And there have been MILLIONS of other evil crimes that had nothing to do with Religion. So What? An evil person is an Evil person no matter what they give to a church they are still evil. No amount of money will change that.
On the other hand, Old Testament doctrine has it that the blood of bulls and goats can wash away sin.
Hebrews 9:22 : according to the law almost all things are purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
New Testament doctrine has it that the blood of Christ washes away sin.
Ephesians 1:7-In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
And it's a complicated theological argument from there. At one time the Catholic church granted indulgences-sometimes, as in the case of the Crusades,
wholesale, and
in anticipation of sin yet to occur-in other words, Crusaders were forgiven any evil they might commit in the quest to take the Holy Land.
Today, not so much, and really, who cares? Evil will be done-whether it will truly be forgiven, and the soul of the evil doer admitted to Paradise? Kind of between them and God, isn't it? I mean, maybe jihadis really do wind up in heaven with 72 virgins, if that's what they believe......
Makalakumu said:
That said, I think the essence of what many posters are saying is that we need to leave people alone who believe unreasonable things if those beliefs hurt no one.
Yep, yep. I'm from New York:
Thou shalt obey the Third commandment: Mind thine own business! And the fourth is like unto it:Keep yer yap shut! :lfao:
Makalakumu said:
Is it impolite to criticize people's unreasonable beliefs? If so, how far are we willing to extend that concept?
And, again, this is a very flexible thing, isn't it? I don't think many people in the U.S., especially non-Muslims-and even quite a few Muslims, have any problem criticizing the jihadis belief in a virgin filled paradise as a reward for martyrdom.
That, though, harms others-
in that it makes acts of violence, warfare and terrorism themselves into redeeming religious ritual, which is one difference from "buying your way to Heaven," where the commission of sins is separate from the redeeming act-while those that "buy their way into Heaven" may have committed terrible deeds, those terrible deeds are preumably separate from their religious observance, whether it is confessing those deeds and doing some form of penance, or simply paying cash.
As for the "rudeness" of it, well-it isn't rude to say what you think of a belief, or write about it in a philosophical or theological critique, but it's the height of rudeness to offer an individual negative criticism about their personal religious beliefs when those beliefs don't harm anyone else,
even if they are harmful or potentially harmful to the individual.
Good example, the Sundance: on four occasions, one summer after the next, I went without food or water for four days, bound to a tree, dancing, blowing an eagle-thigh whistle, and gazing at the sun-I was bound to the tree by leather thongs attached to skewers that went through the flesh on my chest, and on the fourth day I broke the skewers free. One year, I dragged two buffalo skulls from skewers on my back.
View attachment $sundance.jpg
Pretty gross, huh?
Of course, it didn't hurt
you, or anyone else, and my reasons for doing it are just that:
my reasons: no one forced me to do it, and it wasn't any kind of requirement-in fact, a fair amount of discouragement was offered before allowing me to commit to such a serious undertaking.We could certainly discuss the motivations for such an admittedly extreme act, or the belief system that undergirds the ceremony-whole books have been written about it-
but you can't criticize me for believing what I believe, and doing what I do, without being "rude."
Of course, I forgive you, John-in advance of any potential rudeness. :lol:
