Really? Christendom hasn’t found it simple as evidenced by it’s history of incessant infighting. It was made more complex by your apparent misuse of the word “ascribe”. So I answered it both yes and no in order to accommodate two possible meanings you may have intended. Would you like to clarify what you meant?
Okay, to simplify a bit more, do you believe this scripture Jesus Himself said?:
Right well I already answered yes. But as I pointed out, it is doubtful that the historical Jesus said it. Why do you ask?
By historical Jesus, do you mean the Jesus spoke of in the New Testament? The Jesus who stood before Pilate and proclaimed He is the testament to ‘The Truth’? I only know of one Son of God…is there someone else to whom you are referring?
The Jesus I am referring to was quoted in John 14:6, humanity’s Lord and Saviour. I am not being flippant here. I just need clarification.
Right. I do mean the Jesus spoken of in the New Testament, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth. Do you accept everything written in the New Testament as being historically factual and if so why, on what basis?
If you mean descriptions and conversations being recorded and transcribed verbatim, possibly not. I, as probably most Christians, take the accounts in The Bible to be true through faith. The basis of Christianity is built on faith. For the words of the Bible to carry through the ages along with Christianity seems astonishing. It appears though the declination of Christianity increases as was prophesied. The causes are most likely multiple. People would be my guess are responsible on both sides of the question. My thoughts are Christians need to hold to their faith and believe in God.
If not recorded and transcribed verbatim, then how were they know of these things? For, example you quoted what Jesus said to Pilate. According to the account none of the disciples were there. Who witnessed that conversation to relate it or record it?
Why? Because the Bible tells you to accept it through faith? Because you were indoctrinated to accept it on faith? Is there anything more to it than that?
Does your brand of Christianity have any factual basis whatsoever? If not, why should anyone believe it, let alone a thoughtful person who might be interested in discussing such matters at ilovephilosophy.com?
I have no idea how this was recorded. Is it important for you to know from factual point of view?
Are you saying I shouldn’t accept God on faith? Should God show Himself in order to satisfy everyone. I think that may fall under the auspices of “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”.
What do you think there should be more of than that? Doesn’t faith satisfy your Christian beliefs?
The fact that there is around 2 billion people of the Christian faith should give it some credibility. As for indoctrination, we are indoctrinated in one form or another. If people want to believe there is a God or not is up to them. It’s not an unknown as I had stated in other discussions that faith is the basis of Christianity. The fact I am in a philosophical site merits my opining in what I believe. If people want to accept, it they can…if not, they are welcome to that to.
Give what credibility?.. there are 2 billion people who call themselves “christians”… But they do not all share the same faith!
as evidenced right here!
You are moderating the natural science forum. Would you ever accept any allegedly factual statement if you did not know how the fact was observed? Have you ever thought about who wrote the Gospels and how they were composed?
No. I am trying to understand it. I am not approaching your religion any differently then I do anyone elses on this site. I am trying to understand what you mean by faith, what you are basing it on and why.
I don’t see how that follows from my questions. This issue isn’t God, the issue is why do you believe what you do. Is there a basis for it in fact and if so what is it?
Faith meaning what? Faith in what? Faith in anything? Faith in everything? One faith and not another faith? faith to the exclusion of reason, science and history? There are a lot of ideas out there soliciting our belief. Why should we choose one over another? Why this religion and not that religion?
Do those 2 billion think and believe like you do?
You may be right that most if not all have been indoctrinated at some time to some degree. But should we leave our intellects there? Do we not have some responsibility to our “God-given” curiosity, potential for exercising our critical thinking? Does your brand of Christianity have any kind of calling to seek the truth?
And you are advocating to reduce choice by making certain things illegal.
Also, religions are mostly about reducing choice/freedom of thought.
They are artificial mental handicap gear, in a way, to restrict perspective of followers.
