid.

based on ideas that can neither be proven nor disproven,

Such is philosophy. Even Atheism is based on belief.

and it elevates them to this status, where they think it will make them better than everybody else.

And wrongly so in my religious opinion.

I mean, you just admitted they think their religion and god are above all others, and that couldn't happen without knowing what their religion is telling them to believe.

"They have the right to believe their God above others" is not an admittance that they believe it to be so, it's me saying should they believe so it would be within their rights as human beings.

No one's going to say to me "you can't believe your God to be the best because it's unfair on the others". That's just nonsensical.

Would you like to honor their selfish beliefs? Would you like it if someone decided the world belonged to them, and them alone? I'm sure you wouldn't like it.

I wouldn't you're right. But they could still believe it. Just because I don't agree it doesn't mean they're wrong.

That's a rather defeatist way of going about it. Can you really assert that nobody will change their opinions about getting along with others? People can change you know.

I do believe people can change, but I don't believe sitting in a far away land mocking their beliefs and telling them what to do will change them. If a man threatens me, I expect justice to be exacted upon him. If a country does so, expect the same dynamic.

If I really believed they were wrong in an absolute sense, and felt they should know about it, I think I'd force them to see those pictures of Mohammed. But I don't.

I know you believed them to be wrong in the absolute sense, but I'm arguing that one can't know absolutely. If you'd like to challenge that fair game.

None, really. But we aren't drawing Mohammed as a racial slur, since Mohammed has nothing to do with race, and more so to do with religion. I doubt the majority of moderate muslims will take flack with this, just as Christians don't take flack with people depicting Jesus, even if it might be offensive.

It says in the Qu'ran muslims aren't allowed to depict Mohammed. Doing so is a sin. When Mohammed is referred to by name most muslims I've ever encountered say 'peace be upon him' immediately after his name. I doubt the majority of muslims would even entertain the mere idea of his depiction.

They're drawing Mohammed to offend. It doesn't matter if they draw him thinking they're protesting against violence. It would be like me throwing racial slurs at a black man for threatening me.

That wouldn't actually be offensive; it would be hilarious because you're doing it at everyone you see indiscriminately.
And if someone had a good reason for drawing Jesus in a baby suit, he'd probably do it. Don't assume people are only drawing pictures of religious figures just for shits and giggles, just because you can't fathom why they'd do it.

It would be hilarious I agree, but offensive nontheless. I'm not doing it indiscriminately, I'm doing it because I know the society and culture I come from finds such a gesture obscene and would take offense.

I do believe that there could be witty depictions of those two religious figures, but I also feel South Park did it because they knew Mohammed was taboo.

Don't get me wrong I'm a huge fan of South Park, but I find alot of their comedy distasteful.

Then they live in a narrow-minded ignorant world.

Perhaps so, but maybe they've found the one true belief. I don't know they haven't, I only believe they aren't righteous.

No, and there are people there that don't like it; they can convince people to vote against it too.

But what if the voting majority want it implemented? Why should it be vetoed?

What I meant was that I don't see why people would want to go to another country just to change their rules.

There are numerous spiritual, economical and political benefits to doing so. The USA tried spreading ideals through the eastern world (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq), the impact of globalisation and commerce (merchants would thrive from selling arms to wartorn areas and would often instigate conflict) and then obviously missionaries who in their pursuit of a righteous life attempt to help as many people as possible.

It's probably not going to happen unless you can get a large number of people to come with you for the votes, and I can't see why you wouldn't be happier at home, where there is Sharia Law.

They want to spread their religion because I believe it encourages it in the Qu'ran.

And what criteria is the examiner using to determine who is a bigot, and who isn't? Isn't it just easy to lie?

How do you determine this criteria? It's hard to say anything at all because it's too subjective.

I can imagine this having problems because there's no clear-cut criteria for determining who is and isn't a bigot--who gets to say who is a bigot, and who isn't? It's not universal.

True, but I suppose it would have to be this democracy that begats such a system. Parties outline how they'll implement the idea and we choose as a voting public which we prefer.

So how can you tell if a liar has earned it? What if you don't know he's a liar?

