It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
If they’ve got a problem they cover themselves with petrol and light it up. Fill your boots fellas that’s a lot better than ploughing a plane into a skyscraper.
And the notion of reincarnation I can kind of get behind. Not coming back as a butterfly or any of that bollocks but when we die our atoms go back into the earth and are spewed out somewhere else. Becoming one with the universe is far more beautiful than the religious delusion of heaven where everyone sits in a circle singing ‘kum ba yah my Lord’ for all eternity.
And I don’t even know why @Risico007 would want to even go there as I don’t remember ever hearing that heaven is teeming with dirty blondes. For that sort of thing surely hell the better option?
You haven t read the Quran?
Whatever.
;)
Don't worry- be happy.
And, BTW, I've caused plenty of trouble in my day. Okay, enough of this. It's cutting into my fasting time.
Oh, careful now. @Ludovico might accuse you of something or other there.
Huh? I'm not accusing anyone of anything. And it's not my fault if you couldn't answer my question about the 72 Virgins.
Tell me it again and I'll abswer it this time. Then I think my work here is done.
Simply because such an act as killing innocent people is seen as the pathway to the 72 virgins and any such religion which teaches that (or those who subversively read that into it) is obviously morally repugnant. I can think of no parallel in Christianity.
It's just the same thing as the Japanese kamikazes as far as I can see. When you kill in the name of a cause (unless it is a just cause like, say, defending your country against an aggressor like Hitler) that cause immediately loses its validity. That is the long version of why I initially ridiculed such a belief until you chided me for it and I retracted it.
You do know that the Kamikazes were defending their country? And who decides if it's a just cause or not?
It's easy to trot these things out and it all sounds hunky dory but a few seconds of thought and some very hard question start to come up. I'm a little envious concerning living in a World where things are so simple. Of course, that's one of the things that attracts many to religion. A complete binary view of good and bad.
PS there are many wars where both sides claimed that the same God was on their side. How does that work?
Athiests overrule the wishes of God by their very stance, day in and day out.
Were the Kamikazes defending their country when they flew their planes into the fleet at Pearl Harbour in December 1941? Was that not an unprovoked attack? I studied History at university, so I do know a few things about the subject.
As you say, it's easy to trot these things out until the very hard questions start to come up.
"I studied History at university, so I do know a few things about the subject."
I'm lost now, I don't know if your'e being serious or not? Can anyone help me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
Forget university. An afternoon watching the History channel is required IMHO
You'll see there was at least one such incident at Pearl Harbour if you read that article. But you get my point, committing suicide to get a reward in heaven, while also killing others has a parallel with the jihadists of today who do exactly the same thing.
I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.
Purposeful (packing the plane with explosives, stripping it of armament, and flying it into an enemy ship) kamikaze attacks weren't used at Pearl Harbor, and did not occur until much later in World War II, most likely beginning in October, 1944.
However, Japanese pilot Lt. Fusata Iida's plane was critically damaged during the Pearl Harbor attack, and he is reported to have crashed it into Kaneohe Naval Air Station. Before the attack, he had said that if his plane were too damaged to fly, that he would find a "worthy enemy target" and crash into it. Lt. Iida's attack was not a kamikaze mission in that crashing his plane into an enemy at the cost of his life was not the primary objective of his mission.
Sources:
Kamikaze: Japan's Suicide Gods, by Albert Axell and Kase Hideaki
I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.
Yes, I admit I slipped up badly there. I misread that part, but my point still stands about killing people for a reward in heaven. Belicevir or not, I did study Japanese history at uni, but more the political side of things. That, and the fact it was some years ago.
So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.
Once again you fail to grasp the crux of the question and end up digging yourself ever deeper.
1. How morally repugnant is genocide by causing the great flood or baby cancer? Your own guy has a worse record than Hitler, Stalin and, indeed, Paul Potts so you are shooting yourself in the foot the moment you try playing the morality card.
2. Morality has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of God existing. You’re assuming (sans evidence naturally, just spoonfeeding from birth) that God is kind and loving. How do we know he really doesn’t actually want people to kill each other and will then reward them with the sexual subjugation of 72 women? Perhaps jihadists are doing exactly what he wants?
3. And once again by going off on bizarre tangents about Kamikazes you avoid answering the question which, forgetting about the virgins and expressing it in as simple language as possible is: what critical process do you employ to determine that something is ridiculous or credible?
72 virgins = ridiculous
Talking snakes = plausible
How do you come to that conclusion?
Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
More obfuscation @Dragonpol.
Athiests overrule nothing, because the existence of God is theoretical. I can’t overrule the wishes of a hypothetical being. I abide by man-made laws and a combination of education and free will keep my morality in check. I’ve no real incentive to trade that for fairy tales.
But again: morality is non sequitur here. It's whether a belief is true or at least plausible or not. Not moral or not. I find Hell immoral. It's highly unlikely it exists but that's NOT the question.
You do know that many of these man-made laws correspond to similar laws and passages in the Bible, no? In fact, I recall a very good 1950s American academic Law article setting it all out in fact, from criminal law to torts and beyond.
So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?
Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
That’s a rational and credible belief is it?
Actually no. Of the Ten Commandments only three have a somewhat legal equivalence in a democracy. The first one is downright against liberty the actually the very foundation of a theocracy.
Naturally, the West is built on Christian values so it goes without saying there are comparisons.
What’s important is that over time the two have and will continue to untwine. That’s why my sister was allowed to marry her wife last year, it’s why the laughable concept of blasphemy was finally kicked to the gutter and why a few of your countrymen were slapped with a fine for allowing their faith override their business obligations in providing a cake (truly pathetic).
It’s about embracing humanity and progress. The law is slow, but it gets there. Religion, left alone, is stagnant.
I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
Again: we never asked any question about morality of beliefs. I can make a list of immoral Christian beliefs. Except that right now for this specific question I asked about how do you assess the veracity of a belief.