And religions make people believes certain bullshit is “objective”/“absolute”/etc and EVERYONE should accept that. This may cause conflicts when two or more people with slightly different religious beliefs encounter (even among self-declared Christians), just like in this thread. 
In these particular points, I think majority (if not most) of religious people share the same tendency as the people in the video and you.
I am for free will up until it involves violence or harm offensively, or promotes such ideals.
Absolute free will is anarchy; which I stand opposed to.
While it is true I was placed there to perform moderator duties, it has nothing to do with any ability of cognitive deduction. I was asked If I wouldn’t mind helping out keeping order with that board. It is true my curiosity exceeds the content of the Bible. I feel knowing beyond what is written won’t amount to a ‘hill of beans’ if I am accepted into Heaven. It’s normal for people to be inquisitive about such things. However, it doesn’t consume me for I know if there was something tangibly to be found, it would have been done so long before I came into being.
Faith concerning God and The Bible is something I give in regard to the Lord for not having all the answers. A 'trust or ‘bond’ which I implement in a sense telling God it is enough to know He will not abandon me even through trying times. When the people of Israel wittnessed the miralcles performed to get them free from Pharoah, they still didn’t totally trust in the Lord. It took 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and two generations of people to gain favor from God again. Faith fills in for me where knowing leaves off just as it should for the Israelites.
Facts deal with tangible realms of this physical universe. I believe God occupies what our senses can’t fathom(mind you, I said believe, not assert in factual terms). I think some Christians use interpolative reasoning (which to some without religious affiliations may find illogical) to account for unexplained events in the Bible and possibly wittnessed miracles that defy empirical interpretation. Thus, once again ‘faith’ is used to fill in the empty spaces.
As I understand it, you believe in God. How do you justify your belief of God? Through facts or something else. If it is done by facts, what facts do you possess which buttress your belief in God?
It’s highly unlikely. Considering the splintered versions of Christianity, it is likely churchs of the same sect will vary a bit due to their doctrine. Those two billion should have one thing in common though, Christ. In what regard God only knows. It is the Christian religion nonetheless.
I somewhat adhere to Galileo’s quote: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Critical thinking to me concerns common sense and how to use it. To ‘think out of the box’ in some instances where conventional thought is the preamble for what can be found out ahead. My brand of Christianity believes the ‘Truth’ lies in Jesus. It’s not arrogance which fuels that thinking, rather ‘faith’.
And you are advocating your line that splits violence from non-violence should be the one others should follow, in this thread, just because you are scared and pissed off.
It’s irrational (at least to me).
Forcing your personal and emotional valuing onto others is harming their freewill.
Maybe it’s because you know what you can do without artificial and rigid harness of religion.
I would say you are actually scared of yourself.
But isn’t standing by and watching someone else “force” their values on someone, particularly a child, harming (by omission), too?
How far ought non-intervention go, Nah? When violation occurs, oughtn’t reciprocal violation be at least potentially permitted?
If so, we should not allow any religious/ideology/etc to be forced on children.
I’d say, even forcing to worship “flags” is harmful. Any kind of mental restriction can be harmful in developing the mind of children.
But then, where are you going to place the line?
Is it based on “feeling” (how scared/pissed off you are) as TheStumps is doing?
Isn’t it obvious that the guys in the video may get scared/pissed by TheStumps’ intention to legally harm them and they may intend to harm him, too.
Using someone’s fear as the standard is silly.
If you are against violence, then you should not react with violence.
If you react with violence while preaching non-violence, you have double standard. You action is contradicting your words. And probably you are simply using (faulty) logic to present your desire as something (absolutely/objectively) right and applicable to everyone.
The victim mentality often justifies the use of violence (and even preemptive one) even though they consider the violent enemies to be bad. It’s a mentality that separate world into two (for their convenience) and apply different arbitrary standard while pretending as if its logical, and often absolute/objective.
I think OP, the video, and your argument are showing this type of irrational behavior/attitude that may foster violence and insensibility to the suffering of others we can see in the middle east or even in US (and other places).
