Dennis Prager's Idea Of The Greatest Sin

[HS_Dad]

Dennis Prager, a conservative Jewish commentator, has oftentimes said that the greatest evil is to do evil in the name of God. He specifically mentions Islamic extremists killing the innocent because they are infidels. Just curious to hear what people think about this concept.

Personally it makes a lot of sense to me because God is all good and he loves all of mankind. To kill the innocent intentionally is a tremendous evil and to do it in the name of God is to attempt to sully his Name. On a practical level as the world is about 50% non monotheists (western pagans and members of Eastern religions or philosophies) this just increases resistance to the spread of Christianity.

Thoughts?

[Starets]

I think he has a good point. Another argument I have seen is to say the worst sin is to attribute to Satan the works of God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe when it's blatant it's a worst sin. but there are many things i think christians do that is evil supposedly in the name of God, but i hesitate to thik it's a sin when they do it....
ie.. it's not unreasonable to say you're against allowing gay marraige in the law, but banning sodomy, fornication, and not allowing localities to choose what they think about gay marriage themselves is in my mind pure evil. but i don't think christians really realize it, so i don't know if they could be culpable.
and as far as that goes, i don't know if anyone can if they don't know better. so i'm leaning to saying if they think it's or God, then they don't know it's wrong, and can't be culpable.

after thinking this through, i change from saying maybe to i don't think i agree.

[Socrates]

[quote name='HS_Dad' post='1376691' date='Sep 2 2007, 09:58 PM']Dennis Prager, a conservative Jewish commentator, has oftentimes said that the greatest evil is to do evil in the name of God. He specifically mentions Islamic extremists killing the innocent because they are infidels. Just curious to hear what people think about this concept.

Personally it makes a lot of sense to me because God is all good and he loves all of mankind. To kill the innocent intentionally is a tremendous evil and to do it in the name of God is to attempt to sully his Name. On a practical level as the world is about 50% non monotheists (western pagans and members of Eastern religions or philosophies) this just increases resistance to the spread of Christianity.

Thoughts?[/quote]
I totally agree that doing evil in the name of God is a grave evil. And I think that Islam is a false religion, and a perversion of true religion.

While such actions do often give "religion" in general a bad name, I think using Islamic suicide bombings and such to attack "monotheism" - and specifically Christianity - is more anti-Christian atheistic propaganda than an honest reaction.

While it may be politically incorrect to say so, suicide bombings and other such acts of "religious" violence in the world today are almost entirely the work of radical Islam - a specific branch of specific religion.
There is really nothing comparable going on among Christians (liberal agit-prop to the contrary).
Most people in the world are quite aware that Islam and Christianity are two entirely separate religions (even if they both worship only one God).

It has become fashionable lately among militant atheists and other western anti-Christians to lump Christians together with fanatic Islamists as "theists" or "monotheists" in order to attack both (often the real target is Christianity). ("Christians are theists just like those Muslims. See what happens when people believe in God? They blow up buildings and kill people!")
This argument of course is flat-out fallacious, and I doubt even the atheists themselves honestly believe it; it is nothing more than an emotional appeal to use in their attack on all religion by painting all "religious" people as potential murderous fanatics.
I doubt many people have actually turned against Christianity out of horror of Islamic terrorism; the people who make such a connection almost invariably already have serious issues with Christianity, and are merely connecting it with radical Islam to justify their already existing anti-Christian hate. (I'd say most of the time their real issue has nothing to do with violence or terrorism, but instead is primarily because Christian religion opposes their hedonistic lifestyle and they refuse to recognize a higher moral/spiritual authority than themselves.)
The whole "violent monotheists" thing is just an excuse and propoganda.

People do not think of themselves primarily as "monotheistic," "polytheistic," etc., but as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. When an Islamic fanatic commits a terrorist act, people of eastern religions, etc. may think it reflects badly on Islam, but most would not think, "those Monotheists are at it again!"

In reality, the record of most non-monotheistic people is far from pacifistic and non-violent.
The fashionable athiest argument against religion because it's "violent" is particularly absurd given the fact that atheistic Communist regimes have been responsible for the deaths of more people than all the "monotheistic" societies put together.
The atheists typically dodge around this gaping hole in their logic by claiming that the Communists were somehow not "real atheists" (you see, real atheists are always peaceful, of course), but at the same time insist that there is no real difference between Christians and Muslims ("They're all theists - all the same to me!")
Pure nonsense.

Anyway, I agree that violence in the name of God does true religion no service; I'm just pointing out a few facts.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

To do evil in the Name of God is a violation of the logical extension of the Second Commandment, so yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn bad.

[HS_Dad]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1377256' date='Sep 3 2007, 07:38 PM']..... I think using Islamic suicide bombings and such to attack "monotheism" - and specifically Christianity - is more anti-Christian atheistic propaganda than an honest reaction.

........[/quote]

I very much agree with the thrust of your response. I agree the reaction is more polemical than honest.