Dan wrote - "So you can basically define all Christians that have ever run a red light or spit on the sidewalk or committed genocide as having "not really engaged and followed him." What a perfect solution of convenience. The ultimate waffle."
- On running red lights or spitting on sidewalks - Jesus did not legislate for the finer points of human behaviour, so we listen to the promptings of our conscience (it is believed that those who never heard of Christ will be held accountable by how they have responded to their conscience). We also extrapolate biblical principles to find answers.
There are two levels of wrong behaviour:
Standard sin - selfishness, stealing, pub brawling, running red lights etc.
Evil - genocide, rape etc.
All evil is legislated against in Christ's teachings and built upon in Paul's teachings. Also, much sinful behaviour is legislated against - the rest we figure out.
Christians sin, but when they step into the realm of committing evil they can be shown, by the objective measure of Christ's teachings, to be corrupt or erroneous. They can be held to account, and in the end they cannot argue their way out of it unless they are willing to abandon their faith.
If what they do is seen to conflict with:
"Turn the other cheek"
"Love your enemies"
"Forgive all who wrong you"
"Go the extra mile for people"
"Serve one another, as I have served you"
etc.
then they are clearly in the wrong or are simply not even real Christians.
Another point about this is that there are objective markers for the Christian that you can hold us to.
There are no objective markers that we can hold you to.
Christians cannot in good conscience commit genocide because it violates the basic principles of Christ.
Atheists surely can commit genocide and rationalise it, and if you don't agree, it is simply a matter of your opinion versus theirs. You have absolutely nothing concrete to point to. When an independent Nation State decides to kill its entire disabled populace (as the Germans attempted) because they are a non-productive drain upon valuable resources, what is your argument? What, you don't like the idea? You have an emotional dislike of what they are doing? Well, they are making a rational decision for the betterment of their society, and remember, you have no basis for appealing to the sanctity of life.
Give them one good reason why they should not do what they are doing. People are only animals after all and by your own admission, nothing special and without any inherent worth.
You can hold me to account.
I cannot hold you to account.
This is why I fear atheism more than religion.
This is why atheism has a far greater capacity to commit atrocities (see 20th century).
It is possible that atheism will become the overwhelming worldview in time. What will restrain it? Who will hold its actions accountable? Reason? Rational thought?
It is rational thought that leads us to a fundamental reduction in the value and worth of humanity and makes even greater evils possible.
If IQ is held in such high esteem (see Uncle Al), and stupid people are seen to stand in the way of progress (for example they might not see the wisdom of stem cell research or mass abortion or any number of things) then why not take away their right to reproduce, and prevent them from polluting the gene pool by partnering with the more intelligent.
In effect we would have intellectual apartheid, and it would make perfect sense.
Breed out the stupid people, breed out the irrational religious, breed out cripples and those with sub-standard genetic stock. Eliminate any who stand in the way of progress and the building of a 'better' world.
If you don't agree we should do this, be careful, you wouldn't want to be seen as standing in the way of sensible progress would you?
Aldous Huxley saw you coming.
But of course you are free to continue your crusade against irrational religion and save the minds of the ignorant.
Blacknad.