It’s based on reason.
And the reason is simple.
When you outright declare admiration for violent action for your cause and also tell children the country they live in is over ran by the devil and that they need to help set Jesus free.
That’s a line crossed in my book.
It’s the same fricken line that gave us Muslim Militant extremists, the first Crusades, Nazi Germany, etc… etc…
I don’t think allot of people are against violence nor FOR violence, for that matter… Violence is a tool that is sometimes useful… and sometimes harmful. I think all anyone ever says is that it’s a tool that should only be used when the need is great enough and all other options are either used up or seem ineffective.
Used as self defense, it’s acceptable… used to defend OTHERS, it’s acceptable. Used to enforce the law (when all other options seem exhausted), it’s accaptable!
Now the law is established so as to maintain order AMONG the people, in a way that is accepted by the vast majority of people. If then it can be argued that the orginization we saw in that video (and others like it) are somehow causing some kind of harm to society by encuraging illeagal behavior or harmful behavior… then indeed we should do something about it… Violence being among the options!
Now I agree, that Stumpy has failed to make such an argument successfuly… But that was what he was trying to do!
You are making assumptions about what views people here hold, and pointing out the inconsistency between what you IMAGINE they believe, and what they actually claim to believe… It’s called the straw man fallacy.
Your insertion of the “victim mentality” concept is meaningless at best. I don’t know how you even qualify for that label, much less why anyone should give a shit if they do qualify!
Although you pretend to place the line based on “reason”, I don’t really think so.
I think you are motivated by your emotion.
You are pissed, as you’ve said by yourself.
And you placed them (people in the video) on the other side of the line based on your emotion, at that moment.
I guess we can rephrase your line like this, to fit the cases of Nazi and other people:
“Inclination toward violence as a mean for what you want”
“Telling children (and weak minded) that they are victimized (or the danger of being victimized)”
“Urging children (and believers) to act (against the enemy victimizing them, with violence)”
I think US and many other countries have crossed the line.
I mean, US government proudly show and thus admire its military (violent) forces.
It tells kids that US is in the danger of over run by terrorists.
It tells kids to join army and fight for “”“freedom”“” and “”“democracy”“”.
Almost all Military (other than salvation army ) have crossed the line, too.
And I think you are pretty close(if not already crossed) because I do think legal actions you advocate can be violent, and ILP is read by children, too.
Now, you place the line, but you’ve failed to show any reasoning for placing the line, there, and not somewhere else.
It contradicts your claim that it’s based on reason.
And finally, it’s based on “your book”.
I know there are many people who love to base many thing on some sort of book(s).
And they tend to think their book is “right/good/holly”, irrationally, and they also think that it should be applied to others, just like you advocate in this thread.
This is exactly what you are doing in this thread, and exactly what these fanatic people are doing in the video.
When two (or more) opposing fanatic attitude like this encounter, it’s pretty obvious that there can be conflict, both of them claiming to be right/good/holly, based on their (often silly and irrational) book.
Can you understand what I’m saying ?
If you still have problem in seeing how irrational your post was and the attitude of victim mentality is likely to cause more conflicts (and that of violent nature) than solving/preventing them, ask me and maybe I can come up with other way to explain things.
Lines get drawn and redrawn, erased and broadened all the time. Drawing lines is a basic act of cognition. So far as violence goes, well, when violence is present, I think at very least the option to mirror it needs to be present. Where would MLK have been without Malcolm X, for instance. What was Mandela in prison for, if not simply bearing witness to the necessity of the mirror?
Again, if violence is already a presence, then the possibility of its being represented, juxtaposed, needs to be available. Think of it as the diffrence between “anger” and “wrath”…
When and where it ought to manifest as such is a question determined in and by the moment, situationally. Constitutions and the Rule of Law are great, but they can’t do all the work. We still need to draw new lines, and expand our linear vocabulary.