That's the problem with trust. Not everyone has earned such trust and there are plenty ready to abuse it, but how, in any government system can one account for it?

Which is why I suggested a benevolent dictatorship, which is little more than a pipe dream really.

 

[der Astronom]

Fair enough but I wouldn't say they deserve ridicule so much as help. Depicting Mohammed and gloating at them is small and that's sadly what's happening at the moment.

Actually, ridicule is one way of doing it. Because if you try to get your message across any other way, it may not work. And sometimes, it does require ridicule. Some people get the message if you try to explain it to them rationally, but it doesn't work for others. For them, they will only be convinced into even listening to you if you ridicule them or their arguments.

Can you please explain to me how a religion can be selfish and arrogant? If you're refering to texts please do pull up as many as you care to in support of that statement.

The whole concept of religion is arrogant and selfish. I just explained how. It's the idea that some book has the authority to tell everybody how to live their lives, even though there is little to know evidence to back up what it says--coming from someone who doesn't know anything, why is your bible at any authority at all to dictate to people how to lead their lives, and what rules to follow and not follow? Why wasn't it the Qu'ran, for example?
Well, it's not even that some book is allowed to tell you what to do; it's that it gives people the idea that some book that can tell people what to do makes them better than everyone else who doesn't have morals derived from a book. It's making people like you think atheists aren't moral, or have no reason to be, despite the fact that atheists can be nice, reasonable people.
I mean, the fact that atheists can be nice, reasonable people without morality derived from religion is good evidence that people aren't necessarily evil without religion.

What about your arrogance? Christianity teaches me to be humble and I don't feel I haven't been. You've constantly tried to disprove things you have no proof of and couldn't possibly know. If you want to say that about muslims, I'd have little evidence to the contrary, but then again that's people becoming arrogant, not the religion teaching them to be.

That's exactly the arrogance I'm speaking about. Because you somehow feel your humbleness is justified because Christianity tells you to, and somehow, I'm not just because I'm an atheist, and don't have a justification that comes from religion. It doesn't matter if religion preaches arrogance or not; it's the idea that it makes people feel better and more special than everyone else who doesn't share the same religion.

That the sanctity of life is special. Not people. Dust to dust I'm afraid.

No, that they are special. Because why would you have any reason to believe in god? It says right there in the bible that everyone who believes in god will get these special privileges that everyone else who doesn't believe won't--and if you did believe in god, and wanted to go to heaven, how could you not think yourself special?

Such is philosophy. Even Atheism is based on belief.

Atheism is based on a lack of belief. It's a default position from not choosing a religion. You can't have a belief in negatives. Get your facts straight.

And wrongly so in my religious opinion.

Doesn't matter if you believe they're wrong; religion can do these things to people.

"They have the right to believe their God above others" is not an admittance that they believe it to be so, it's me saying should they believe so it would be within their rights as human beings.

And I am saying they do so because of religion.

No one's going to say to me "you can't believe your God to be the best because it's unfair on the others". That's just nonsensical.

Well yes I can because he'll send everyone to hell who doesn't believe. And I don't think that's fair because I could be perfectly nice and moral otherwise, and follow every other teaching in the bible mutually, but still not be respected, simply because I don't believe in god.

I wouldn't you're right. But they could still believe it. Just because I don't agree it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Sure, they can believe it on the basis of free thought, but are you worried about what they might do about it?

I do believe people can change, but I don't believe sitting in a far away land mocking their beliefs and telling them what to do will change them. If a man threatens me, I expect justice to be exacted upon him. If a country does so, expect the same dynamic.

Mockery is one way of getting your message across. If reason doesn't work, mockery is another option. Just because you don't believe mockery works on you doesn't mean it doesn't work on other people.

I know you believed them to be wrong in the absolute sense, but I'm arguing that one can't know absolutely. If you'd like to challenge that fair game.

Stop with the strawmen fallacies. I did not say I thought them wrong absolutely.

It says in the Qu'ran muslims aren't allowed to depict Mohammed. Doing so is a sin. When Mohammed is referred to by name most muslims I've ever encountered say 'peace be upon him' immediately after his name. I doubt the majority of muslims would even entertain the mere idea of his depiction.

They don't believe they can. We don't have that restriction though because we don't share the same religion.

They're drawing Mohammed to offend. It doesn't matter if they draw him thinking they're protesting against violence. It would be like me throwing racial slurs at a black man for threatening me.

But unlike racism, religion has aspects that need to be criticized. Racism is based on little more than people's own prejudices, and the supposed prejudices suggested by some religions.
If you threw racial slurs at a black man for threatening you, his threats may not be related to him being black, and it would be completely irrelevant. However, muslims condemning free speech and being violent over people offending them, intentionally or not is related to their religion. It may be offensive, but as I've already said, the whole notion of simply being offended itself as criteria for anything is not a good idea.

It would be hilarious I agree, but offensive nontheless. I'm not doing it indiscriminately, I'm doing it because I know the society and culture I come from finds such a gesture obscene and would take offense.

It would be obvious you're doing it indiscriminately because you'd be pointing your finger up at inanimate objects too. It would be as stupid as someone forgetting to turn off their signal light after a turn. It would be a different story if you only stuck your finger up at people, and not everything that you happen to be walking by.

I do believe that there could be witty depictions of those two religious figures, but I also feel South Park did it because they knew Mohammed was taboo.

Don't get me wrong I'm a huge fan of South Park, but I find alot of their comedy distasteful.

South Park makes fun of everything. And everybody who knew that wouldn't be a spoilsport about it. The show's creators are equal opportunists, so being featured on their show isn't really a good reason to be offended; they've offended Christians, atheists and everybody else alike.

Perhaps so, but maybe they've found the one true belief. I don't know they haven't, I only believe they aren't righteous.

But the whole idea of having a belief, and not realizing the possibility that you could even be wrong is dangerous and unhealthy for the mind. It's one thing to choose a belief and stick with it, but it's another to support your beliefs to the point where you aren't willing to consider that since you could be wrong, anything and everything you do to other people on behalf of your religion might be bad for them.

But what if the voting majority want it implemented? Why should it be vetoed?

I am not saying it should be vetoed; I am saying that people can protest it. You can't determine a bigot from another because there is no universal criteria, but you can educate others or criticize and ridicule the things that you feel need attention, in order to persuade others to see your point. And this is particularly useful when you have lots of fence-sitters.

There are numerous spiritual, economical and political benefits to doing so. The USA tried spreading ideals through the eastern world (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq), the impact of globalisation and commerce (merchants would thrive from selling arms to wartorn areas and would often instigate conflict) and then obviously missionaries who in their pursuit of a righteous life attempt to help as many people as possible.

Okay, and you do realize that the US was doing this not for religious reasons, since you mentioned the economical effects it had--it is because the states have separation of church and state that their ideas are of any benefit--you want something like Sharia Law, which are laws held by a country ruled by something as arbitrary as religion, which in my opinion, is damaging their reputation, hindering their living standards, and making their people suffer (and the sad thing is, most of them probably don't even realize it)--do you want those things to affect other countries that do not have such arbitrary rules and are probably much better off without it?

And missionaries in Africa are spreading the misconception that condoms don't protect against AIDS. Once again, another example of where we don't need religion.

They want to spread their religion because I believe it encourages it in the Qu'ran.

Spreading your religion by promoting or encouraging it isn't quite the same as forcing it on other people. What kind of message would you be sending people if you killed people like Theo Van Gogh just for disagreeing with the nasty things your religion says? Sure, they may not be promoting your religion, but if you kill them for it, I don't think that's really a good way to encourage your religion. And I don't think burning flags, bombing buildings or buses are good ways to spread your religion either.

True, but I suppose it would have to be this democracy that begats such a system. Parties outline how they'll implement the idea and we choose as a voting public which we prefer.

Aren't you just reinventing the wheel then? It's still democracy.

That's the problem with trust. Not everyone has earned such trust and there are plenty ready to abuse it, but how, in any government system can one account for it?

You can't. You just have to use methods that minimize trust issues as much as possible. Which is why voting works because you wouldn't vote for somebody you wouldn't like. Even if the people you're voting for may be terrible liars, you can at least do your research on them.