To LEGO

One last thought. One more thing to consider is why the focus on witches. Why not also hold the death penality for adultery as well? Because that also was part of the death penalty. For both people who were caught in the act. (Not just the woman, but both of them). That might be easier to see the ramifications of. Adultery has and does destroy families, and then continues on to destroy more. The death penalties of the
Old Testiment I think are worth looking at to consider what was evil enough for death in God's eyes for the laws of Israel. Witches aren't the only thing to count the death penalty by. However from my understands of history there were only witch trials, not adultery trials that lasted until the 1600s. This shows the issue of an absolutist not actually bring an absolutist. But instead picking and choosing. Highlighting one sin to prosecute while ignoring another that was likely much more common. No instead it's worth considering all of our sins, in the scope of Christian hope. That Jesus came to bring us back to God. And this is the hope. We all sin or all have sinned. But if we repent, and come back to God then we are saved. This would be true of both the witch and the adulterer as well.

There is much more to Christian thought then you've presented with it's comparison of absolutist thought.

To NNS.

We were discussing intolerance, and I made the point that the most intolerant of all people were those who have absolutist mindsets, and who think entirely in absolutes. Because that is what an Absolutist is. They can only think in absolutes and no amount of reasoned logic or even confronting them with situations where their moral absolutes are completely pottty, can shift their opinion one iota.. What percentage of the population thinks this way, I do not know. I just know they exist. There are some people who think entirely this way, and there are probably many, many more who have been socially conditioned to think this way, at least upon some issues. When such people are not thinking in absolutes on these particular issues, they think quite normally. These people are de programmable.

I never meant to start a theological discussion, because some religious people, especially religious leaders, are very much card carrying absolutists. You simply can't reason with religious or political absolutists at all. You can only target their more normal followers by appealing to their reason.

Now, Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty, the alleged existence of people with supernatural powers, and displayed how it is just silly to think in absolutes. God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty and it had extremely tragic consequences for the numerous innocent victims of this stupid thinking. Ozspen seems to imply that witches do exist, so I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state.

Most Christian people today are not absolutists. They take the scenarios in the bible with a grain of salt, and they rationalise around the worst of the absolutes they disagree with. Because they are more concerned with conforming to the Christian ideals of tolerance, compassion, and a whole host of other very worthy Christian virtues, which has made western civilisation today the most advanced in the world.

Lego

you write
'Most Christian people today are not absolutists.'

personally I think you are simply playing with words. Maybe you listened to to many screwed up psychologist. In my 35 years as a Christian I have never met one person who believes the Scriptures direct followers of Jesus Christ to kill anyone. The Israelites under the laws of their land were told to kill people for certain acts of violence or other reasons (some of which you disagree with).

Many opponents of Christ and His teachings label believers fundamentalist. That is obviously one of the god deniers favourite demonisation terms. Of course one can't be a Christian unless they believe the fundamentals (death, burial, resurrection, sin, forgiveness etc). You seem to be using the same tactics.

Bascially you seem to think it is mindless or dumb to allow the Scriptures (or God) decide what is sin or what is right and wrong etc. The godless who have decided themselves what is right and wrong have a lot worse track record than those who have attempted to the best of their ability to follow Christ.

"Absolutists" are a personality type equating to fanatics. It can also equate to a lesser extent to fundamentalists, who are not so inclined to advocating absolute values as fanatics. I can't speak for other religions because I don't know much about them. But within the Christian religion today, the overwhelming majority of people are not fundamentalists or fanatics. That does not mean that Christians do not believe in what (to them) are absolute truths like The Resurrection or the belief in an afterlife. Even the belief in an absolute moral code does not automatically label you an Absolutist, unless you go around demanding that all witches and homosexuals should be arrested and executed, just because God instructed it.

The basis of the Christian faith are the pacifist teachings of a Jewish philosopher named Jacob bar Joseph, (also known as "Jesus Christ"). But the overwhelming majority of Christians reject pacifism, whatever their prophet instructed. That is because they are not Absolutists. Of course, there are those who say that any belief in an absolutist truth or an absolutist moral code automatically makes you an Absolutist. Such thinking is Absolutist in itself.

There are fundamentalist Christians, but they usually are somewhat selective in their adherence to their absolute beliefs. Mennonites take the pacific teachings of Jacob bar Joseph so seriously that they are completely pacifist. But they still don't put supposed "witches" or homosexuals to death, just because God told them to do it. So even fundamentalists can reject Absolutist, fanatical thinking in some respects.

Since I don't know any Christians, I can't really speak for what a modern Christian believes. But since I live in a largely Christian country, one does tend to get the feel of the place. Most Christians rationalise around those absolutist teachings or instructions which are almost universally considered wrong in modern society. They believe in evolution, simply rationalising as God's work. They don't believe that the universe was created in six days, they think that it is just a quaint legend. Nor do they believe that real witches exist, or that homosexuals should be executed

LEGO,

<<We were discussing intolerance, and I made the point that the most intolerant of all people were those who have absolutist mindsets, and who think entirely in absolutes. Because that is what an Absolutist is.>>

Are you absolutely sure about that?

LEGO,

<<Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty, the alleged existence of people with supernatural powers, and displayed how it is just silly to think in absolutes. God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty and it had extremely tragic consequences for the numerous innocent victims of this stupid thinking. Ozspen seems to imply that witches do exist, so I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state.>>

I provided you with evidence from around the world of Wicca in action, but instead of rationally discussing the evidence I provided, you engage in your absolutist thinking:

+ 'it is just silly to think in absolutes';

+ 'God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist';

Then you dump Appeal to Ridicule fallacies on me:

* 'Ozspen challenged me, so I took one glaring example of Christian absolutism which is potty';

* 'God told his followers to kill witches, but witches do not exist. The whole idea is potty';

* 'this stupid thinking';

* 'I will leave that to the judgement of our readers to judge Ozspen's mental state'.

When you use logical fallacies, you engage in fallacious reasoning, as you've done here. Thus, you've smashed any hope we have of engage in a rational conversation.

It's not because of my mental state that provided evidence of witchcraft activity around the world, but your erroneous reasoning.